Boy 11(atheist) banned from Scouts

Daveaherne

A 11 year old boy was banned from joining the scouts in the UK because he is an atheist. Shows yet again how loving and tolerant some believers are.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4596343/Boy-banned-from-Scouts-because-he-doesnt-believe-in-God.html#ixzz29kXibK3r

Peregrinus

What do you want? It's an explicitly theist organisation, with theism as a stated membership requirement. Always has been. There are nontheist and inclusive alternatives. Admittedly, they have to put up with the humiliation of being known as the "Woodcraft Folk", which is a lot to ask of any self-respecting 11-year-old boy, but you can hardly blame the theists for that.

I think you're entitled to a Groucho Marx moment when you read a story like this. But "intolerant"? Really? If a bunch of like-minded theists can't get together in paramilitary uniforms for a spot of caving and swearing allegiance to the Queen, it's not the theists who are being intolerant.

pauldla

There are alternatives to joining the scouts. Like, not joining the scouts, for example.:p

obplayer

Why can't he just do what I did and lie? Didn't believe a word of religion but had great fun in the Sea Scouts.

wonderfulname

Yup, that's the scouts for you. The US scouts also recently kicked out a member in the states for being gay, although it wasn't much of a surprise as they've been running with a policy along the lines of DADT for over 20 years.

Personally I think it despicable that adults running an organisation which promotes civic and social responsibility would earmark youths as different to their peers before isolating them for that fact. It's also horribly ironic they can cite Christianity to do so.

As a non believing baptised Catholic I was granted membership to a CoI organisation as a child, one considerably more religious than I remember the Scouts being, because all of my school friends were members, and it was understood that not being a prick to a child was more important than enforcing the stupid divides that seem to define adult life for some. I don't get why this concept is so hard, the kid is 11, he shouldn't be affected by this stuff.

Galvasean

Would letting the atheist kid in not give him a nice dose of good ol' fashioned Christian compassion? Might make him ,ore like;y to change his mind. Instead he's just going to think Christians are sectarian meanies and resent them for it.

Sulla Felix

Galvasean wrote: »

Would letting the atheist kid in not give him a nice dose of good ol' fashioned Christian compassion? Might make him ,ore like;y to change his mind. Instead he's just going to think Christians are sectarian meanies and resent them for it.

Maybe they're hoping the exclusion will make him convert or something.

Peregrinus

Galvasean wrote: »

Would letting the atheist kid in not give him a nice dose of good ol' fashioned Christian compassion? Might make him ,ore like;y to change his mind. Instead he's just going to think Christians are sectarian meanies and resent them for it.

So if he declines to take a theist oath because he doesn't believe in it, he's being principled and displaying integrity, but if they say their theism is foundational to what they're about, they're being sectarian and mean?

Lucy8080

we need a repubilican kid claiming he will not take an oath to the queen standing alongside this kid who will not take an oath to any god!

I'd love to see two eleven year old' doing this!

And ,more'so, watch the daily mail reporting on it!

If only for the craic!

Peregrinus

Lucy8080 wrote: »

we need a repubilican kid claiming he will not take an oath to the queen standing alongside this kid who will not take an oath to any god!

I'd love to see two eleven year old' doing this!

And ,more'so, watch the daily mail reporting on it!

If only for the craic!

A gay agnostic republican!

endacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

A gay agnostic republican!

You know of such a republican?!?

the_syco

The Pratt didn't want to take the oath, so wasn't allowed in. Simples.

It'd be like wanting to be part of ÓSF but being a loyalist that believes Ireland should join the UK...

endacl

the_syco wrote: »

The Pratt didn't want to take the oath, so wasn't allowed in. Simples.

It'd be like wanting to be part of ÓSF but being a loyalist that believes Ireland should join the UK...

Not wanting to lie made him a prat? Thinking that, while spelling 'prat' incorrectly, makes you look a bit of a prat tbh...

Delirium

endacl wrote: »

Not wanting to lie made him a prat? Thinking that, while spelling 'prat' incorrectly, makes you look a bit of a prat tbh...

the kids surname is Pratt, it's a pun;)

gbee

I'm an atheist, the scouts are a Christian org with a belief in God system. Fine, I've no problem with that, I admire the boy for standing up for himself but well understand that admitted atheists could not attend.

