Vicki

Yep, Pack, I did mean Emily L - OGE's post referenced that too (tactfully), but, hey, continuing to point out a person's error is pretty much par for this particular course, eh? Hopefully we don't do that to our scouts. My reference was strictly regarding the biology of M-M and F-F, if you will, not larger sociological or scientifically provided possibilities such as adoption, artificial insemination, in-vitro, etc. Intended only as an observation without judgement. Vicki

GW - please feel free to elaborate, otherwise, on its face, your comment seems facile. Vicki (who will not be sucked into a fruitless debate:

I don't believe anybody's beliefs or minds change as a result of these discussions but I will just take this opportunity to share my personal experience. I've always been a live and let live type, and until the last dozen years or so I guess I believed that homosexuals or bisexuals "chose". I no longer believe that - especially not after living in SF for a decade and getting to know several of "them" quite well. There's a great deal of confusion around that adolescent time, but, when asked, a lot of their confusion was because they knew they weren't supposed to "feel that way." It wasn't because they were making a "choice". OK, so that belief/opinion had to be revised. But the Bible - supposedly even the New Testament - said it was wrong. Well, I was willing to just say that it's up to our Creator to figure that one out and leave it at that. Then I started seminary and realized that our translations may be the root of that problem. Looked at closely, the Bible seems to be talking about rape, of any sort, not homosexuality as wrong. Even when Paul mentions it in Romans, he goes on to use it as an example of what's wrong about being judgmental. So the short version is, it's still up to our Creator to deal with it. Biologically, homosexuality is obviously a dead end, but some of us seem to be wired that way. But it's not up to me to judge, lest I be judged. The BSA is obviously a private organization and I do get more and more uncomfortable with its stance on this issue. However, it's up to me to decide whether or not to associate with it. It's also up to me to decide how Don Quixote I want to be about changing it, since I think it's about the best thing going in terms of teaching young people values. Even the Catholic Church reformed itself after Martin Luther came along, although it took a while. So reform happens. We live in an imperfect world. Just some rambling thoughts. Wish I was camping. Vicki

Absolutely nothing OGE. Re-read and deleted my post. Unfortunately not before you saw it. Must be raining where you are, too. The "never mind" was from, I believe, RoseannaDanna, immortalized by the very funny Gilda Radner. Vicki

Never mind. Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

jhubb indicated that Parent 1 told Scout 1 to "knock it off and apologize." Doesn't sound like a parent who coddles the kid to me, assuming Parent 1 belongs to Scout 1. But, jhubb, on the internet you really have to go out of your way to be clear on this stuff - think of it as a roaring campfire with too many people talking way too loud:

Bringing it up at your next committee meeting is going to make it very public, very fast. Bringing more people into it is just going to give you more people that know about it and you still won't have anyone that will take responsibility for actually talking to the guy. My personal opinion is the fewer people that know the better, with the understanding that at some point, somebody is going to have to talk to the guy. Vicki

If switchbacks are ever going to be the only pants choice, they'll need to make them so they fit the scouts who aren't rail thin!! Vicki

Thanks for the reminder, yelruh. But I think the real issue we're dealing with here is how you deal with scouts whose dietary issues are more "choice-based" (not to mention non-disciplinary parenting) than the ones you're talking about. To be really specific in relating it to Chippewa's situation, in the two troops I've served (and NYLT), the scout in question would not have had access to the doughnut and hot chocolate for breakfast or the bagel and cream cheese for dinner. He would have been able to eat the smores. Kool-aid/bug juice likewise. The adult campmaster (as opposed to the scout campmaster) would probably have mentioned what the scout ate to the parent the first couple of times it happened. After that, we would feel our responsibility was fulfilled unless the parent had a request and we felt it was within our ability to fulfill it. Vicki

Like Ed, the two troops I've served have always had peanut butter and jelly on hand, but that's the only choice other than eat the patrol menu (pieces and parts of it, maybe, but still the patrol menu). Vicki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grilled_stickeys Yum, yum!! They sound like just the thing for that after-the-meeting angst. Vicki

Loved it! She absolutely deserved that standing ovation!! Thanks, Vicki

>Did the father expect the returning son to resume his expected duties? The parable doesn''t tell us, but I would say the answer is yes. Shouldn''t we expect the same from a Scout who returns after a prolonged absence? > Ed, we agree again! Vicki

Ah, like I said - many ways to read a parable. Also many ways to bring it into our current context. Too many, certainly, to get into here. Shalom, Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

