CalicoPenn

Does anyone know what this thread is about, at this point? Yes - it's about using 19th century science to reduce radical islamist recruiting. Now stop trying to herd cats.

There are plenty of Republican scientists. Unfortunately, Republican politicians rarely listen to them either, unless what the scientist says is in alignment with their worldview. They're particularly good at dismissing out of hand the opinions of a 99% majority opinions in favor of a 1% opposing opinion, or in ignoring scientists working in a field of study while embracing scientists that don't even work in related fields. I'm still amazed at how many people listed as scientists that say climate change is a myth are MD's and DVM's. Who knew Medical Doctors and Veterinarians had the time to become experts on climate. When it comes to science and scientific studies, Republican politicians are like cops that would put an all points bulletin out for a red car after a bank robbery on the word of a witness when 99 out of 100 witnesses say the get-away car was blue. Phlogiston? Aether? Humors? Really?? That's supposed to be a critique of modern science? It's easy (and a cheap shot) to make fun of what scientists came up with 100, 200,, 500, etc. years ago when viewed through the lens of what we are capable of now. How much of these ideas would have made the light of day if scientists of those times had the same kind of equipment we have now. Science advance - and when it does, it changes the world. 120 years from now, someone might create a similar list and wonder with glee how Science could have been so dumb to believe in String Theory.

Instead of excusing the parents during the SM Moment, incorporate them - the SM Moment is the Scoutmaster's opportunity to pass on wisdom to everyone in the room. At regular meetings, the ASM's and other adults hanging around, while not sitting as part of the circle on the floor, should be outside the circle respectfully listening in too. The same with the Courts-of-Honor. The parents don't join the circle but the message can, and should, be something that is inspiring to all in the room. At my unit's court of honor, instead of the circle, we would form a standing semi-circle (and it could be a couple layers deep) up at the front with the SM in the center of the arc and the SPL standing next to the SM with the "opening" facing the sitting parents and guests. This was they were included in the SM Moment and in the circle of Scouting without being a formal part of the circle.

The Scoutmaster's role in the Merit Badge process has always been one of mentorship. It's never been one of control. The reason the Scoutmaster signs blue cards has never been to control the process (at least officially - unfortunately, in practice there have always been Scoutmasters who never quite got the process and thought it was their place to control the process. Even more unfortunately, those folks shared their practices with other leaders and the madness spread like the tentacles of an octopus strangling a fish). The reason the SM signs the blue cards is so that they have a chance to chat with the Scout, encourage the Scout, and prepare the Scout for things he might not be aware of. For most of the life of the Merit Badge program, it was the Council or District that controlled the list (it was a huge mistake on the part of the BSA to start encouraging units to create their own MBC lists). The Scoutmaster would share the names on that list and through mentorship, could guide Scouts towards or away from counselors, without outright banning a Scout from using a particular MBC. Most Scouts will listen to their SM's suggestions, but always, the best SM's would make clear it was the Scout's choice and would strongly suggest that if they didn't like the counselor, that it was their choice and they should stick it out (unless the Scout was in danger). Now it may seem inconsistent that MBCs, Scout Camps and District/Council run events might be able to have their own pre-reqs, but one needs to take into account other factors. A Scout Camp may require a Scout to weigh 80 lbs to use a shotgun and that's likely to come from requirements their insurance company imposes on them. Same for age limits - it's far more likely that the insurance company is driving those decisions. I'd personally be wary of an individual MBC creating their own age limit rules, but if they can show a good reason for it, it might make sense. But that is part of the program as well - the Scoutmaster is not a gatekeeper - and if a Scoutmaster thinks they need to be a gatekeeper, then perhaps that's the wrong role for them to be playing.

