Well, I guess I'm supposed to stop talking now because I've typed a response to Moosetracker twice and it has disappeared before I could hit post.

So I will leave it at that.

Hang in there Mom. You have a right to be here too. This new forum format has some bugs in it.

If a teenage boy who is sexually attracted to girls wanted to join a group for pubescent girls and go camping with them, would we call objectors intolerant or biased against boys?

If a couple of young men wanted to lead a group of pubescent girls on campouts would we preen our superior tolerance and wisdom as we accused those who objected of being religions fanatics or bigots?

Ya know jm.....I know a couple of scouters who don't go to church or believe in god...... It's ok, they are still good people and once again better folk than a number of bible thumpers I know.

OK, here I'm going to propose that we put the term, 'Bible thumper' into the same status as 'bigot' for the purposes of polite discussion. Use of either label is not likely to stimulate reasoned debate, nor is it likely to illuminate any previous stated ideas. Anyone object?

Getting back to the original topic of this thread: I don't think it matters whether groups like the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, or other similar groups are satisfied with the new policy (if there is a new policy) or not. I don't always agree with the specific positions of those groups, although I'm guessing that if I looked at a list of what they stand for, I would probably agree with a majority of it. However, the BSA needs to find a solution that works for it, and "local option" is it. If it doesn't completely resolve the issue with corporate or other donations, so be it. I never thought the issue should be about donations anyway. I have always thought the issue is that it is not right to force local units to discriminate against gay people, and this new proposal addresses that issue. I think this would resolve the issue within the BSA, even if it doesn't completely resolve the issues that outside groups may have.

Hey Pack, lets not be too hasty, perhaps we need to have a definition of what a "Bible Thumper" is. I mean, if I extol the virtures of the 10 Commandments, does that make me a "Bible Thumper'? If I enjoy the Sermon on the Mount or Matthew 25:40 "Whatever you do to the least ..." verse. Does that make me a Bible Thumper? I hope not

if instead, its someone's thought that their interpretation of the bible is different than mine, but they truly and deeply beleive it, do we have a Bible thumper or a difference of opinion that should be respected and not inflamatorily labeled?

Heh, heh, OGE I'll agree with you if I can see some actual thumping, lol. In my mind they guy who once in a while stands on a little crate in town or on campus and screams at all the wicked people qualifies as a Bible thumper because he actually thumps his Bible with his finger or hand when he's not waving it (the Bible) at people for emphasis. Mostly the wicked people just try to ignore him but a few cross the street to avoid him and once in a while someone will start yelling back. It's an interesting spectacle but I suspect he's not having as much impact because of the way he's trying to deliver the message. I could be wrong. I often am.

On the other hand, the guy I sometimes debate with regard to the age of the earth...I don't think of him as a Bible thumper although he bases his beliefs on it. What I think is that he is a person of devout faith who feels that there is an important conflict between his ideas and the ideas most of us hold to be true these days. But if he ever DOES start thumping a Bible......

AZMike - BSA National never intended for this story to get leaked out. Several weeks back they contacted all of their major religious chartered organizations and told them that this issue was going to be brought up at the National Board meeting in February. This was based upon a poll that National recently conducted of each of the 290+ BSA Councils. Each of these councils were asked if the existing BSA membership policy should be revisited at the upcoming National Board Meeting and well over two-thirds of them replied yes it should be - that it needed to be changed.

So, in an effort to keep their religious chartered organizations "in the loop" on this proposed membership change they contacted them with the details of what was being proposed and why it was being brought up. It should surprise no one that the Southern Baptist were extremely upset to hear of this even being discussed, especially since BSA National had just come out earlier in the year and confirmed their position of NOT changing the policy (or even revisiting it) and stating that the majority of everyone involved in Scouting was for maintaining our existing policy. The Southern Baptist contingent decided to contact various media sources and inform them of this proposed membership change in an effort to hopefully create a groundswell of grass-roots support for maintaining the existing policy, and for the National Board to hear that message.

The reason that National even conducted the poll of all of their Councils is that shortly after they released their statement earlier in the year about the BSA maintaining their existing membership policy, they were contacted by several "very large" Councils who were located in major metropolitan areas. These Councils informed BSA National that they were in fact going to ignore BSA's membership policy and start (continue) allowing gay scouts and scout leaders into their BSA units. BSA needed to see how big a problem that this was and thus the poll. Once National saw that almost 70% of all the Councils wanted a membership policy change they determined that they had to present it to the National Board for discussion.

Once the story leaked it has now moved from a topic of discussion to an actual agenda item that might be voted upon. In fact, if the 15 member Executive Committee decides in their meeting today (Monday) to present it to the full board for a vote that should take place tomorrow (Tuesday). In the past when agenda items were voted upon it was most often conducted by a "show of hands", but in regards to this particular item Board Members have requested that any voting be conducted by a secret written ballot. Quite a few members said that they would not even show up at that portion of the board meeting unless the secret ballot was allowed - so the National Board agreed to allow that voting method if this proposal comes before it. Hopefully this will clarify the why and how this issue came out in the open.

Wow, that is interesting! OK, I have to ask...how did you find all of this out?

Hey Pack, OGE here, just trying something out. I guess we can edit posts, just click on the edit box

A coalition of 33 Boy Scouts councils representing some 540,000 youth, or 20% of the BSA's 2.6 million active Scouts, wants to stall a decision by asking for another poll. Suddenly volunteer leaders are now considered stakeholders.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16841641-boy-scouts-councils-to-national-hq-dont-make-hasty-decision-on-gays

OK, this is extremely interesting. I have been wondering for years what the council members really believed. We have been told that "an overwhelming majority" of BSA members wanted to maintain the gay/athiest ban. It has always seemed to me that a minority has imposed this view on the the whole institution.

This has a familier ring to it. The Berlin Wall came down because a poorly briefed East German public information officer went into a press conference to announce a slight relaxing of restritions at border crossings. He wasn't prepared for the questions, the story got away from him and the news got out that the border was open. Mobs of Berliners showed up at the checkpoints and the guards were unsure of whether to shoot or open the gates. They did the latter and an era ended.

Like the German PIO, the Southern Baptist Church has unwittingly started in motion a chain of events that will be difficult if not impossible to reverse.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

This story, first printed on Jan. 28 (same day the news was spread here) mentions that stories were circulating a week earlier:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-scout-leaders-boy-scouts-likely-to-approve-major-policy-reversal-89014/
...
"A source who has knowledge of the situation told The Christian Post last week that the BSA's top executives had met with top leaders at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, among others, over the last few weeks to inform them of the possibility of this policy shift."
...

Lodge489, you say that the vote of the full board would take place Tuesday (that is, today.) However, I just did a Google search on this issue and found a couple of articles that say the vote would be taken on Wednesday (tomorrow.) Do you (or does anybody else here) know which is correct? Also, you mention that the executive committee would have voted yesterday, is there any way of knowing how that turned out?

I can tell you that after all the attention that this has received -- including from the pastor of the church that is my troop's CO, who I learned on Scout Sunday has been following this issue and is expecting the policy to be changed, and wants it to be changed -- if this change is NOT approved, it is going to create a public relations disaster of epic proportions.