MrPudding

It is all very well saying that it is a christian organisation and if the child does not want to take the oath then he should not be able to join, but that, to an extent makes light of what is actually an issue here.

This is a organisation for children that has an exemption to discrimination legislation that give it free reign to discriminate against a child based on their, or their parents belief. We, as in most of the regulars on this forum, believe that schools should not be allowed to do this, why should the scouts be any different?

I joined the Army Cadets when I live in Northern Ireland, basically scouts with guns. They did not have any religiously discriminating joining policies, nor would they have been allowed to have one.

Would it be acceptable for a golf club to only allow christian to join? Why does the scouts have an exemption?

MrP

pauldla

MrPudding wrote: »

It is all very well saying that it is a christian organisation and if the child does not want to take the oath then he should not be able to join, but that, to an extent makes light of what is actually an issue here.

This is a organisation for children that has an exemption to discrimination legislation that give it free reign to discriminate against a child based on their, or their parents belief. We, as in most of the regulars on this forum, believe that schools should not be allowed to do this, why should the scouts be any different?

I joined the Army Cadets when I live in Northern Ireland, basically scouts with guns. They did not have any religiously discriminating joining policies, nor would they have been allowed to have one.

Would it be acceptable for a golf club to only allow christian to join? Why does the scouts have an exemption?

MrP

Well, should schools be allowed to do this? If somebody wants to set up a school that teaches a creationist curriculum, and only accepts students that subscribe to that belief, I'd say why not? So long as they don't get a penny of state money, and also teach the core curriculum, good luck to them.

The Army Cadets are not quite the same thing, as it is a state-run body. Do the Scouts receive any state funding?

MrPudding

pauldla wrote: »

Well, should schools be allowed to do this? If somebody wants to set up a school that teaches a creationist curriculum, and only accepts students that subscribe to that belief, I'd say why not? So long as they don't get a penny of state money, and also teach the core curriculum, good luck to them.

The Army Cadets are not quite the same thing, as it is a state-run body. Do the Scouts receive any state funding?

Does a golf club receive state funding?

MrP

pauldla

MrPudding wrote: »

Does a golf club receive state funding?

MrP

I have no idea, sorry. How about the scouts, do you know?

Sulla Felix

pauldla wrote: »

Well, should schools be allowed to do this? If somebody wants to set up a school that teaches a creationist curriculum, and only accepts students that subscribe to that belief, I'd say why not? So long as they don't get a penny of state money, and also teach the core curriculum, good luck to them.

The Army Cadets are not quite the same thing, as it is a state-run body. Do the Scouts receive any state funding?

The only hard figures I can find for federal funding is the DoD spending a few million a year that seems to be ringfenced for the national jamboree.
On the state level coverage is patchy. It seems a some states over the past few years have removed funding, denied them their traditional preferential access to state land and restricted their fund raising initiatives in certain areas.

The wiki page is interesting. It seems to be another of those issues that America hasn't made up it's mind about, with the state and federal legislatures jousting one way or the other.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

Dades

I'm not sure I'm outraged. I mean, the scouts have always pretty much nailed their colours to the mast.

That said, if the scouts allow for a different oath for Muslims (oh, I wonder why) then why can't they come up with some tiny change that allow him swear his allegiance to the scouts or something.

MagicMarker

I think it's poor form that a charity that is set up for children should be allowed to discriminate against children on the basis of religion.

If the scouts profess themselves to be an inclusive organisation then they should be all inclusive.

Bear Grylls (Chief Scout) - "Scouting has something to offer everyone, no matter your religion, ethnicity or belief, and I'm so proud that we offer an environment for people of all backgrounds to come together and enjoy themselves."

Chris Foster (Scout Spokesman) - "There are an awful lot of people out there who still think that scouts are just a Christian-based organisation whereas it encompasses all different faiths. It doesn't matter who you are, what you are or what colour your skin is or what faith you are."

Also, the Scouts seem to be selective when it comes to their own policies, as they gave honourary badges last year to the likes of Stephen Fry and Terry Pratchett.

Mickeroo

Had no idea the scouts were christian based at all before this thread!

MrPudding

pauldla wrote: »

I have no idea, sorry. How about the scouts, do you know?