Sorry, JoeBob - this is just another example of non-equivalency pretending to be significant. Duke University is a Private university. As a private university, they can broadcast the Muslim call to prayer without violating the Constitution of the United States. As a private university, then can have professors start classes by leading the class in prayer if they so desired without violating the Constitution of the United States. Comparing Duke University to Public schools is disingenuous - designed to score points that are unearned and to pretend that facts don't matter. Christians are not forbidden from saying a blessing at meals or praying in the morning. In fact, a table full of Christians could get together and say a blessing at meals or pray in the morning if they wanted. There is nothing stopping them (except perhaps for over-zealous teachers/administrators who haven't been properly trained in the laws - but that's easily solved). The prohibition is on administrators, teachers and staff at Public schools (aka Government Employees) leading prayers, or coercing others to join in prayers. That is in Public schools. In Private schools, they can lead prayers all they want - no one will say anything to them, at least from a constitutional perspective. If there is a double standard, it comes directly from the Constitution of the United States which describes what government can and can't do but doesn't apply itself to private entities. If Duke University decides to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer, it does so with the full blessing of the United States Constitution since it is a private entity. If and when Duke University bans Christians from holding a prayer service around a flagpole, then maybe you can claim persecution against Christians, but it is not persecution against Christians for public (government) schools not to be allowed to do the same thing as a private schools - and if it is, you can blame the Founding Fathers for including both freedom of religious expression and freedom from government coerced religion of any kind in the Constitution.

Gee, I don't know - this forum - and not just this sub-forum, but in all the sub-forums, has a long tradition of threads being de-railed. Nothing says "This is a Scouter Forum's thread" like a discussion on an eagle scout ceremony evolving (devolving??) in to a discussion on uniforms. You must be one of those people that like to try to herd cats.

Sentinel, First, thank you for doing what you're doing - I thought you handled the latest issue well and I certainly didn't disagree with your choices - when something is blatantly racist and beyond the pale of the Scout Law, it needs to be addressed - too often, on other forums, the entire post would be wiped out - I thought the surgical redacting you did maintained the integrity of the post and allowed for an interesting discussion to go forward. That said, my only other comment is that 'offensive and insulting' is a fine line to be used as a metric to make those judgment calls. If a post is insulting and offending one or two people who is/are being deliberately targeted by the post, then I full on support the need to squash it like a tick (no offense to ticks intended). On the other hand, in many discussions, especially in this particular sub-forum, someone may feel offended or insulted by a post or posts that are not directed towards them but just happens to hit their particular buttons. Does something like that truly rise to the level where the discussion has to be censored and squashed? If, for instance, in a discussion on leaders someone said that they didn't believe female leaders were effective, and a number of female leaders stated that they are offended by that, would that be enough to squash a discussion? I certainly hope not. It's a fine line - and I think we're walking it pretty well.

Pack - my response is I'm seeing a spirited conversation about a difficult and touchy subject that can easily make many feel uncomfortable. What I'm not seeing is people attacking each other for their viewpoints. It seems to me people are actually walking on eggshells a bit, perhaps because it is such a difficult topic, and trying hard to understand each other. It's one thing if people just use it as an excuse to bash each other - then by all means, shut a thread down. But I'm not sure we should be so quick to demand a thread (or even an entire section) be shut down because a topic brings us out of our comfort zone and makes us think. At this point in the thread, I wouldn't even find it objectionable for Scouts (and maybe not all, maybe High School level) to read these entries - seems to me that citizenship sometimes requires us to dive into discussions that aren't all rainbows, puppies and lollipops. JoeBob - I'm not convinced on your argument about Muslims getting better treatment than Christians in the US. The example of the foot washing stations at the Minneapolis Airport seems a bit shallow to me (pun not intended). The Minneapolis area has a great number of Muslims in it and yes, for many, they have a religious imperative to wash their feet at certain points of the day. I don't think the lack of foot washing stations would stop them - in fact, I know it doesn't. We can "say" that the airport is just kowtowing to the Muslims by putting in the foot baths, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that's whay they did it. They will say (and have said numerous times) that the reason they installed the foot baths was for sanitary purposes - to prevent people from washing their feet in the sinks. I don't know about you but I find that a pretty reasonable argument. Is this somehow unfair to Christians? Gee, I don't know - the airport does have a chapel on site and a chaplaincy staff with Christians in the majority. I don't think it has anything to do with Christmas or the 10 commandments. I simply don't believe that Christians are being persecuted any more than any other religious group is being persecuted. ISIS? They've killed more Muslims than Christians. Muslim extemists that aren't ISIS? They've killed more Muslims than Christians. That isn't to say that there aren't any Christians in the world being persecuted - there clearly are - in other countries, but not here in North America. Being wished Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is not persecution. Requiring equal representation on the courthouse lawn is not persecution in a country with a Constitution that demands Government treat all religions equally. Telling teachers they cannot lead prayers in school (while allowing students and teachers the right to pray privately for themselves at their desks if they wish) is not persecution. If anything, Christians are the persecutors in this country. I don't see Muslim neighborhoods demanding that local governments not approve Christian Churches because of "parking and traffic and safety - not because we're against their religions" like I see Christians demanding that local governments not approve of Mosques. I don't see Christians being told by the police to take down Christian flags flying on their own property the way I see Muslims being told to take down Islamic flags because they offend the neighbors. I don't see Muslims or Jews vandalizing churches with graffiti like I see Christians vandalizing mosques and synagogues. I don't see Muslims or Jews or Pagans or (name your alternative religion here) burning down black churches the way we've seen Christians burning down black churches. I don't see Muslims or Jews shooting abortion doctors the way we've seen Christians do so.

