CalicoPenn

Loved the pics but Good Lord, man - don't you folks ever get any sun??? What an awesome trip - and I can probably safely say that your Scouts, all in uniform, were probably talked about (in positive terms) by the other audience members as much as the ballet was.

I've seen old film of Girl Scout encampments from the 30's, 40's and 50's - into the 70's - they were as robust and rugged as Boy Scout encampments. The Girl Scouts I knew from school and the neighborhood when I was growing up could compare camping and hiking trips point for point with the Boy Scouts. We know that the Girl Scouts have changed - they've changed in response to what their market wants - and unfortunately, that leaves girls with crazy great uncles who like what the Boy Scouts do out of the loop. The Boy Scouts of America has been trying to figure out a way to re-invent themselves to make them more attractive to more people, while trying not to lose the outdoors experiences that the volunteers want, but has never been successful at it - I fear that the new STEM initiative is doomed for failure as well - the BSA is trying to please too many constituencies and is failing at it (and I'm NOT talking about the political stuff - let's NOT go there - I'm talking about the programmatical stuff). I have a modest proposal (modest likely to defined as radical by a lot of people): It's time to merge the two programs together - we're beyond needing Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of the USA - it's time for Scouting USA. Within this now combined organization, we can create divisions (in much the way the BSA has already done with the BSA and Learning for Life). The Boy Scout program can be the basis of a division that concentrates on outdoor programming - the camping and hiking and adventure trips that people love about the BSA - this division would absorb the BSA rank advancement program - The Eagle Scout can still be earned - but now it can be earned by girls as well because the entire program will be co-ed. The Girl Scout program would get split a bit more. Most of the program can be merged further into an enhanced Learning for Life career exploration program - the Girl Scout awards can be tweaked to meet the needs of such a program. A good portion of the Girl Scout program is already touching on STEM so we use that part of the program to create a STEM division - and create a new set of awards for that. In all three programs, Merit Badges would still be part of the program - and I suggest merging the badges of the BSA and the GS-USA into one program that all three divisions tap in to. Eagle Scout rank could still have their required badges. Gold Award would have theirs. The top STEM would have theirs - but anyone, from any of the three divisions, could earn any of the other merit badges as electives. In this way, we give the STEM Scout who really wants to concentrate on STEM activities but may also want to add some outdoor experiences, and opportunity to do so - as an example. Of course, this is made with the assumption that these divisions are open to youth 11 and above. For youth 14 and above, resurrect the old Exploring program that had already allowed for a diverse range of interests, with their own advancement programs and merge in the Senior level of the GS-USA and Venturing. I see Learning for Life as a continuum from 11 to 20 so I wouldn't merge the older youth into Exploring. For Cub Scouts, Daisy Scouts and Brownie Scouts, I would suggest 3 departments within their own division - One department would be an all-male Cub Scouts, one an all-female Brownie Scouts (with the Daisy's name being folded into Brownies) and a third co-ed "Starfish" Scouts (or whatever else you want to name it) to give sponsors and parents a choice of where to go.

The only rule I can find from the BSA on merit badge sashes is that they can only be worn by Boy Scouts and Venturers earning advancement. There are no rules saying that can only be worn by Scouts Star rank and higher. There are no rules saying they can only be worn after a Scout earns 6 merit badges. What's really interesting is that there is no rule that says a Scout must have earned any merit badges in order to wear the merit badge sash. The rule states earning advancement - not earning merit badges. Obviously, common sense would indicate that a Scout shouldn't wear a merit badge sash without at lease one merit badge on it, but there is no rule against it. So given the rule that merit badge sashes can only be worn by Boy Scouts and Venturers earning advancement, here's how I would interpret it: Any Boy Scout from the time they join until they are 18 years of age can wear the Merit Badge Sash - regardless of number of merit badges earned or regardless of rank earned (because I assume that if your're a Scout, your earning advancement, even if at a glacial pace). I would certainly allow a new scout to wear a new, "empty", merit badge sash if they wanted (though I suspect peer pressure would keep them from doing so). Once a Scout turns 18, they stop wearing the sash - I'm going to suggest an exception beyond the rules (because I do that from time to time) - I would make an exception for the Eagle Scout having their court of honor after they turn 18 - I'm certainly not going to insist that they can't wear their merit badge sash to the ceremony. Any Venturer up to age 21 can wear the merit badge sash, provided they are working on earning Venturing awards (the policy doesn't restrict to Boy Scout advancement - it restricts to advancement, and Venturers have their own advacements that can be earned up to age 21. That being said, I doubt there would be many Venturers that would wear the merit badge sash after age 18 anyway.

