Scouting History
Share and celebrate the history of the world's largest youth Movement
532 topics in this forum
-
- 1 reply
- 1.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 11 replies
- 5.6k views
-
- 17 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.5k views
-
- 2 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 2 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 55 replies
- 15.7k views
-
- 2 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 3.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 5.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 23 replies
- 7.5k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
By AwakeEnergyScouter · Posted
I notice you got no reply, probably because you have a good point. Especially because this forum is full of complaints from many people who refused the Kool-Aid on various points. Once a scout, always a scout. If everyone started a new scouting organization every time they disagreed with something in an existing NSO or MO, there would be no movement left. People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front kind of stuff. The Scouting America Scout Law even has Loyal in it - you don't go splinter off in a huff just because you see a problem. No, you go fix the problem instead, which starts with defining and talking about it. Clearly not everyone even agrees that pressuring non-Christian scouts and scouters to be Christian or at the very least accept second class citizen status and stop complaining about it even is a problem in the first place, so there's obviously a need to talk about it. -
By InquisitiveScouter · Posted
The OP also ignores elements of complexity in the organization... When you first "sign up", you really have no idea what you are getting into. The organizational structures and policies are discovered or revealed to you over time. (Or they change...) It is also naive to expect anyone to agree 100% with every policy or decision that comes down the pipe. The organization is made of people... and people often make poor decisions. I agree with the ideals, aims, and methods of Scouting, and I pursue those. I find the organization is often at war within itself because of policies, actions, decisions taken which do not coherently align with the ideals, aims, and methods. Here is a case in point... The Scout Oath presents a tenet to us to be morally straight. For most of its history, BSA prohibited open homosexuals from being adult leaders in the organization. They even won a challenge to this policy in the Supreme Court. In my faith and belief, acts of homosexuality are a moral evil. Therefore, I did not, and do not support the BSA's reversal on this policy. I can tolerate the policy, but I do not accept it. There is a difference... I have learned to reconcile this, given the circumstances of BSA's other policies surrounding the issue... to wit, our CO has the latitude to prohibit adults who openly profess or practice homosexuality, and our Troop Committee / parents will not accept a leader into our fold who does so. These parents do not wish their children to be exposed to these ideas in our Scouting environment. Further, BSA policy specifically prohibits discussions of these matters in a Scouting setting. So, the issue should never be brought up. In effect, this is equivalent to a don't ask, don't tell policy. I do encounter volunteers in BSA who openly push the issue. I simply disengage and walk away. See item 6. in the Scouter Code of Conduct: "I will not discuss or engage in any form of sexual conduct while engaged in Scouting activities. I will refer Scouts with questions regarding these topics to talk to their parents or spiritual advisor." -
Now that we’re in the throes of WW-III, I can see that belief in God should face a healthy dose of skepticism, and faith in atheism is not the same as abdication to totalitarianism. Those were merely the exemplars that were elevated in the last Cold War. But while I was a young adult sorting things out, I came to divide people into a more subtle rubric, and I think the BSA of the 70s gave me a framework to do this. There are those who want to follow their religion, and those who want their religion to follow them. I’d be tempted to say that actions of the latter would be a pet peeve, but the Good Lord put them both here for a reason and learning from both is part of our journey. -
OH YEAH I think Eagle94 has a valid point but ... I see your point, there are definitely a lot of 1940s crowd that I can understand feel bamboozled as the organization has evolved over the years. There is also the issue of all of BP's original writings, trying to reconcile the purpose statement from the congressional charter with the current aims and methods, etc ... what this organization is at the core is definitely something different than what most units/districts/councils are running. I will say that there are some evolutional things that people are fighting that is just absurd (use of technology for record keeping, stricter youth protection, updating of manuals to include modern knowledge/research into youth development and personal growth). If an evolution of the program does not contradict the congressional charter or BP's writings I think we should be open to that change in order to meet the needs of modern society and the survival of the program. -
By Eagle94-A1 · Posted
Some folks had signed up with an organization that you agree with, and over time the organization changes their ideas in an attempt to attract new members..
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)