busylady

Checked in quickly before running off to Pers. Mgt. . . . I am a trained sexual assault volunteer. Rape is a crime that has actually has far less to do with sex than with issues of asserting power and control over someone, female or male. If an issue of Playboy was the catalyst to cause a rape, be assured that there are far more serious issues needing attention. To me, this is a separate issue from the Thought Experiment Hunt presented (a belated thanks for moving this out here, Hunt!) Rape is not only criminal but immoral. The violation caused by rape can having lasting consequences not only for the victim, but also for the victim's significant others. I'll add this into the mix-- 1. Can morality be legislated? 2. If noone is being hurt, can an act still be considered immoral? Back later, Busylady

Hi, folks: Yup, I followed ya here. The "campfire" is too thought-provoking to leave. Good scenario. As a lady (obviously from my screen name), I have some thoughts, but I'm going to "chew" a little more before I comment (and, I have a paper route to do--hubby has the tax appt tonight while I teach Pers. Mgt.). SemperParatus (BTW, my Latin is rusty--your screen name means "always (what?)"): Check out Pages 4 and 5 of the "Discrimination against me" thread to pick up where this is coming from. Eamonn started a really great thread, and it began running on this tangent, which is a really useful exercise. If you have the time, the whole thread is very interesting and thought-provoking. Back later - Busylady

Okay, it was Prairie Scouter AND Hunt. Sorry, folks. Scoutldr, just a thought. Why should this young man be punished for being honest having doubts? Does he doubt the existence of God, or does he doubt that the RC church is the correct place for him to be? This is a personal decision, and I applaud the young man for taking this obligation so seriously, especially since many young people take confirmation as routine, without thinking through exactly what it is they are obligating themselves to. I cringe at the thought of punishing this Scout for taking a stand based on thoughtful reflection. It would seem to me as CC that I would suggest a heart-to-heart with the young man to find out whether his objections are well founded and thoughtful, or whether this is simply rebellion against parents. (I would point out as well that rebellion against parents could be a reaction to being pushed into a decision he is not yet ready to make.) If he is indeed being thoughtful and does believe in a higher power, it is Scouting's obligation to support him in making a mature, difficult decision. Somewhat off topic--sorry, Eamonn, but I couldn't let this one pass. My comments have roots in deeply personal experience with this situation very akin to the Scout's--this young person, if he is serious about his reservations, needs an understanding, compassionate adult to really hear his side and support him, despite adult flak.

Oh, drat!!! Prairie Scouter, I sincerely apologize. You were the one with the "morally straight" post, and I gave the wrong credit. A middle-aged "brain fart"--sorry! Busylady