Skeptic, The federal flag code allows for the church pennant to be flown above the US flag on a US Navy ship at sea when church services are being conducted. This is a non-denominational thing which, as it was explained to me by my Uncle who was a sailor in the Korean War, is meant not to elevate the church above the state but to identify for sailors of nearby ships which denomination is holding services so that, if they can arrange it, they can participate, usually by radio. For instance, if you're on a ship without a Catholic service, and a nearby ship is holding a Catholic service, the flag of the Catholic denomination is flown so that you can listen in (or even visit the boat if possible). The National Flag Foundation (aka USFlag.org), which has no official standing, just a love of the flag, suggests that there is (or in other words, they made it up) a Christian Flag exception for all churches in which the Christian Flag (identified as a flag with a white field, a blue canton and a red latin cross in the canton) is given the superior position to the viewers left/speakers right during church services only - with the US Flag retaking the superior position (even in the sanctuary) when the church services are complete. This is NOT part of the US Flag Code - this is something a private organization has decided is proper. I would suggest discussing this with the Minister and asking what the preference is. If he asks for your opinion, I would tell him what the flag code states - the US Flag is always to it's own right (if facing the audience with a speaker, to the audiences left - if part of the audience with no speaker to the audiences right) and that the Christian Flag will be set up either to the US flags left and the Troop flag set up to that flags left. If the Minister wants the Christian Flag to take the dominant position, then that's what you should do - but you should also make very clear to the boys that this is not part of the official flag code (and will never be part of the official flag code - it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment) and that this is a special circumstance. Unless the Methodist church you're in has a tradition of leading a procession with a cross, I would leave that out (and I suspect there is no processional in the Methodist church). Lead with the US Flag (unless going with the unofficial exception) and do a flag ceremony just as you would do any other. I'm sure you noticed the mention already but don't forget the Troop's flag! (and if you have other Scouting units sponsored by that church - Packs, Crews, Venturers, Girl Scouting units - I would invite them to designate a carrier for their flags (if they have flags) too - Scout Sunday, while really strongly pushed by the Boy Scouts isn't limited to Boy Scouts - otherwise it would be called Boy Scout Sunday - it is Scout Sunday - and at least when I was a Scout, that included the Girl Scouts too. The only thing I might not do is set flags at the speakers right and left - since you have at least 3 flags, I would set them all up at the right side of the "stage".

My favorite is the Coleman Pack-away 105 L LED Mini Lantern. It's a small, 8 ounce lantern that collapses to half size for travel and storage. It operates on 4 AA batteries which last 7 hours with lighting on high and 55 hour with lighting on low. On high, the light extends a little over 6 feet and on low about 3 feet. I've found it to be all the light I need. I rarely use it outside since I'll read by head lamp and if I hang it in my tent, it goves me more than enough light. If an entire patrol has these, they could hang a few from their dining fly and probably have more than enough light for cooking, eating and clean-up. They're about $25 each and the perfect size for Scouts to put in their packs without taking up a lot of space (and a great stocking stuffer or welcome to the Troop gift). I use rechargable batteries but rest easier knowing it may be easier to find batteries than coleman fuel or propane tanks when out and about. Any non-rechargable batteries can be recycled in my area rather than landfilled (and technically, it's against Illinois law to throw out batteries anyway). I'd stay away from propane/gas lanterns - who wants to deal with replacing mantles and filling tanks anymore when there are far more efficient lighting options out there. No reason to be packing big lanterns, either gas or battery, these days either.