You mean if he comes back and says he believes in something, you'll make him wait even more to prove it? Has he ever given any indication that he isn't following the Scout Oath or Law right now? Has the boy said he's an athiest? No?? Then what are you waiting for? Unless he outright admits to being an athiest, he may just be having a hard time reconciling what people tell him what reverent means and what his own beliefs are. If someone at my BOR had said that being reverent means I must believe in God as the majority understand that to mean, I would have said I had no such belief. That would not have made me an athiest though. He may very well believe in something that he doesn't understand as God but isn't articulating that well. It's time to stop playing with this lad - Duty to God is just one part of the entire Scout Oath - and I would argue that it is one's duty to, at some points in one's life, to question God which can only serve to strengthen one's faith or cause one to choose a better path for themselves. Reverent is just one part of the Scout Law and is no more important than any other one. Again, I would argue that if you're following the other 11 points of the Scout Law, that you've pretty much got the Reverent part down, even if one suggests they don't believe in a higher power - I would suggest that following that path is an admission that one is working on something greater than they are. If this is the only thing you're hung up on and you all believe he is Eagle Scout material otherwise, then pass him through - if you can't get past this, then refuse and let the appeals process work.

First - there is no requirement that states one must believe in a higher power. The requirement is a belief in God. It is people's interpretation of God as a higher power that leads to the belief that the requirement is to believe in a higher power. There are folks who have a perfectly legitimate belief that God is not in him/herself a higher power but that God is in each one of us, lifting us to higher heights. Second - the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principles is not set in marble as many think it is - it would be except for all of the exceptions that BSA has announced that undermines the entire principle of the DRP and being a hard and fast principle. Bhuddists don't believe in God yet the BSA has said that the DRP requirement of a belief in God doesn't apply to them. Wiccans believe in a triumvirate - with a God and a Goddess ascending or descending as the seasons progress - currently the God is desceding from the height of his powers at the Winter Solstice while the Goddess is ascending from the depth of her powers at the winter solstice - they will meet at the equinox and the Goddess will reach the height of her power at the Summer Solstice as the God reaches the depth of his powers at the Summer Solstice - or at least that's how the Wiccan tradition I follow sees it - other Wiccan traditions will see it differently. The DRP requirement of a belief in God (a singular being of the Judeao/Christian/Islamic tradition) doesn't apply to us. Want to believe in "The Force" (and this is a legitimate religious belief in some countries - including the US though it's more commonly mentioned in Australia and England)? You're good to go even though it doesn't have a God and would therefore be a violation of the DRP as well. Third - Pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster was not created to mock the absurdity of religion - it was created by an Eagle Scout in order to mock the absurdity of of a state government (in this case, Kansas), preparing to pass a law allowing the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in the Christian tradition only without allowing other religious viewpoints in to the discussion and to prepare for a consitutional challenge to the very likely unconstitutional way the law was written. It was created to bring attention to a very serious constitutional issue but happened to catch the imagination of thousands of people to become more or less a serious religion for many people who believe in the FSM's noodly appendages and the message he brings to the world. Since we're Boy Scouts and follow the 12th point of the Scout Law, who are we to judge whether Pastafariansm is any more or less a religion than Mormonism, which also captured the imaginations of thousands of people to become more or less a serious religion for many people. FInally - as to this boy, I would ask him about spirituality rather than religion.