Hi, Hunt: I agree completely--"morally straight" has to mean something, absolutely! A place to start might be teaching our young people to exercise common etiquette. I'm not talking about reading Miss Manners and Emily Post (heaven forbid), but simple things like holding doors, removing hats when entering a room, or maybe even the old-fashioned one of standing when a young lady enters a room. Can "morally straight" mean showing respect for another by demonstrating common courtesy and respect? It certainly is a place to start . . . And, I'm impressed when a young man can demonstrate that level of courtesy to my daughter when he "comes to call"! Okay, I AM old-fashioned While the Judeo-Christian heritage certainly bans adultery, polygamy is understood by many world religions. It is our civil ban on polygamy that prevents it here in the United States (no, I'm not referring to just to Mormon belief--there are other religions that allow it, too). I see the BSA dilemma over faith issues to be very similar to what our government faces right now. The founders (USA and BSA) had a very specific religious picture in view when they framed the tenents of the "organization" (specifically, Judeo-Christian). It was what they knew best, and they used that understanding as the groundwork for their principles and policies. I'm not going to bite for the Bible vs. philosophy argument re. the US Founders here--that is not the gist of my point. Their culture was overtly Christian, which had to some degree influence their thinking. Fast forward 225/approx. 100 years or so. Religions that weren't common or even heard of now are commonplace, with varying principles and practices. Even within Christianity, the "sola scriptura" folks are going head-to-head with denominations that hold to a more interpretive/"inclusive" theology, even within their own ranks--Episcopals, Lutherans, PCA . . . hopefully with respect and dignity, recognizing their common Bridegroom, but the arguments are getting contentious. I don't know that Baden-Powell could have foreseen a Jew, a Baptist, a Muslim, a Roman Catholic, a B'Hai adherent, a Wicca proponent, a Druid, an animist, a Taoist, a Hindu, and a Native American all sharing the same campfire. While each believes in a "higher power", they don't agree even on what that "higher power" is. Just as a point of information, Wiccans are occultists, and Hindus have a pantheon of gods. That's the reality we possibly face today (though I am not aware of any troop quite this diverse . . . ) So, you begin to see the problem. The language of inclusion is wonderful, but the logistics can give every one of us gray hair, rapidly. I could be wrong, but I tend to doubt that Baden-Powell was considering the breadth and scope of world-wide religious expression when he created a movement to build strong leaders. England was strongly entrenched in either the Church of England (Anglican/Episcopal) or Wesleyan (Methodist) expression (though Catholicism was still present). Just as we are having trouble finding common ground in many moral/ethical arguments our government faces (witness the Schinder/Schiavo families), Scouting faces many of the same issues. Now, take impressionable 11 year-olds and add them into the mix. They are bright and capable, but they need direction to be able to understand the implications of standing up for their side of any debate. I'm a believer that we must provide a firm basework for them to start from before they can begin making intelligent, thoughtful choices about the issues that plague our society. Like it or not, ladies and gents, the bumper sticker that says "Be kind to your children, they'll choose your nursing home" has a serious truth behind it--these young people are tomorrow's leaders and the legacy we leave behind. And, if you don't that that's a serious obligation with "gray-hair" potential . . . So, back to the point of the thread. 1. Civilized discourse. Thank you all for your charitable discussion--insult and anger in my experience do nothing to engender serious reflection and thought. 2. In order to be an organization of worth, Scouting must stand for something. The choices may not be popular (just ask this erstwhile "homophobe", especially with my experience on a campus that sends gay, lesbian, and transgendered welcome letters before any other correspondence to new students.) But, by taking a stand, we are providing a basis from which to grow, for all of us. Long enough post for this time. Thanks for hanging in with me. Do I need to haul some wood? Busylady

Barry, thanks for the heartwarmer, and Good Scouting!! I am more and more convinced that safety for our teens boils down to finding someplace they belong, and finding adults who care. (And bless your executive for acknowledging your efforts.) I understand that oftentimes isn't the reality, Prairie Scouter, but as one of my professors used to say, "If you don't set a goal, you're bound to hit it." (I'm off to set a few tonight--hopefully no pie in the sky.) Hmmm. Hunt, I think I understand you to say that BSA is the one doing the "ranking" of sins, and not me . . . to reiterate from my previous post: "[. . .] Scripture also states that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." So, we're all in the same boat together. Read a little further, and one sin isn't "less" or "more" than another sin--it's all sin, period." As a CC, I know all too well (from recent bitter experience) that immoral but legal behavior of any troop staff will certainly and swiftly be called into question. As much as this may be a BSA decision, it more often is first and foremost a local one, too. Some parents may think that those teaching their children must be more "moral" than they are, and model a higher level of virtue, somehow. (These will be the ones that ring your phone at the first hint of impropriety, alleged or otherwise.) It unfortunately falls to me sometimes to remind them that we all have feet of clay sometimes, and that forgiveness is a virtue. It is a difficult truth that as parents we model as much to our children as those that surround them, and if we are doing our job as parents properly, even more. That's not to say that we shouldn't invest time and energy to find the most experienced, practical, and thoughtful troop staff that we can, or to listen to parental complaints. Just I would never accept an active alcoholic as a leader (can you say "safety issue"?), I couldn't by BSA policy accept a homosexual leader. I am not judging, but as Eamonn has pointed out, BSA has established a policy that by accepting a troop position I am honor-bound to uphold. Sounds like I'm passing the buck, but these distinctions certainly had my consideration before I signed my application. As my DE is fond of reminding me, my place here is a privilege and not a right--a privilege I need to take seriously. Troop Committee is meeting in 1/2 hour, so as I write I'm a bit distracted. Hope this makes sense . . . Good campfire, and thanks for understanding the distinction between a Christian and a homophobe. If you really are one, there is no place for the other. Peace, Busylady

