Adrianvs

"It is a disgrace to a Scout if, when he is with other people, they see anything big or little, near or far, high or low, that he has not already seen for himself." -Lord Baden-Powell

"Adrian, would it matter if you were, say a member of an ethnic group that made up 3 percent of the population, and it was that 3 percent that was being excluded." NJ, I wasn't commenting on the ethicality of either policy. I was commenting on the numbers. By modern standards, the gender policy "discrimination" dwarfs the gay one. It just wasn't an issue for the United Way and it isn't as big an issue for the media either. "As for the 'boy' part, it's a different issue. The 51 percent of youths who are not allowed in the Boy Scouts are allowed in the Girl Scouts." Gays are allowed to join Camp Fire USA (and Girl Scouts). You know very well that people don't object to the gay issue because there are no other organizations to join. That isn't why you object. I don't think the issues are the same, but the numbers are curious.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

No no.. District or council registration uses silver loops. In some places, this includes summer camp staff. Regional or national positions use gold loops. Exactly what is included in this is beyond me. Anything beyond the council level. Scout shop employees are included and BSA does a lot of crazy stuff with representatives, Jamboree troops, etc. Camp inspection teams, of course. As far as youth Order of the Arrow officers, it is up to the council or region, I believe, as to whether Lodge or Section officers wear silver or gold loops. Some do and some don't. Advisers (not advisors ) wear them.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Perhaps I'm too much of a medievalist, but I consider the banner properties of the flag as essential as the design. While I respect the patch as a representation of a flag, I do not consider it as such. Historical flags have been very simple, at times a banner of only one color. Both European royalty and the papacy have used flags of white before it became a symbol of peace or surrender. The cross of Saint George, which forms the flag of England, has been seen in other items (surcoats) but they are not flags. Likewise, the tricolour of France forms banners, sashes, ribbons, and bunting, but they aren't flags. Given this, I don't think that all the rules that apply to flags apply to patches (or pins for that matter). They should be respected, of course, but specifics like touching the ground in football games aren't really issues. Not that the flag code shouldn't address them, of course...

"I kind of wish the campaign hat was the only official headgear for the BSA. They are kind of hard to take care of but I think they look good and are practical." I concur. At the least, I would like to see them become common headwear for youth again. I don't mind the Indiana Jones style either, but I think making any Scouting related hat uniform wear was a mistake. A hot pink baseball cap with "Sweet Summer Jamboration!!!" on the front in yellow letters is official uniform wear just because it has a fleur de lis in the corner. Please. The same goes for t-shirts. If you want to wear them, fine. But don't call them uniform unless everyone is wearing the same shirt. Caps are fine too, but I don't think we should consider them uniform hats or salute with them unless they are, well, uniform.

Some questions that I have had came to mind as I was reading the committee vote thread. In some troops I have seen, registered committee members have functioned just like assistant scoutmasters in the troop program. I was wondering about the proper roles of each. We know that scoutmasters don't have a vote or formal say or whatever in committee meetings and they are discouraged from sitting on BOR's (prohibited?). But I don't see any "restrictions" on committee members relating to assistant scoutmaster roles. In practice, they seem just like assistant scoutmasters with a vote on the committee. Is this proper? I know that there are many "parental only" type committee members and chairs who don't wear the uniform or those that have a limited role in troop activities, but I am referring to those that don't. At this point, it looks like committee members are just scoutmasters with extra abilities. I assume that there are different roles listed officially, but I haven't seen this in practice. What is the point of registering as an assistant scoutmaster if you can do as much and more as a committee member (or chair)?

"Our value is that we raise money from the entire community," said Clarke Heidrick, chairman of the United Way board. "We need to allocate the money to agencies that serve the entire community." I seriously doubt that every other program the United Way supports serves the ENTIRE community. Besides, the BOY Scouts already excluded 51% of the youth in membership. What matter does it make that 3% of adults are not allowed admittance?