TBH, it was a bit of a rhetorical question. You seem to be trying to say that as long as there is no state funding they can do what they want, I was trying to point out that not getting state funding, a golf club, does not mean the organisation can discriminate.

I don't know if the scouts receive state funding, but I don't think it is relevant. Private organisations and businesses still have to comply with discrimination legislation unless, like the church, schools and the scouts, they have an exemption. I would question whether, in the 21st century, a organisation that is for kids and supposedly prides itself on inclusion, should be allowed to legally discriminate against a growing section of the population.

MrP

MagicMarker

The Scouts are a charity, so they would get state funding in the form of tax breaks. Not that it makes a difference.

pauldla

MrPudding wrote: »

TBH, it was a bit of a rhetorical question. You seem to be trying to say that as long as there is no state funding they can do what they want, I was trying to point out that not getting state funding, a golf club, does not mean the organisation can discriminate.

I don't know if the scouts receive state funding, but I don't think it is relevant. Private organisations and businesses still have to comply with discrimination legislation unless, like the church, schools and the scouts, they have an exemption. I would question whether, in the 21st century, a organisation that is for kids and supposedly prides itself on inclusion, should be allowed to legally discriminate against a growing section of the population.

MrP

Ah, I see. Didn't quite understand why you were asking that. Sorry, long day at work.

Well, that is what I'm saying. If they are a private, theistic organisation, they get to call the shots on who they will accept. I might not like their admissions policy (and from the posts above - I too am learning loads about the scouts reading this - it seems their policy is a little confused, to put it mildly), but it's their ball. Now, if they have found workarounds for kids with other beliefs, eg Muslims, you would imagine they could work something out for kids who profess to be atheists. In that sense I think they have treated young master Pratt rather unfairly.

BTW, would it be true to say that golf clubs etc do discriminate, but that they are not allowed to discriminate on grounds of ethnicity, religious belief, etc? After all, we all discriminate, in the strict sense of the word. It's what stops us from eating our shoes for breakfast.

Wereghost

Mickeroo wrote: »

Had no idea the scouts were christian based at all before this thread!

I was a little surprised by it, but I probably knew at some point as I used to be a Cub Scout.

MagicMarker wrote: »

The Scouts are a charity, so they would get state funding in the form of tax breaks. Not that it makes a difference.

In that case, they probably shouldn't be allowed to ostracise kids whose parents' income contributes to their funding. The whole thing is kind of absurd, anyway. How can a ten-year-old possibly have an informed position on the existence or non-existence of a deity?

Grayson

I just read the article. How come he attended for 9 months first?

MrPudding

pauldla wrote: »

BTW, would it be true to say that golf clubs etc do discriminate, but that they are not allowed to discriminate on grounds of ethnicity, religious belief, etc? After all, we all discriminate, in the strict sense of the word. It's what stops us from eating our shoes for breakfast.

They discriminate against non-members, but they can't discriminate against an applicant for membership on a protected ground. So they can say "you are getting in because you aren't a member" but they can't say, "you can't be a member because you don't believe in god."

Grayson wrote: »

I just read the article. How come he attended for 9 months first?

You kind of join on a provisional basis and then after a period you make your membership official, become "invested."

MrP

krudler

""Don't do what Donny Don't does"..sigh, they could have made this clearer"

Stercus Accidit

krudler wrote: »

""Don't do what Donny Don't does"..sigh, they could have made this clearer"

Didn't Bart join so he could get a pocket knife in that episode? Perhaps if we give the atheist child a knife he will be happy enough with that, all the better to slaughter a lamb on the dark alter of satan at the next black mass.

magicbastarder

Mickeroo wrote: »

Had no idea the scouts were christian based at all before this thread!

in ireland, they're not (explicitly, anyway) any longer.

though there is an organisation called the boy's brigade, which predates the scouts (i'm led to believe that they reckon baden powell nicked the idea from them) which is faith based, on protestant lines.

the_syco

magicbastarder wrote: »

though there is an organisation called the boy's brigade, which predates the scouts (i'm led to believe that they reckon baden powell nicked the idea from them) which is faith based, on protestant lines.