Oh, boy, sometimes I question my sanity . . . But, noone seems to have addressed this one. For many of us, Judeo-Christian scripture categorizes homosexuality as sin. However, Scripture also states that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." So, we're all in the same boat together. Read a little further, and one sin isn't "less" or "more" than another sin--it's all sin, period. The homosexuals I know completely reject the idea that I can love the person that Scripture calls a "sinner" and hate the sin, but that's what it (from my viewpoint) tells me to do. They complete miss the point that I am a sinner, too. To me, the BSA call to "duty to God" (meaning earnestness in prayer, study of Scripture, confession of sin, and effort to "sin no more") is linked to the policy excluding practicing homosexuals through the Judeo-Christian heritage. Though other faiths have existed for years, we need to remember that Scouting grew out of the hotbed of English Christianity (Eamonn's post already describes that history of lack of civility among believers). We aren't the first organization that has been sued over this issue of faith and sexuality--the Christian Science Monitor was sued by some gay employees. The CSM made the case that since they were a faith-based organization, they had the obligation to hire employees who were earnest in practicing their faith in all respects. The Christian Science Monitor won. I don't question the need for dissent--it's healthy and necessary. But, I'm a "customer" that takes my "tuna" very seriously and asks any organization that is training my son and Venturing daughter to do the same. This is not brainwashing--this is providing a firm foundation upon which to lead a principled life. We need to realize this is not a closed forum, that any parent can find us to find out what is happening in the ranks, as one writer has already attested in this thread. I learned a long time ago that the policy the organization promotes in their literature is not necessarily the way "real life" works out in the trenches. And, despite my wish to think I'm in the only one who thinks the way I do , I know I'm not alone in thinking this way and therefore searching out forums such as these. So, I would plead gently for civilized discourse, and respect for my views as a Christian without the homophobe label. I have no fear of homosexuals, but I am taught by Scripture not to condone sin, either. Here's hoping that my voice communicates but is gentle around the fire . . .

Ah, OGE, If Blade can't model civility and charity towards another Christian, essentially a brother with common religious ground, I despair for JP II's efforts and wishes for us to work together towards ending the world's ills . . .

Yes, gents, it's your party . . . But I thank you for letting me stand in the back (not the back of the bus, mind you, just behind the scenes) and do my thing as CC. No argument from this vantage point about young ladies in troops (and I'm past being called a young lady, except as a kind jest)--having attended a women's college, I know from first-hand experience some of what we lost in the rush to "co-education". So, any room left around that fire? (Pass those marshmallows, I brought some chocolate . . .)

OGE-- Many of the enmities JP II had hoped to heal are literally 1000's of years old. But, if in life he talked with these people, and in his death they came together and even shook hands . . . Can we think of it as a start?