Unfortunately, the "protest" had nothing discernable to do with the town's "nuclear-free" status. It was not an intelligent protest against some phenomenon; it was an anonymous act of vandalism preventing the posting of American flags. Given the nature of the vandalism, the "protest" may have been against the use of synthetic fibered flags, the war in Iraq, the idolatry of saluting the flag, the bicameral legislature used in the US government, the naming of the country after an Italian, the recent partial birth abortion ban, the hunting of the buffalo, the extinction of the dodo, the use of fossil fuels by contemporary society, or any other issue related to the nation or flag. What the vandalism teaches our children is that the appropriate response to a situation we do not like is to break or attack or deface something anonymously. Unless we tell otherwise..

"Hey FOG try to keep up, we catholics can eat meat on fridays as long as they are not during Lent" Remember OGE, a penitential act is still required on Fridays; it's just that we have an option other than abstention outside of Lent. For most, abstention from meat every Friday is probably a good idea. (I'm a hijacker and I'm okay; I sleep all night and I type all day..)

If the flag holes were for Gay Pride flags, the vandalism would be considered a hate crime. As it stands, I think it is a hate crime against 285 million Americans. If the individuals are caught, may I suggest some of Saddam's law enforcement techniques that they seem to be upset were discontinued?

"[The Scout Law] is not something that a boy can keep in his heart and mind every moment of the day Especially when hes being distracted and tempted by some outdoor fun with a bunch of rowdy boys. The need that youve apparently have never witnessed before, is to address a bunch of boys whod rather have fun, which includes (on many occasions) not thinking about others before they act." Let us remember that fun is not an alternative to or distraction from the scouting program. I don't think anyone consciously believes this, but sometimes we don't focus on the actual problems that need to be addressed. There are problematic consequences of rowdiness and outdoor fun, but these are not problems themselves. I think that Bob's example of "no running in camp" is a rule. But the difference I see is that he takes the time, every time, to bring out the reasons that the behavior is not a good idea. This is the difference between "ruleism" and the guiding method. Scouts will break the rules in a rule-heavy troop. Scouts will behave innapropriately in a troop that doesn't have definate rules beyond BSA's. In both cases, the leader (youth or adult) will address the situation. Rules don't enforce themselves. You can shout "No running" or take a few extra seconds to relate the running behavior to its inappropriateness. I submit that the latter method works faster and more effectively than the former. Another problem with rule making, as I have explained before, is that it doesn't work among adults as well. All adults are subject to the BSA rules, and that is fine. But troop rules, proclaimed by scoutmasters, can pose a problem. If a scouter is dropping his cigarette butts all over the campsite (BSA guidelines aside) I may tell him privately that it makes the campsite look bad, etc. If, as scoutmaster, I proclaim a new rule that only pipes and smokeless tobacco are allowed (again, BSA rules aside), then we have a different situation. Can you imagine the response? Tobacco products may be a bad example, as BSA rules have much to say on the issue, but the point remains. When we control certain behaviors, it doesn't have to be a suggestion, by any means. It can be, and sometimes has to be, firm and unequivocal. But it isn't arbitrary and the "rule" is unlikely to be made lightly as the reasons for it are always in the forefront. In this way, both youth and adults are following the same guidelines (general and specific), and they can be the role models and mentors that they are intended to be.

(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Bob, Captain Ron holds the position that the church group leadership positions DO NOT fulfill the requirement. You should be a little more careful before you assume and imply that another person is being untrustworthy. It is a matter of courtesy. (A scouter is courteous) Even if captainron's position were ambigious, it would be discourteous to assume the worst. Given that he wrote his position and it was ignored, I can only assume that you didn't read the entire post carefully. Tsk tsk..