It's a bit old fashioned and has mostly fallen out of use but through most of the history of the Boy Scouts of America, Cubs and Scouts were expected to pay dues on a weekly basis - bringing their dues with them to their Den or Troop/Patrol meetings. One of the jobs of the Denner (Cub Scouts) and Scribe (Boy Scouts) was to collect the money and record that it was paid. The practice started falling out of favor sometime in the 1970's. I'm not sure that the BSA even prints and sells (because let's face it, they sell everything) dues records any more. It may mostly be symbolic these days but for your unit, you might institute weekly dues of say 25 cents - a quarter a week shouldn't be a pocket book buster for most of the boys. At about $12 a year, it may not seem like much but it is pretty near the subscription cost to Boys Life or could help offset the cost of rank patches and merit badges. It really doesn't matter if it's "just $12", what matters is it sets a tone that a Scout, even a low income immigrant Scout, helps pay their own way. Heck, you could even bank it and at the end of the year, spend the $240 or so (20 scouts x 12) on a nice overnight lock-in celebration (food and movies?).

Summer Camp is a four to five hour drive north into the hinterlands of Wisconsin. There are no facilities for off season camping available. If Troops wish to do off season shooting, they will work with one of the hunt and shooting clubs outside the metropolitan area, usually as part of a weekend camping trip.

Seattle, Are we talking about the same program? Have you ever read the Guide to Safe Scouting? Can you seriously tell us that the G2SS doesn't have a significant impact on programming in the Boy Scouts? Have you read the book on advancement? It reads like a military or tech manual with numbers like 4.8.2.1 to headline paragraphs. Can you seriously tell us that guide doesn't have a significant impact on advancment in the BSA? That book pretty much defines the standards for awarding badges and about the only real leeway it gives units is the ability to define what active means in regards to PORs. I'd love to see a unit try to argue that they decided their Scouts only needed to earn 12 merit badges for Eagle Scout or a unit try to subsitutute Orienteering Merit Badge as a replacement for Citizenship in the World merit badge as a required Eagle Scout badge because Orienteering skills are more important and see how far they get. Have you read the Declaration of Religious Principles that are required to be followed to be a Volunteer? Can you seriously tell us that has no impact on volunteer policies? The only real difference between McDonalds and the BSA is that McDonalds is less willing to compromise their quality for the sake of the almight dollar.

There's only one thing to say Eagle94-A1: You did good!

I'm not going to be as forgiving. Tell Mom she has ten days to show you a police report on the theft or pay the balance of the monies owed and that you will be filing a police report of your own if the popcorn or the money from the sales of the popcorn is not returned.. After ten days, go to the police and let them know what has happened - they may tell you it's a civil matter (in which case you take her to small claims court) but depending on the officer you talk to, they might pop by for a little chat. The Pack has to do this as well. Both your Troop and the Pack need to suspend the boys from activities effective immediately until the matter is resolved. Sure, they may need Scouting more than others, and your treasury might be able to absorb the costs, but frankly you'll be sending a message to these boys, loud and clear, that it's ok to scam people because nothing will happen.

How do other councils handle after season storage of rifles and shotguns? At our summer camp, the guns are sent to a gunsmith in the nearest town for inspection, cleaning and repairs then stored by the County Sheriff's office until the next season. It's always a big deal when the Sheriff's office delivers the guns back to the camp during Staff Week.

They're going to take more preventative measures, like adding more lights around the compound. Gee I have an idea that won't cost more money - LOCK THE GUN SAFE.

I'm starting to wonder if no Scouts met with the investigators because no Scouts told their Scoutmaster that a gun was pulled.

I think Base handled it just right. If the boy was made to feel worthless, that's on his Mom, not his Scoutmaster. Mom was well aware of the cost and was well aware that the Scoutmaster was not going to cover it for the boys. The boy still got to do the overnight, just not the parts of it that had to be paid for. Mom's "lesson" in "how to be entitled" just got turned on it's head. Well done!

