Side comment to BadenP: Usually your negative (and sometimes nasty) comments about BSA National seem very exaggerated and unnecessary to me. But on this subject, it is difficult for me to image a group of highly paid professionals, with their public relations advisors and consultants, handling a situation worse than National has handled this one, and I am talking specifically about the last month. It is almost as if they were TRYING to damage the organization that pays their salaries. I don't think they really are, which I guess just leaves massive incompetence as the explanation. However this all plays out, and assuming there is still a BSA to run after it's all over, I hope this organization can figure out a different and better way to govern itself.

> how then do the local units differentiate?

How do local units differentiate now? Some focus on full uniforms, some focus on merit badges, some focus on boy-led. Some go to Philmont regularly, some have never gone. Some only go backpacking, and others only go car camping. Some are more boy-led, some are chaotic, some are adult-led, some are small, some are large. Some place more emphasis on religion (awards, services, etc). Some have young leaders, some have old leaders. Some have women leaders, some don't. Some earn JTE Gold, some don't.

How do people find out? They show up, they observe, they ask questions. They look at websites. If they care about something, they ask. Why would gay leaders be any different?

This is one of the strangest things I've ever seen. I just tried to add a comment to something AZMike wrote and it ended up here in this post by Eagledad.
If this just deleted something, I apologize. It was completely unintended.
Eagledad, if you DID try to post something, please post it again. I have no idea what happened.
Packsaddle

Double posted sorry

I would just like to put out there......

If your unit is in jeopardy of your CO drop their charter you can find another CO for your unit. If this is what you must do then so be it. But, please, work with your current CO to try to make the transition a smooth one. For example, you will need to get your existing CO's permission to move the unit to another CO even if they drop the charter. The reason for this is that the CO owns all equipment and funds of the unit. If they are not chartering a unit, they have the option of donating these items to the Council, donating to another unit, or holding them in their possession for the future use of a scouting unit. I only say this so that someone doesn't face legal action should they decide to find another CO and just gathering up everything and taking it with them without permission.

Man, this is even weirder! I tried to write a response to Eagledad, and I wound up in a post by AZMike! What's going on? Where am I? I'm lost in cyberspace!

Packsaddle

(j/k)............ ;}

My Church CO does not like the direction the BSA is taking but is comfortable that the CO's keep their authority to select leaders. This one factor was key that helped us to recently complete our re-charter.

With the exception of 2 folks in my neck of the woods, everything I've heard is negative, very negative. So negative, that only two of the liberal folks I know are for the change. When the topci came up at RT, I mentioned how the UMC and Presbyterian Churches are internal movers for this change. One of the comments was "Can I give you my dollar now?" as my CO is more conservative and he is sponsored by a local UMC.

I do not know what will happen, but I see us losing members. As stated repeatedly, I lost one CO when DALE was going to SCOTUS. And I think we just loss the district commissioner over this issue. When I talked to him prior to the postponement announcement, he was furious.

One fear I do have if the change occurs, those outside groups applying pressure will NOT be happy with local option, and will continue with the iractivities. Several folks have already said "it is a good first step," and "while not the ultimate, it's better than 7 months ago" (referring to the report that came out on the topic after a 2 year study).

AZMike wrote, among other things

Thanks for bringing this up, as it probably is an issue that hasn't been fully addressed in this discussion. If people will dissolve their congregations and long-standing synods over their moral stands, which are presumably much more important and intense relationships for them than which scout troop their sons are in, what does that bode for the future of Scouting under the New Model?

This formerly thriving church in St. Paul closed its doors after the congregation rejected the pastor's new hobbyhorse of support for gay marriage: http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_20975779/pastor-whose-congregation-dwindled-after-supporting-gay-marriage

The Lutheran schism over gays will wind up impacting many of the social service networks they have built up, which also doesn't bode well for the BSA - again, the demands of the few will outweigh the needs of the many: http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Lutheran-split-over-gays-and-the-Bible-shakes-up-multibillion-dollar-social-service-network.aspx

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/lutherans_split_over_gay_pasto.html

The Ethiopian Lutherans just severed their relationship with the English church over this issue: http://www.christianpost.com/news/ethiopian-church-severs-ties-with-lutherans-over-homosexuality-89745/

First of all, your constant reference to the proposed new local option policy as a "New Model" of Scouting is clever, but I don't think it's correct. The new policy would really just be a slight expansion of the very wide latitude that local units already have in selecting their own leaders. Almost all factors that I can think of are already matters of local option. The exceptions are child abusers, criminals (generally speaking; even there, ther is some local latitude) and atheists -- and currently, people who are openly gay. Maybe there are one or two others but I cannot think of them at the moment. All the new policy would do is move openly gay people from one column to the other column -- the one that already contains most factors that go into selecting leaders. This does not seem like a "new model", especially not with capital letters.

Second, your observations about the different churches only confirms what is already obvious: Our society is deeply divided over how to treat gay people. It is inevitable that this division will be reflected in our institutions, including religious organizations and the BSA. Since the BSA tries to encompass all segments of society, including all religions, a policy that reflects this division, and allows the unit-owners (the CO's) to make the decision that works for them and their members, is the right policy.

Eagle92, what I am hearing is just the opposite.

I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that I live in New Jersey, and you live in North Carolina. Across the country, there are a number of states that are more like New Jersey on this issue, and a number that are more like North Carolina. So how does the BSA deal with this issue and continue to be a nationwide organization?

Yes. Actually I believe that our troop and pack are beyond the danger threshold . Without any discussion with the church/ CO, we were sent a certified letter (via the council, I understand) that our 36-year relationship was ending.

I sortof feel that a lot of you are missing a point here.
To me, it's not really about how it might affect my unit, my personal experience, or my son't experience..... well yes it is to a lesser degree, but there is something bigger.
It's a case of watering down the moral experience. A case of dilution.

Blw2, Please explain. What IS the "moral experience" that is being "watered down"?
How does the exclusionary membership policy qualify as some kind of experience? What does that policy teach boys?

I didn't mean to imply that we should not be friendly, courteous, or kind to everyone.... but we should be reverent as well.

What I mean packsaddle, is that Boy Scout used to mean something, and still does.... call it Duddly Do Right, Call it whatever you want.
But as soon as the BSA bows to the pressures of this issue, it means far less.

IMO, Scouting should not be teaching boys about this issue at all, from either perspective. This issue has no place at all in a youth program.
So, why are we letting it have a place?