Eagle Board of Review and God

[DanKroh]

Packsaddle asks, "Dan, curiosity is about to kill me again, what's the atheist symbol?"

 

It's an A with a circle around it, I believe. (Darned close to a pentagram, if you think about it)

[GernBlansten]

Uh, Dan, that's the anarchy symbol. While I would agree that all atheists must be anarchists, I'm not sure all anarchists are atheists!

[DanKroh]

Oops, thanks Gern for the correction. The atheist symbol is an A within a set of three electron orbitals (it's #16 on the chart):

 

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html

[packsaddle]

really strange double post, drat! how did THAT happen!

Oh what the (mythical place)! As long as I'm here, I think there are plenty of atheists whose political ideas are a long way from anarchy. That pentagram thing is interesting. Isn't that like, you know, the non-Jewish star or Star of Bethlehem or something? I know I've seen it in church many times. Isn't it supposed to represent the five knightly virtues, or the five wounds of Christ, or something like that?

 

Maybe they were looking at it upside down, in which case they confused it as a symbol of that other mythical figure.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Gunny2862]

uh, question.

 

Bobwhite said, "There is nothing in the policies of the BSA that keeps a unit from setting their own rerquirements for a POR. Setting requirements for a POR is not the same as adding or deleting requirements for a rank."

 

Question is, If a POR is required for advancement to a rank AND additional requirements are added by the Troop to be allowed to hold a POR, THEN isn't that adding requirements for the rank?

 

Or do I not understand the main point again.?

[packsaddle]

You know, Ed asked a good question,

"Bob,

What exactly do you mean by

 

'and the fact is that religion is not an element of a board of review.?'"

 

I'm curious to know the answer as well. Actually glad to know this fact. It will be a big help in each future BOR in this unit.

[FScouter]

Duty to God is an element of a board of review. "Religion" is not a forbidden topic, but how a boy practices religion should not be used as a criteria for whether he successfully completes the review. Rather, the discussion should be on how he fulfills his duty to God.

[Bob White]

Gern.

I did not say that you questioned the LDS as a CO. Please read my post again.

 

Gunny

Setting requirements for a POR has no relationship to changing requirements for rank advancement. the BSA program specifically allows units to set their own POR requirements. Some units for example set age and/or rank requirements for POR, some have training or attendance requirements for POR. This is not adding to or subtracting from any rank requirement.

 

Packsaddle,

I have already explained how it is not a requirement. Rather than ask me to explain again, why not ask ed to explian how he believes it is required. As I recall ed has been a scoutmaster, scout leader trainer, and a commissioner for many years. I would think he would be well suited to explain his knowledge on the subject.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[GernBlansten]

BW:"No I am not, but then am I am not the one saying that they are not qualified to be a CO as Gern and you are implying about the church"

 

You asserted that I (Gern) am implying that the LDS is not qualified to be a CO. Please explain your comment.

[Crew21_Adv]

Fellow Scouters,

 

Greetings again!

 

 

I find it hard to believe the disappointment of some forum members of the EBOR participants. I have been invited to sit EBORs before. Over a few years, I can't say I have been on numerous Eagle BOR. But I have been on a few.

 

Every Council and District Advancement Chair should be trained to their position. They should understand sensitive topics. They should review and have a good working knowledge of the Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures. They should also understand "ages and stages", a 13 y/o Eagle Scout candidate may not answer the same as a 17 Eagle Scout candidate. But still, while an EBOR is interviewing a teenage Scout, they are also interviewing a potential Eagle Scout. A youth leader.

 

I would honestly be suprised to meet a Council or District Advancement Chair that does not understand their responsibilities.

 

Now... I do not have my manuals in front of me right now. But I thought any advancement committee only has two decisions, and up to three actions. The decide Recommend or not recommend. They must act by first, signing an advancement report form 34403B for every Scout Rank. If the decision is unanimous to recommen approval of the applicant, the second action would be for the Chairman of the EBOR needs to sign the form 58-728A.

 

If the EBOR decides not to recommend. First, the sign the advancement report form 34403B for every Scout Rank. Second, at the bottom of the advancement report form 34403B, they list Scouts not recommended for advancement. Third return the form 58-728A to the council service center and fourth to explain to the Scout, verbal and in writing why failed to qualify.

 

I understood there is not an option to deny a candidate, once a candidate feels they are qualified to apply again. They may request another EBOR. I would trust an EBOR committee and a Council District to be briefed on the agenda of an EBOR.

 

So why members of our forum become angry with BOR or EBOR members, I am honestly confused. Members of our forum stated that Scouts have been denied. The Eagle Scout candidates are not "denied". Candidates are "not recommended".

 

If EBORs where to pass each and every candidate. No matter of their beliefs, their behaviors, their academic record or their criminal record. No matter of their citizenship, their leadership, their character development. Then why have an EBOR at all?

 

If fellow Scouters want to complain about the decisions of an EBOR, then what do those that complain about Advancement Chairs or EBOR members recommend. Should BSA just place the Eagle Rank patch and Eagle Scout Medal on sale at the trading post? For under 3 dollars anyone could be an Eagle?

 

I would place my trust in an EBOR. I would place my trust in a Council Committee to select a qualified Council Advancement Chair. I would hope that those whom complain about an EBOR or the Advancement Chair may approach their Council Committee and inquire about the qualifications of these members.

 

 

Scouting Forever and Venture On!

Crew21 Adv

[Bob White]

Crew21Adv

 

Yes, every Council and District advancement chair should be trained in their responsibilities and knowledgable about BSA advancement....but they're not. Every adult volunteer should be trained...but they're not either.

 

In the council I serve the council advancement committee is made of some very experienced veteran scouters with loads of training...whose learning stopped 15 years ago or longer. Their knowledge and understanding of the current advancement procedures and regulations are sadly lacking.

 

I am sure this is not the case in many councils, I am also sure that it is probably the same in many councils.

 

Whether you look at it as being denied advancement or not recommended for advancement depents on which side of the table you are sitting on.

 

The fact is there is a right way and a wrong way to not recommend a scout and it seems many advancement committee personnel are oblivious to the right way, but very experienced in the wrong way.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[GernBlansten]

Bob, please reread my posts. I never mentioned Scientology. Never once. I mentioned the LDS having specific requirements for PORs. Is it just your imagination? Where did I mention that any church is not qualified to be a CO?

[scoutingagain]

"I would place my trust in an EBOR. I would place my trust in a Council Committee to select a qualified Council Advancement Chair."

 

Crewadv, I would agree. Which is why when a member of an EBOR abuses that trust by not recommending a qualified candidate for reasons having nothing to do with the requirements of the award, we who are here to serve the youth, are so disappointed.

 

SA

[Bob White]

My sincere apologies Gern I confused a post from dan with you.

 

My error.

BW

[evmori]

I have already explained how it is not a requirement.

 

Where?

 

 

A Scout is Reverent.

A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

 

I have never stated it isn't required.

 

I agree that a Scout doesn't need to be a member of an organized religion to meet this point of the Law. But in what official BSA document does it state any BOR may not ask how the Scout meets this point of the law?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10