Hijacking threads - that's how we roll around here - never take it personally Welcome again to the forums! stick around and hijack a few threads along with us

Enough people complained about this definition of active that the committee that reviewed and revised the requirements added a clause that said Units can create reasonable expectations. Now we can argune about what's reasonable, since the BSA doesn't define that and they tend to answer direct questions, like "Can a unit require participation in 50% of activities and meetings" with "Yes - as long as it's reasonable" then tries to explain that 50% may be reasonable for some Scouts and not for others, or for some Units and not for others. In other words, it's a sentence that let's adult control freaks get their freak on. What's even worse is that a Scout doesn't have to be 50% active the entire time - theoretically, a Scout can take a couple of years to meet the active requirement for a rank and string together periods of activity that was interspersed with periods of inactivity. If the requirement is 6 months of being active, a Scout could be active for 2 months, then inactive for 2 months, then active again for 2 months, then inactive again for 2 months then when he's active again for another 2 months, has just met the requirement, which of course means the control freak's mind has just exploded. I'm not really fond of attendance requirements outside of school and work - they tend to get complicated. It was suggested that a Scout that didn't camp for 12 months couldn't be considered active. My question is why not? Let's take a hypothetical Star Scout working towards Life. He's obviously met the camping requirements for T-SC-FC - let's say he's also earned the Camping Merit Badge and is in the OA. Unless he's going for Backpacking Merit Badge or the like, he has already met all the camping requirements that the BSA imposes. Let's also say that for the first 6 months, he was unable to fulfil a POR, for whatever reason (maybe he felt he couldn't spend enough time on it because he is in marching band) but he still attended every meeting, and participated in a fundraiser, and went on a couple of day trips but because of band, he wasn't able to go on any of the camping trips. Let's say he gets a POR for the next 6 months - maybe not SPL or PL but Instructor, or Den Chief - and he diligently attends meetings and performs his POR - but again, doesn't camp. Would you really find it reasonable to say he can't advance because he didn't camp? Keep in mind as you forumulate your answer, there is no camping requirements imposed by the BSA in order to earn Life. He's attended nearly 100% of Troop Meetings and has outshined others in doing his POR duties - is there some reason he would be less "promotable" than a Scout that attended only 50% of Troop Meetings but camped 50% of the time? I know which Scout I would rather have in my Troop - the so-called "parlor" scout. I'm not a big fan of Scouts creating participation rules either - and part of the reason is that they aren't able to think through the "what if's". For instance, what if you have an older Scout playing football in the fall who is an Instructor in the Troop who has attended almot every Troop meeting that fall, and has really stepped up to the Instructor position and has taught the first years First Aid, but because of football, has not been able to go on many outings - I'd still sign off on the active requirement, but what kind of message would it send to the Scouts if I overrode their "rules" about active participation? My option is to think of participation "requirements" as goals to strive for, knowing that there might be 40 different reasons for them not being attained in a 40-Scout Troop. I'd sit with the Scouts at the beginning of the year and discuss what active means, what they think it should mean, to set goals to strive for but I would reserve the final decision to the Scoutmaster.

They've made it clear by their actions that they don't want you as Scoutmaster. They've given you the explanation as to why. The way they did it says a lot more about their character than it says about yours. One of those character traits is cowardice - and I would suggest they're still being cowards as it's likely they want you to quit rather than for them to tell you they would prefer it if you weren't part of the leadership team. So what to do? Quite anyway - these people are toxic - and I wouldn't force your son to stay until April - if this is the way these leaders treat adults, imagine how they'll treat the youth. Find a new unit, and recruit like heck from the folks that just crossed over, before those parents get infected with the baby sitters attitude.

Welcome to the forums! As long as the Council's Supreme Chief of the Fire (Scout Executive) says it is, it's appropriate. In fact. I think that's a good idea.