The scouts were always scouts, but they were for a time Catholic Boy Scouts;

During the 1920’s some of those with aspirations for the new Ireland felt uncomfortable with the focus of the existing Scout Association, which tended to have a pro-British and Protestant image.

so they made a CBSI. But I agree that Baden probably nicked the idea, unless he had served in an army before then.

=-=

Sort of like the other group; Freemasonry. If you don't believe in a god, you can't get in.

Sulla Felix

I think it was the CBSI I was in. We said the Father prayer in Irish at the start and that was literally the extent of religion. Now, I went to a secular primary so that was a bit of a wierd thing to stand in lines and say a prayer, but I guess it's a lot less than what went on in national schools at the time.

Peregrinus

Mickeroo wrote: »

Had no idea the scouts were christian based at all before this thread!

They’re not. They’re theist-based.

magicbastarder wrote: »

in ireland, they're not (explicitly, anyway) any longer.

Not quite right, I think. Scouting in Ireland used to be divided along denominational lines, and it no longer is. But the Scouting Ireland oath still includes the bit about “doing my duty to God”, which is what brought matters to a head in the case mentioned in the OP. There is, however, an alternative version of the oath in which that wording can be replaced with a reference to “furthering my understanding and acceptance of a Spiritual Reality”, which may not be called God but still gets Capital Letters.

Dave!

Is Scouts the same organisation as Beavers and Cubs? I was in those when I was a kid, left before Scouts though. There was no mention of religion when I was there, except perhaps in an oath or whatever (though I don't recall that).

the_syco

Dave! wrote: »

Is Scouts the same organisation as Beavers and Cubs? I was in those when I was a kid, left before Scouts though. There was no mention of religion when I was there, except perhaps in an oath or whatever (though I don't recall that).

Yes. Most of the halls don't bother shoving it down your throat, but it is there in the oaths, etc. I remember when I was a scout, and a blind eye was turned when a protestant joined with his mates.

Lucy8080

MrPudding wrote: »

It is all very well saying that it is a christian organisation and if the child does not want to take the oath then he should not be able to join, but that, to an extent makes light of what is actually an issue here.

This is a organisation for children that has an exemption to discrimination legislation that give it free reign to discriminate against a child based on their, or their parents belief. We, as in most of the regulars on this forum, believe that schools should not be allowed to do this, why should the scouts be any different?

I joined the Army Cadets when I live in Northern Ireland, basically scouts with guns. They did not have any religiously discriminating joining policies, nor would they have been allowed to have one.

Would it be acceptable for a golf club to only allow christian to join? Why does the scouts have an exemption?

MrP

It's great to hear that teenagers can carry guns ,regardless of any religious discriminatory policies!

I'll sleep easy tonight!

Nodin

Lucy8080 wrote: »

It's great to hear that teenagers can carry guns ,regardless of any religious discriminatory policies!

I'll sleep easy tonight!

You've a point?

mathepac

MrPudding wrote: »

... This is a organisation for children that has an exemption to discrimination legislation that give it free reign to discriminate against a child based on their, or their parents belief. We, as in most of the regulars on this forum, believe that schools should not be allowed to do this, why should the scouts be any different?. ...

BS I cry, total BS.

The child's parents would have known in great detail what joining a scouting movement founded by Baden Powell would have involved and are therefore guilty of using their child to stage some sort of stupidly cheap publicity stunt. I mean to say, The Sun for feck's sake.

MrPudding wrote: »

... I joined the Army Cadets when I live in Northern Ireland, basically scouts with guns. They did not have any religiously discriminating joining policies, nor would they have been allowed to have one. ...

And in joining the Army Cadets you would have sworn an oath as well to serve the crown and God Bless all who sail in him or her as the case may be, or were you allowed to affirm in those days?

The caring parents in the raggy newspaper are guilty of abusing their child by not explaining that he was attempting to join a theist movement and what would be required of him; a more effective and caring response would have been to start a non-theist or non-denominational scouting movement.

Cheap publicity, exploitative parents and yellow journalism. I'd be concerned for the sanity of supporters of the crappy newspaper's self-righteouness. Well done The Sun & Co., another inglorious victory.

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

You've a point?

Typically not...

mathepac wrote: »

BS I cry, total BS.