OFG: "One tenet of life in the service is that a suggestion by a superior is an order. When the Cap'n says, 'Sailor, that trash can looks pretty full' that really means, 'I want that trash can emptied.'" BP: "...the Scoutmaster has to be neither schoolmaster nor commanding officer, nor pastor, nor instructor...He has got to put himself on the level of the older brother, that is, to see things from the boy's point of view, and to lead and guide and give enthusiasm in the right direction. Like the true older brother he has to realise the traditions of the family and see that they are preserved, even if considerable firmness is required. That is all." "Therefore, to get them to carry out the Scout Law and all that underlies it, the Scoutmaster himself should scrupulously carry out its professions in every detail of his life. With scarcely a word of instruction his boys will follow him." Pollyanna? Perhaps. Scouting? Absolutely. I think we have lost touch with the model of leadership proposed by the founder and replaced it with a model that treats adults and youth as officers and inlisted men, respectively. As long as the adults keep the kids in line with orders, then the program is running fine. Perhaps this is the Cub Scout model, but it isn't Boy Scouting. Sure, the dynamics have changed. The original model included one scoutmaster acting as older brother and a couple patrols of scouts. Now, we have ten adults acting as officers supervising twenty youth. The scouters have their own culture now, and distance themselves from the scouts to the point that their example really doesn't matter to the youth. The scouts can do as they wish as long as they don't annoy the scouters. Remember, Baden-Powell's military background had a little to do with the way the patrol is organized and functions and nothing to do with how scoutmaster's relate to scouts. Far too many adults are involved in scouting to be a "superior." Perhaps Cub Scouting has it's place (this is a quite debatable notion for me). But, do not let it's dynamic influence your troop function. Rooster, your Old Testament law analogies are interesting, but the application isn't complete. The Commandments and Levititical laws were given by Moses. Who is the lawgiver in this case? The BSA? No, it appears you see these rules on the troop level. In practice, every adult becomes a law-giver to his personal whims. That's a lot of Moseses running around.. Perhaps the Law has already been given, and every self-appointed rule-making scouter is just another Korah.

"Somebody once wrote an improved edition of Scouting for Boys, and in it he ordered that 'Scouts are on no account to smoke.' It is generally a risky thing to order boys not to do a thing; it immediately opens to them the adventure of doing it contrary to orders. Advise them against a thing, or talk of it as despicable or silly, and they will avoid it. I am sure this is very much the case in the matter of unclean talk, of gambling, of smoking, and other youthful faults. It is well to establish a good tone and a public opinion among your boys on a plane which puts these things down as 'what kids do, in order to look smart before others.'" -Lord Robert Baden-Powell Tis a far cry from the current and common practice of shouting "Scouts don't smoke!!" while lighting up behind the troop trailer (or in front of it). Just a thought...

"'Perhaps many of these would be avoidable if the rules were above all individual members and all were subject to them.' I am unclear about what you mean by this. Could you site an example? BW" I'd be happy to clarify with examples, Bob. If there were a troop rule about using troop tents and setting them in rows for reasons of campsite order and aesthetics, then the scouters should not be setting there 12-man circus tents under the locust tree at the edge of camp. The reasons for the rules apply. Scoutmasters should not be bringing their dogs to camp unless they are willing to tolerate the scouts doing the same. If a troop were to prohibit the scouts from bringing cell phones (yet allow some adults to carry for emergencies), they should not be making needless calls home when they get bored. If the scouters see fit to ban card games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic as unfit for the outdoor experience, they should not find themselves playing Cribbage as the night falls. I have mentioned all these examples before. Again, I don't think that any of these things should be made official troop rules. I just want to remind the "rule-makers" that if they want to make rules for the good of the program, they should apply to everyone in all cases. Most of these local rules are simply to serve the whims of some adult scouter and are applied as such. All rules should be constant, in effect, and apply to everyone where appropriate. In other words, the rules should guide us all as a part of our shared program, not minute-by-minute proclamations by those who wish to make scouting in their own image. If the rules are made by individuals based on their personal preferences and adults become accustomed to the role of "law-maker" then confrontations are bound to arise. Each person is used to making up the rules as they go along and are taken back by another authority. This might be another scouter, a parent, or the BSA.