Weeding flower beds for 15 minutes at each meeting for a service project? How sad . . . In our troop, the Scouts need help looking around to see how they can volunteer, not for gain such as movie points (our system for "rewarding" troop-oriented service, which I know doesn't count towards a service hours) or strictly for advancement's sake. Our troop policy is that you must participate in 6 hours of "service" (either troop or community) per year, regardless of rank. Our committee and leaders get frustrated at the lack of imagination, so we've begun posting volunteer ideas on our BB--both the parents and the Scouts like it and never realized there were so many ways to participate in the community . . . Our lists come from a volunteering site on the Internet and specify the age range of the volunteer they're seeking so we can make sure the opportunities are appropriate. (Even newly-crossed-over Webelos can serve at a community food pantry or soup kitchen, with adult supervision, of course.) How will these young people realize that their efforts make a difference, regardless of the "pay", unless they experience helping in the community? And, when they get to badges like Cit. in the Comm., esp. with the new volunteer requirement, what kind of experience will they have had so they can identify "good" volunteer projects? I have fond memories of doing "service projects" and the folks I hung out with to do them. And, our Scouts are beginning to "get it"--last week they not only helped clear chairs after a town function but helped set up voting booths for the town elections the next day (and had a good time doing it). The town officials were there, too--what a great teaching opportunity! Does the SM realize that service projects can also help identify careers? We have therapeutic riding stables around here that are starving for volunteers, and I can't think of a better way for a horse-savvy youngster to learn about physical therapy as a profession while helping a disabled person ride. Some of our Scouts just attended a disaster drill as "victims", which provided insight into careers as first responders. Another thought about an SM slowing advancement: Doing so can only frustrate efforts Scouts put forward to set goals. And, how valuable is THAT skill?!?! So, I say let them proceed through ranks at their pace. There's no doubt that MBs will slow them down once they've made 1st class. Let's be sure we're supporting them in their efforts to succeed in all aspects (that is, not neglecting home and school for the sake of advancement). But, let THEM dictate how fast they want to go. We have a responsibility as leaders to help the next generation understand that their ability to serve is limited only by their imagination and their initiative--let's not stunt either one.

Hi, Anarchist: I would GLADLY relinquish that responsibility if we could only get our older scouts to come to campouts and teach! Our troop has been through some rough water of late. Hopefully as things cool down, we can apply a little judicious pressure to get 'em to step up to the task . . . Meantime, rather than nag and hassle, I'll keep teaching the younger ones, and watch 'em turn older Scouts' faces red when they know more than their supposed "teachers". It's already happening, and the younger ones are turning the tables on the more "experienced" Scouts. At times, a little embarassment and peer pressure is good for encouraging more effort, without adult "noise" YIS - Busylady

FScouter, would I love to have your problem! Unfortunately, we (like most other youth organizations around here) have a small, dedicated pool of volunteers for a group of Scouts that's ever growing. Thinking out loud myself, I wonder if there's some way to categorize the MBCs you have into "working groups" with a leader for each group (such as "animals", "machines", "crafts", etc.). That way you have a pool of people who can help make Scout/counselor matches. Too, we all have to learn to work with all kinds of people at some point in our lives . . .

Hi, FScouter: To my knowledge, there are no guidelines about how to do this, but these are my thoughts: If the SM is fortunate enough to have a choice, he should look at the scout's learning speed. Does he read well, or is reading not his strength? What type of learner is he (my apologies if you know, but there are three types--visual, who is almost always a good reader; audio who learns by hearing; and kinesthetic, who learns with his hands--this is the kid that can build anything). How does the scout relate with others? Is he the life of the party, or is he more serious? Quiet? A leader? A follower? By the time a scout has obtained a couple of ranks, the SM should have someone available to him who has a fair idea of how to answer these questions, assuming the SM can't. From there, if I was SM, I would try to match the scout with someone your people-sense tells you can work with him based on what you know. Someone highly book oriented could frustrate a kinesthetic learner, while someone mechanically oriented could make your "bookworm" feel incapable. Again, if there is a choice, maybe the SM could suggest that the counselor and scout have a preliminary meeting to discuss working together, such as a plan for working on the badge, what is required, etc., and ask them to get back to him with honest feedback as to whether each feels they can work together (realizing for the scout that learning to work with others is a learning experience, too). In a group situation, the counselor can actively seek out scouts that can work together, which can "extend" the type of scout the counselor works best with. By teaching, the scout is reinforcing his own knowledge. Yeah, this is probably the best-case scenario, and the real world doesn't always operate on best cases. But if ya don't aim for something, how can you know you need to improve, or that it's meeting or even exceeding what you want to achieve? busylady

Old Grey Eagle: Many thanks--just the site I was looking for! Regards, Busylady