The child's parents would have known in great detail what joining a scouting movement founded by Baden Powell would have involved and are therefore guilty of using their child to stage some sort of stupidly cheap publicity stunt. I mean to say, The Sun for feck's sake.

Leaving aside the parent's poor choice of newspaper, I think you are kind of missing the point. Are you saying that because, when it was formed, the scouting movement had a discriminatory policy it should be allowed to continue that? If that is the attitude we would still have the blacks at the back of the buses, using separate water fountains and going to separate schools.

The scouts were born in an age where there was no anti-discrimination legislation and it was perfectly fine to discriminate on certain grounds. Thankfully society has moved on and most of these grounds for discrimination have been seen for what they are, disgusting and unnecessary. Soon we will have remove discrimination based what happens in the privacy of a person's bedroom removed. This only leaves what is one of the most insidious of the grounds of discrimination, religion.

I am sure the parents did know the history of the scouts, but perhaps they believed what certain people in the scouts have said on record, see MagicMarker's earlier post, or perhaps assumed that in the 21st century such discrimination would not be allowed.

mathepac wrote: »

And in joining the Army Cadets you would have sworn an oath as well to serve the crown and God Bless all who sail in him or her as the case may be, or were you allowed to affirm in those days?

We had to swear allegiance to the queen. I recall that during the ceremony my two "catholic" best friends and I had our fingers crossed behind our backs as we said it.

That said, I am not sure of the relevance of your point. As I already said, there was no religious denominational requirement for entry, and even if there was a believe in god element whether one person chooses to pretend they believe does not mean another child should do the same.

mathepac wrote: »

The caring parents in the raggy newspaper are guilty of abusing their child by not explaining that he was attempting to join a theist movement and what would be required of him; a more effective and caring response would have been to start a non-theist or non-denominational scouting movement.

Yes, because starting you own scout movement is something you can box off in an afternoon. :rolleyes:

I think you will find it hard to justify the child abuse claim for this. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is conceivable that they simply did not realise that this particular group were so strict and operated in such a discriminatory manner. The fact that they are legally allowed to discriminate in this manner does not remove from the fact that it is discrimination.

mathepac wrote: »

Cheap publicity, exploitative parents and yellow journalism. I'd be concerned for the sanity of supporters of the crappy newspaper's self-righteouness. Well done The Sun & Co., another inglorious victory.

What paper it is in does not really take away from the fact that it happened... I am not sure what your point is here. Personally I can't stand the Sun, but whether it was reported there or anywhere else the salient fact is that it happened.

MrP

MagicMarker

mathepac wrote: »

BS I cry, total BS.

The child's parents would have known in great detail what joining a scouting movement founded by Baden Powell would have involved and are therefore guilty of using their child to stage some sort of stupidly cheap publicity stunt. I mean to say, The Sun for feck's sake.

And in joining the Army Cadets you would have sworn an oath as well to serve the crown and God Bless all who sail in him or her as the case may be, or were you allowed to affirm in those days?

The caring parents in the raggy newspaper are guilty of abusing their child by not explaining that he was attempting to join a theist movement and what would be required of him; a more effective and caring response would have been to start a non-theist or non-denominational scouting movement.

Cheap publicity, exploitative parents and yellow journalism. I'd be concerned for the sanity of supporters of the crappy newspaper's self-righteouness. Well done The Sun & Co., another inglorious victory.

Do you have some kind of insider information that we are not aware of? How do you know if the parents knew how the Scouts operated? And what have they achieved for themselves in pulling a "publicity stunt"?

I didn't know how religious the organisation was until recently, there are people in this thread who didn't know. I looked at their website and it took me quite a while to find anything about religion.

Or are you maybe just pulling this information out of your arse?

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

This is a organisation for children that has an exemption to discrimination legislation . . . Why does the scouts have an exemption?

A misconception. The scouts have no exemption from discrimination legislation.

There is nothing in the discrimination legislation to prevent a bunch of people sharing a common religious belief (or a common sex, or a common sexual orentiation, or a common disabled status, or a common ethnic origin, or whatever) from getting together. The Scout Association being an association of theists is no different from the Girl Guides Association being an association of girls, or the Irish Sceptical Society being an association of sceptics, or the Presbyterian Church in Ireland being an association of Presbyterians. There no law to prohibit this (why would there be?) and therefore none of these organisations need, and none of them have, any "exemption".