Semper Fidelis God bless the Unites States and all who defend her. Sancte Michael, ora pro nobis.

Speaking of local troop rules, here are two which may be of assistance: 1. All program advice must be submitted in writing to the troop committee chairman immediately prior to or following the committee meeting. or (in the popular verbal Cub Scout rule style) 2. NO NAGGING!!!!! (this rule must be 'hollered')

SPL, On what basis did this woman try to get you kicked out of the parish school? If your scoutmaster can't attend the meeting, try to get as many adults that understand how scouting works to attend. If they are 'just' parents, then I suppose that is all you can get. Given your positions in the troop, it sounds like she can't officially do anything to you and you can't do anything to her. Let her to be the one who is rude and/or verbally threatening. If this is done in front of parents, it may help reveal the situation to others. If your scoutmaster can't make it to these meetings, perhaps you should consider scheduling them when he can attend. He can't arrive 30 minutes before the troop meeting? Could you have the counseling session after the troop meeting? You said that the other adult leaders (ASM's and Committee) want her out of the position, but are reluctant to because of "politics." I can understand this, but I can't understand that they would just stand by while she acts this way in front of them. Does she behave this way during the troop meetings? What exactly, does everyone fear about her? If her behavior is as bad as you describe, then I can't imagine a group of adults that would stand by. I would advise you to hold your ground and do not let yourself be visibly aggrevated by her. If she wants to be there, so be it. If she wants to interupt every three seconds, so be it. It's not hard to make her look really bad by responding politely or not at all. Try to do your job and hopefully she will expose herself to some other adults. Unless we have more information, we can't really give too specific of advise. The whole situation seems surreal and I don't understand how this woman can have such immunity and control, especially in the parish school situation. What exactly, are your plans? If the woman doesn't listen to adults, as you say, there is nothing you can do that they cannot.

hahahahahaha... Firstly, I wondered if there would be some automatic response to my use of the word denoting female dog in my earlier post. (I assume it was automatic.) Secondly, what is the deal with running? I can see that running in close proximity to a fire or obstacles might be dangerous, but is running the best example of behavior that needs to be controlled by rules? It seems to me that running is a behavior that may be annoying to some in certain circumstances. In some cases, scouters might form a rule "NO RUNNING.." and selectively enforce it when they are annoyed. Unfortunately, there are several behaviors which annoy me more than running. The wearing of hats too small for one's head and the carabining of coffee mugs to one's belt are two examples. I could certainly make a safety issue of it, but I suppose it's good that I'm not a uniform inspector or policy maker as most of the offenders are adults. Yes, we need specific rules in additions to than the Law. Yes, the BSA probably provides all these rules. Yes, it's a to look all these up. Yes, it's a sign of lazyness and arrogance to make up new rules on the whim to prevent scouts from spoiling one's campout. Yes, scouts sometimes need reinforcement or punishment to follow the important rules. Yes, scouters sometimes need reinforement or punishment to follow the important rules...? I'll let everyone chew the last one. When any organization has more than one little dicator running around, there comes a time when the policies of the moment will conflict. We've seen these kinds of disputes on this board before. Perhaps many of these would be avoidable if the rules were above all individual members and all were subject to them. Oh well, let the rule-makers continue in their ways. I'll be running around the campsite...