Or we can admit that compating ISIL, which has such modern weapons as guns, tanks and missiles is just a wee bit silly. If the Inquisitor's had acces to guns, tanls and other weapons of mocern wrefere, they would have used them.

You are being sarcastic, aren't you? It's pretty well known that ISIL is has killed more Muslims than folks of any other religion combined. ISIL is also made up mostly of one specific denomination of Islam and they are targeting the other denominations for not doing things their denomination's way.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell us how many Chartered Organizations have been sued since July for discriminating against someone?

So reading between the exercises in rhetorical obfuscation, it sounds as if the Synod is telling their member churches that it is ok to keep sponsoring units at their own risk but that the Synod will not have a formal relationship with the BSA anymore which really makes me wonder if there really was any point at all for there to be an MOU between the BSA and the Missouri Synod in the first place.

Christianity is the dominant religion in the world, with around 2.2 billion adherents or 31.50% of the population. The next nearest is Islam at 1.6 billion adherents, or 22.32% of the population. So who are all these people persecuting Christians, especially the Christians that came to the new world to get away from persecution of Christians in Europe? While there is little doubt that there are Christians in pre-dominantly Islamic areas that are being persecuted, Europe has never been predominantly Islamic so who persecuted Christians there? Oh wait, I know - Christians have been persecuting fellow Christians for 2000 years - they've just done it by denomination with folks claiming that other Christians are'nt real Christians because they don't follow the same beliefs and rituals that they do. Tell you what, when Christians start having rocks thrown through their windows in Texas because of their religion, or are beaten up in their stores because of the religion, then we'll talk about Christians being persecuted in this country.

They went to a lot of trouble to include Waite Phillips name on that list which of course leads to the inevitable "What about Green Bar Bill" (and what about E. Urner Goodman?). The question is really about the founders of the BSA but gerry-mandered to include the donor of Philmont (which is why the prior to 1940 part of the question - Philmont was donated in stages from 1938 to 1940). It really should have remained about the founders and instead of including Phillips, should have included Mortimer L. Schiff. There could easily have been a second question asking about non-founders that had a big influence, like Green Bar Bill, E. Urner Goodman and Waite Phillps.

We already cover this in discussions about living the Scout Oath so we won't be spending any more time on it than we already do - this new requirement is wholly unneccesary. Our current Scoutmaster is considering handing the lads a laminated index card at the start of every Scoutmaster Conference for rank, which is where this requirement will be signed of on, with instructions to read the card when he asks "How have you done your Duty to God" with the answer being "I lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law". The whinging adults who insisted on this requirement will ignore Byan on Scouting's FAQ and will use it to try to weed out Scouts they don't like (ie gay scouts and non-churchgoers) while the rest of us wil just go on as before wondering just how stupid those advancement people think we are.

I would choose a combination of #2 and #3 - in other words, an option 4 - A Troop with same gender patrols (which could have a female SPL male ASPL (or vice versa)) and a Venturing unit for those older Scouts that would prefer to be part of a truly co-ed crew - with close cooperation between the two units.

I'd send a money order for $1.00 from the Troop as a token FOS contribution along with a copy of the e-mail to the Council President (the top volunteer) and a note explaining that this should meet the DE's "mandatory participation requirement" and that you will be instructing all of the adults in your unit that they should recycle any letters from the Council requesting FOS contributions that might be mailed to their homes.

Question - how do the other adult volunteers feel about his rejoining? How do your senior-level Scouts feel about it? This shouldn't be a decision you make on your own. You have other adult leaders that you can get advice from, and you should make an effort to talk to a select few senior-level Scouts (SPL, "Leadership Corps" (I really wish the BSA would bring that back) for their advice as well (I've seen Troops start to tear apart when a Scoutmaster or Committee Chair allowed a disruptive Scout back in to the unit without discussing it with the boys or other adult leaders (When your SPL hands in his resignation the night the former Scout comes back and tells you he is going to find another unit, and half the boys walk out with him, you'll know you just made a huge error). Talking to the other SM is a good idea - talking to the DE? I wouldn't bother - his job is numbers - they don't want to see anyone leave Scouting, and they are good at talking people in to taking in problem scouts when those folks are hesitant to say no. You're all volunteers, if you don't feel you want to deal with this lad, then just tell him no - but remember, you don't have to take that task on yourself - you aren't telling him no, the unit is telling him no - and that's how you put it to the lad and his parent(s) - the Troop made a decision and the answer is no.