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

A misconception. The scouts have no exemption from discrimination legislation.

Really?

Equality Act 2010, s193(5) wrote:

It is not a contravention of this Act for a charity to require members, or persons wishing to become members, to make a statement which asserts or implies membership or acceptance of a religion or belief; and for this purpose restricting the access by members to a benefit, facility or service to those who make such a statement is to be treated as imposing such a requirement.

That looks suspiciously like an exemption from discrimination legislation to me...

MrP

What happened to boys 1-10

mikemac1

Mickeroo wrote: »

Had no idea the scouts were christian based at all before this thread!

Catholic Boys Scouts of Ireland were in my town, I was a member

They were probably in your town too

google tells me the name changed to Scouting Ireland in 1997

I feel old

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Really?

That looks suspiciously like an exemption from discrimination legislation to me...

MrP

Except that the Scout Association don't rely on s. 193(5). They don;t have to because of Sch 16 cl. 1, which states"

"An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic."

S. 101(1) is the provision which prevents an association from discriminating against people in the arrangements them make for admission to membership. The combination of the two provisions mean that it's fine to set up an association for people of a particular sex, race, religious belief, family status, etc. But, having done so, you can't discriminate between people who share that necessary characteristic. So the Christian Mother's Sodality can exclude someone who isn't Christian, or who isn't a Mother, but they couldn't exclude an otherwise qualified Christian Mother on the grounds that she's, say, disabled.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except that the Scout Association don't rely on s. 193(5). They don;t have to because of Sch 16 cl. 1, which states"

"An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic."

S. 101(1) is the provision which prevents an association from discriminating against people in the arrangements them make for admission to membership. The combination of the two provisions mean that it's fine to set up an association for people of a particular sex, race, religious belief, family status, etc. But, having done so, you can't discriminate between people who share that necessary characteristic. So the Christian Mother's Sodality can exclude someone who isn't Christian, or who isn't a Mother, but they couldn't exclude an otherwise qualified Christian Mother on the grounds that she's, say, disabled.

Meh, either way, they do have an exception contrary to what you said. And the main point still remains that it is, to many, questionable whether or not an association or charity should be allowed to discriminate.

MrP

mathepac

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do you have some kind of insider information that we are not aware of? ...

No more than any reasonably well-informed adult

MagicMarker wrote: »

... How do you know if the parents knew how the Scouts operated? ...

Unless they and their ancestors have lived in a deep cave on Dartmoor for several generations they must have heard of Baden Powell, "Scouting for Boys", the Boy Scout movement, etc

MagicMarker wrote: »

... And what have they achieved for themselves in pulling a "publicity stunt"? ...

Deserved derision, justified contempt, massive belly laughs at their expense, concern for their sanity and their suitability as parents, worry for their child(ren)...

MagicMarker wrote: »

...
I didn't know how religious the organisation was until recently, there are people in this thread who didn't know. I looked at their website and it took me quite a while to find anything about religion. ...

What do you want me to say? You lack information that's in the public domain for more than a century, "common knowledge" as they say. It seems it might be as scarce as common sense

MagicMarker wrote: »

...Or are you maybe just pulling this information out of your arse?

In order to donate it to The Sun in order to improve their content? Nah, there's enough of that stuff, human and bovine. around.

MagicMarker

mathepac wrote: »

No more than any reasonably well-informed adult
Unless they and their ancestors have lived in a deep cave on Dartmoor for several generations they must have heard of Baden Powell, "Scouting for Boys", the Boy Scout movement, etc
Deserved derision, justified contempt, massive belly laughs at their expense, concern for their sanity and their suitability as parents, worry for their child(ren)...
What do you want me to say? You lack information that's in the public domain for more than a century, "common knowledge" as they say. It seems it might be as scarce as common sense
In order to donate it to The Sun in order to improve their content? Nah, there's enough of that stuff, human and bovine. around.

So you're just assuming the parents already knew how the scouts operated? So you are kinda just making things up? Okay, well that's all you had to say really.

the_syco

bluewolf wrote: »

What happened to boys 1-10

6-8; beavers
9-11; cubs
12-15; scouts
15-17; ventures