John, it makes perfect sense. There is no reason to treat this scout any differently than the others (IMO). That said, as a MB counselor for Communications, I did help an active scout (one who had been active since Tiger Cubs)set up a special campfire specifically so I could sign off on that requirement and he could get the badge before he turned 18. As part of the campfire he gave a five minute presentation on how to put together a campfire, which satisfied a second requirement. But I only suggested the possibility - he set it up, worked it through the SPL, and got it done. I would do the same for your late returner. In short, I would treat him just as I would any other scout. Would I, as an adult, call the SPL and try to change his mind if he said NO? Absolutely not. OTOH, as a MB counselor for Personal Management, I have told scouts that I cannot sign off on the 13 week $$$ tracking requirement unless I either saw that scout 13 weeks ago or know him well enough to take his word for it that he's been tracking for 13 weeks. Again, they all get treated equally. Personally, I think you're on the right track - no adding or subtracting. Vicki (edited to fix a typo)(This message has been edited by Vicki)

Well, the server wouldn''t let me edit my post (even though it was within the time limit) so I''ll try this... Yes, Ed, it''s a parable, which is a very specific kind of story, lest you be confused as to its place in scripture. I''m afraid I''m unclear, however, as to why it doesn''t fit? I don''t want to present the list with the usual specter of Christians bickering, but, as with most of the parables (and a lot of what National tells us), there are blanks left to be filled, and the end result - the welcoming back of the one who has been away - is clear and you do seem to agree with that principle. Jesus only very rarely answered a question with anything but another question. His specialty was reframing the discussion. Glad to hear you agree that we should welcome scouts back. Vicki

Folks, Boy Scouts isn''t band and it isn''t soccer, and to continue trying to compare them is doing a disservice to our program. Our program is about character development and the eight methods and three aims all head in that direction. To my mind, character development isn''t a skill set you build (although there are certainly skills involved), it''s a way of living that happens in fits and starts. Scouts is a program where it is possible to leave for a while and then decide, for whatever reason (as Eamonn pointed out, the scout is the only one who knows for sure) that you want to come back. Hallelujah, that''s one of the great things about scouting. But if you start putting hurdles in to prove some idea that you have about scout spirit (FScouter alluded to it, I''ll say it - projects do not prove scout spirit) then you are adding to the requirements and doing a disservice to our program. The requirements don''t say, for very good reason, that you have to grind out every year from 12 on in order to make Eagle. There are specific time periods with specific things to accomplish during those time periods. They also don''t say that if you want to come back, you have to do extra projects. You can beef about the requirements if you like and I''ll certainly share a cup of coffee with you while we do it, and we may not agree, but they are what they are. Back to our original post - I say bring the scout back and, if he fulfills the requirements, award him the Eagle he''s earned. The scouts who stay and enjoy scouting every year from 12 on are the backbone of scouting and I applaud them. The guy that comes back at 16 or 17, wanting to finish - well, for those Christians of us on this list, think prodigal son. http://usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsrank7.asp Vicki

Thank you, Eamonn. I don''t think anyone is advocating doing the minimum or chasing as many awards as you can, either. I, too, have been told I tend to be a tad punctilious concerning fulfilling requirements (without adding to them, of course). Vicki

Of course, we have a basic difference of opinion - my opinion being that adolescence only comes around once - I am not about to penalize a boy just because he took off and "did other things." Life is too short - especially that part of it. Vicki

and the other scouts will see if Late Returning Boy Scout lives up to the ideals or not. If he does (through serving a POR, activity, etc.), then they will learn a lesson in how reconciliation works. If he doesn''t, then he doesn''t earn Eagle. Either way, the program wins. Vicki

Eamonn wrote: My role is to help and support him. I''m really happy that he made up his mind. If becoming an Eagle Scout is a stepping stone? I''m happy to let him step on. There ya go. Eamonn said it much nicer than I did. And if the stone is slippery and he needs a hand for balance, I''ll be there. Vicki

Interesting defensive attitude running as a subplot to this thread. I don''t believe anyone said anything about the adult leadership being "at fault." They stayed in contact, scout said, "I quit," he''s dropped from charter. Done. Scout wants to come back. Cool, again, done. SM conference, POR (scout either meets requirement or not), done. Eamonn''s post works for me - why unnecessary hurdles? It''s not about me as an adult - I''m in it for longer than this kid has been around or will be around. Blip on my radar either way (although obviously I feel better about the blips that achieve some measure of success in some of the aims). Vicki

Based on what''s given in your hypothetical, I would say take him back. Period. Of course, as with any entering Scout, you would have a SM conference to determine motivations, interests, etc. Besides, advancement (Eagle) is only one of the methods. Our responsibility is to leave our arms wide open. I like B-P''s quote, "Use patience, like the West African catching a monkey. He says, ''No good try run and grab him. No, sir; softly, softly catchee monkey.''" Vicki

Congrats from one Bear to another! The trail has just begun.... Vicki Energetic Eight-clawed Bear C-12-04

>Dark-Sucker Theory > Wow. That''s good. Reveals unplumbed depths of darkness in the psyche of the author...who seems to be unknown, but here''s a link to a slightly different version. http://jewel.morgan.edu/~salimian/humor/humor_037.html Vicki