Agreed - it's always the parents. I can't count how many times parents have gotten themselves into a snit over what they insist is other people cheating. Most of the time, the biggest problem parents are the ones accusing others of cheating. Think it's bad at the Pack level? It's much worse at the District level. Most of the time, it's just a simple disagreement over the "rules" though sometimes its the accusers being ultra-competitive parents. Other times its just someone complaining about something perfectly acceptable that they hadn't thought of that might give the other car an advantage. We don't even know what the "cheating" this Cubmaster has allegeldy done, and we're quick to accept that he was cheating requiring the use of a third party check in person. Don't ever invite me to be the third person because I will always...always...give the benefit of the doubt to the boy and his car (even if Dad built it all by himself) and let him race it. I've seen those accusations tear apart dens and friendships. I've seen families drop out of Scouting after being accused of cheating, or not being satisfied after they've complained about cheating. Really, it's just not worth it. When checking in, the only rules that we ever enforced was a rule for weight (all cars could weigh up to so much and no more - and that's usually easily adjustable at race time) and wheel base and that's just to make sure the car fits on the track. Every thing else is just gobble-gobble-gobble. The bottom line is this - the boys don't care. They don't care about weight, they don't care about restrictions, they don't care about the trophies - they just want to see the cars race down the track and they want to see the cars finish - the boys I've seen that have been most upset during a pinewood derby aren't the ones that lose but the ones whose car doesn't make it all the way down the track - those boys can be downright inconsolable. And what happens in a well run Pack? 5 dads (cause it usually is the dads) grab that car, huddle in the corner, figure out what made it stop - fix it - and let the boy race it again. Maybe it takes being able to step back from it to see it but I've found that the boys that are the happiest aren't the ones that "won" but are the ones that raced against their buddies after the official races (our pack always kept the track up for as long as we could after the races so that people could just run their cars down the track - it was the one night of the year that the schools janitor wouldn't be hovering around the exit at 8:45 to make sure every one was out by 9:00). Win or lose - for them it was about the fun and comparing their cars with those of their friends. Remember what it was like in unstructured free play? Sure, you might play some "sandlot" baseball but no one really seriously kept score. The boys aren't going to remember 3 months from now who took first, second or third place - they're going to remember their car, which they may have built with Dad, Mom, Grandpa, Grandma, Big Brother or Big Sister racing down that track and crossing the finish line. It's a real shame that we, as adults, can't remember what that's like.

You have 15 boys that have paid - I wouldn't suggest to the PLC that they cancel the event at this point since you have enough members committed to going. I wouldn't cancel a campout becuase only 15 lads showed up (heck - I didn't cancel a campout where only 3 of 22 lads showed up because the rest were scared away by weather reports - and we had a blast). Just as Councils and Districts offer opportunities for Units to take part in events, but doesn't make them mandatory, Units offer opportunities to Scouts to take part in events and shouldn't make them mandatory. The PLC has planned an event and is offering the opportunity. Those that wish to go will go - those that don't go have made their own choice. If a parent complains that it's unfair, let them - just don't pay any attention to it. If the CC doesn't cover your back on it, hand him the SM patch off your left sleeve and walk away - without saying a word. I found nothing mean or cruel about your e-mail. If it was the CC who told you that you should not have sent it because it was mean and cruel, I'd hand him that SM patch and tell him he's got 15 boys counting on him to make sure the activity that has been planned and they paid for goes off. If it was anybody else and the CC is backing that person, then do the same. If it was anybody else who said it without involving the CC, I would hand THAT person the SM patch, and let the CC know he has a new Scoutmaster.

Seattle, I understand your frustration. As you consider your next step, think about your relationship with your District Executive - is the DE helpful and supportive and do you have a good relationship? If so, then I would do the FOS presentation - you'll be hurting your helpful DE more than you'll be hurting the volunteer district non-leadership. If you have no relationship or a bad relationship with the DE, then I think you could opt out of FOS this year with a clean conscience. I just don't think I would replace it with an outright plea for money for the CO's camp - heart in the right place but it is against BSA fundraising policy (though I don't think there would be an objection to having a church provided brochure about the camp that might also ask for funds laying on a table that folks can pick up or not as they choose) Perhaps a better path would be to put together a spring all-pack service project at the camp and turn it into an annual event - more of an "in kind donation" than a cash donation. As for the district leadership, at some point beating the dead horse gets old - the horse starts to stink and the whip gets frayed. I'd simply give up and let them keep floundering around - spend your time with your unit. Seems to me if the District doesn't have it's act together, you'll need to spend a little more time on the unit to provide the programming that the District is incapable of doing. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the yearbook that says your Pack can't choose a Saturday and have an interpack Pinewood Derby competition, or put together a mini olympics track & field meet for the packs in your town to compete in without the districts help.

An Assistant Scoutmaster is a Unit Leader. They cannot also be Commissioners. A Committee Member is not a Unit Leader, which is why they can be Commissioners. It is never wise for someone to be the Unit Commissioner for a unit they are also a member of the committee on. The best response a unit can have if that situation occurs is to allow the person the chance to resign from the committee or tell the District Commissioner that they can not serve the unit. The best District Commissioners, if they're involved with a unit, has the Unit Commissioner for the unit reporting to an Assistant District Commissioner.