I think many scouters wish to rely on local rules because they like the distance that an "impartial" rule gives them. Instead of looking at a scout's behavior that is not prohibited by national rules and explaining to him how it is discourteous or dangerous, the scouter can just point to Troop Rule #35. If their judgement is contested (usually by a parent), the scouter can point to an objective rule and issues of judgement, etc. can be avoided. The problem with these rules is that they become numerous, subjective unevenly applied, and too broad. They prohibit a range of acceptable, normal, behavior in order to root out a problem behavior. These problem behaviors are usually a normal behavior simply misapplied. I've mentioned before how certain rules apply to adults and youth, but are not enforced upon both. In other cases, we prohibit one form of an acceptable behavior to the exclusion of others. Usually, this has to do with courtesy and respect. I recall an example that has to do with language and applies to society as a whole more than scouting specifically. I was at a campfire with some scouts and scouters, and some scout responded "What the hell.." He was quickly repremanded by nearby greybeard for his language infraction. A few moments later, the same scout or another (I don't recall), began speaking of Lucifer, Satan, etc. in the same vain manner. I was struck by the notion that the mention of hell would merit a stern repremand while rather more detailed description of it's inhabitant would not. During the same trip, a scout referred to another's mother as a " **** ." This is certainly disrespectful and the scout was duly repremanded. I noticed that similar references using the word "cow" or "sow" or something to that effect were or would be ignored. Yet these references are just as disrespectful and perhaps more so because they require thought and an intentional comparison. Just a ponderance on the things that "set us off"... We seem to respond to the certain "vintage" forms of disrespect as a matter of tradition, rather than essence of what makes them offensive. I will admit that I didn't respond in either case. This was likely because I was visiting the troop and the realizations that the second actions were offensive came after response would have been inappropriate. In both cases, a troop rule would have made it much easier for myself or someone else to respond. But on second thought, would a troop rule prohibit the words "sow" or "cow" from being spoken? What about "hell?" Is it the context or the word? Would an official rule banning the word itself be a good course of action? I don't think so. Should there be consequences if a scout (or scouter) persists in disrespectful behavior? Of course. Should all possible disrespectful behaviors be listed in some troop policy? I think that's another question..

Just a minor point of correction.. Christ said that the greatest commandment was "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." The second commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself. Again, it may be a small point, but I submit that the second cannot be accomplished without the first.

Eagle Scout rank in Scouting.. Former Chaplain Aide, ASPL, SPL, JASM, and Troop Guide. Also, Chapter VC for Elections and Promotions, VC for Ceremonies, Chapter Chief, cermonialist, Lodge event chairman and adviser (as adult).. Currently Assistant Scoutmaster (and unofficial ceremony adviser) I also serve as an ecology instructor and Director at council summer camp. May be selected program director in near future..

Let us remember not to make these firm rules simply iron-clad expressions of our own personal tastes and preferences. For example, a scoutmaster may decree that card games like Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh are a distraction to the outdoor experience. Then, as night falls and the lanterns are fired up the scouters gather to play a rousing round of... CRIBBAGE!!! Also, let us take care that the rules that apply to us are applied to us. A scoutmaster might decree that scouts must use troop tents and pair up in them. This is for reasons of campsite aethetics and space. We should not find this scoutmaster then lounging in front of his ten man personal tent on the next campout should we? Robert Baden-Powell on the scoutmaster's qualities: " 1. He must have the boy spirit in him; and must be able to place himself on a right plane with his boys as a first step... ..With regard to the first point, the Scoutmaster has to be neither schoolmaster nor commanding officer, nor pastor, nor instructor... ..He has got to put himself on the level of the older brother, that is, to see things from the boy's point of view, and to lead and guide and give enthusiasm in the right direction. Like the true older brother he has to realise the traditions of the family and see that they are preserved, even if considerable firmness is required. That is all." It is no coincidence that in Boy Scouting, youth and adults wear the same uniforms. Scoutmasters must inforce many rules and sometimes create new ones, but they must be willing to subject themselves to the same rules as fellows to the scouts.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

packsaddle, haha, To my knowledge, I only said the word "skivies" once. In fact I had typed undies, but the word didn't look right and someone had said skivies, so I used the word. I would like to know exactly what is "sooooooo delicious" about hairy legs and halter tops. Someone seems a little too excited at the prospects..