SpEdScouter started a topic asking what the most difficult merit badge to earn was. Stosh suggested asking what is the most useful merit badge a Scout can earn is. I'd like to take it even a step further and make it a two part question with the second question being what is the most useful merit badge you earned (if you earned any - if you weren't a Scout as a lad or a female scouter, I'd still love to hear your answer to the first question). They may be the same answer, or they may be different answers - I think that would be interesting too. I'll start... I think the most useful merit badge a Scout can earn is First Aid - or is that so obvious that we should stipulate that it is the most useful and disqualify it from the question? Let's go ahead and say First Aid is too obvious and say the most useful merit badge other than First Aid, in which I would say Cooking which is a skill everyone can use. The most useful Merit badge I earned? I would say Landscape Arcitecture had I gone with my first instinct and pursue it as a career but I would have to say Bird Study which stated me on a lifetime hobby and halpes mw sharpen my observations of the natura world.

I'm guessing that the pooh-bahs at the BSA silently gave thanks to the Girl Scouts for giving them an excuse to drop the energy bar idea - I mean really, who is going to buy fundraising Energy Bars. What they should have done is Boy Scout M&M's.

One ping only

Landscape Architecture - it can be very hard to find a counselor for this merit badge

Can an Eagle Scout BOR deny rank? Yes - and they must put in writing why they denied rank and tell the Scout how to appeal. Based on what you wrote, if the BOR denied rank because the blue cards were not signed or because they didn't like the Scout's answer on the concept of God, I'm pretty sure his appeal will be granted at the Council level without much gnashing of teeth at that level. Blue cards are a record of the Scout's progress on a merit badge - they are not the official record that a Scout has earned the merit badge (though we ask Scouts to hold on to them just in case that official record get's screwed up). They aren't meant to be reviewed at a BOR, for any rank (at a Scoutmaster's Conference, yes - its a great way for the SM to know how a Scout is progressing on a merit badge). The Scoutmaster's siganture on a blue card isn't a permission for the Scout to start a merit badge, it's an acknowledgment that the Scoutmaster is aware that the Scout is working on the merit badge. The best Scoutmasters understand that there may be opportunities for a Scout to start and work on a merit badge before the Scout has the opportunity to talk to the Scoutmaster and will sign the blue card later. If I were the Scoutmaster at that BOR and the Board was wringing their hands over the fact that the blue cards weren't signed by the Scoutmaster, I would solve their dilemma by signing the blue cards on the spot and challenging them to make an issue of it. The purpose of BOR's at every rank is to first make sure that the work was completed and then to measure the Scout's experience. It isn't to test them on things, or to try to catch them in some kind of gotcha situation about duty to God or duty to Country - all of that stuff should have been vetted long before an Eagle BOR. I really hate that Eagle BOR's have devolved in to wringing hands over a Scout's belief and duty to God (and this is nothing new - some folks know that my Eagle Scout rank was awarded as an appeal because of a BOR that refused to accept anything but their narrow view of religion. While the Eagle BOR should certainly not be a rubber stamp, it shold be far more like a conversation with the Scout where the board gets to hear the Scout brag about his adventures and his project. A good board is going to know, through this informal conversation, if the Scout has met the requirements or not.

My have times changed. Back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, when membership in Scouting was at it's all time peak, most packs in the Chicago suburbs met from 7:30 to 9:00 which gave people the opportunity to come home, have a relaxing dinner, make sure the kids homework got done,