Leaderboard

"Heck, I'd even support liberals if they ever wanted to join scouting." Guess I will need to scan through this, but wanted to just note, perhaps already done, that being Liberal or Conservative or something between has nothing to do with someone having an interest in Scouting. I probably know more people that would be "labeled" as that than would be labeled otherwise, all of whom support the basic ideals of Scouting and strive to grow the newer generations.

Please remember, the folks who pushed for the membership changes internally by your logic should have removed themselves, or been removed by BSA long before the membership changes happened.

Isn't that what the topic is? It sounds like members have an issue with them in Scouting period, not necessarily in their unit or CO. Which goes back to my original point. What the CO decides is correct, however, your CO's decision doesn't speak for the entire organization, which is what is happening here.

The way I see it, when you register (or re-register) as an adult leader, you are agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities mandated by the organization, regardless of your personal feelings. If you can't do that, then you leave the organization (like so many already have) and carry on with your life. No different from any other private membership organization. Yes, change takes time. But getting use to the change and refusing to are completely separate feelings. And in the eyes of the organization, they are going to move on with or without you.

I prefer this version of Norman Rockwell's Freedom of Speech. Others may disagree, let them. Moderator awareness... IMMO*, some informative, robust yet scoutlike discussion here. Thank you. RS * In My Moderator Opinion

Okay, while I may be one of the few that might recall, but we are verging on the circus that the Forum shared when Bob White and our resident "Atheist" of the time exchanged loud typing. Reality, at least to me, is that IF we care about those building blocks on which Scouting is set, and IF we "do our best" to adhere to them, then we will serve the youth and society in a good way. Sadly, much of today's society does not appear to be ready for the balance that those ideals noted represent. Back to the Golden Rule and similar concepts. I fear some have possibly breached on here the thing we t

I'm guessing that things will change as current youth members age into Scouters if they stay involved in Scouting, but probably nowhere near as quickly as other people may want. Every time a scout goes to a World Jamboree, they see plenty of people their age in co-ed contingents, and will have for years, with how long UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc have been co-ed in all scouting levels. At some point, I would guess, Scouts BSA will change AoL from single gender dens to co-ed, in preparation for Troops going co-ed with them as they cross over the next year. "Can't have girls going i

... Ignoring the past ... 10 yeas ago it was clear what was plain wrong and members would have been silenced. ... Misrepresenting the complaint. ... I see no one advocating taking "actionable" steps against youth anywhere in this forum. We support all scouts and do it with a smile and friendship. Individuals people are not a policy issue. ... Changing the advocated request ... So is the action requested blocking discussion on this forum or blocking people taking actions that I've yet to see people say is happening. Earlier in this forum there was discussion of whether moderat

So you do agree that those who believe that the current membership policies are wrong do have the right to speak up. Then why are you upset when they do so? Can you show me the results of the membership (emphasis) survey that had the majority support current membership policies, because I have been looking for years. All I can find is the non-member results, which did not include any BSA identifiable markers. Also why would BSA exclude a major segment of their membership from the polls? If I can find the screen capture of the poll, if you were in the Western Region, and chartered to

I have not been around as long as most, I'm sure. Having these discussions here without the "key players", those who make these kind of decisions at the National level, is not input. Just discussion among concerned members. I didn't think I would have to say it but when the actions and decisions made by the organization are just plain wrong, they obviously you have to speak up. It's not "eyes of the beholder" when the majority agrees. We're not talking about purging people who disagree, we're talking about purging those who take actionable steps against the mission of serving youth.

Scouting is fundamentally about being a member of society. Civil discourse. Acting as part of a community. Discussion is core to scouting. That's not correct. This forum debated membership changes for as long as I've been a member. Both sides have been debated. At least a decade if not 15+ years. Ahhh. The value in one person's eyes justifies their crimes. The ends justify the means. So, it's okay for them to violate the Scout Law because they "believe" their beliefs justify breaking the agreement they signed when they agreed to be scout leaders? ... But, the

Agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities doesn't mean silencing discussion and alternative thoughts. Aren't you advocating for a position that would have prevented BSA from ever moving toward including girls and other orientations 10 years ago? Silencing those leaders and those discussions would have shut down the policy changes. ... This really feels like hypocrisy.

Disposing of those you disagree is wrong. Some call it censorship. I call it a form of sin. People are no more disposable for their beliefs than their sexual orientation. We all need to work together. I've always thought it should be obvious that there is a clear difference between forums like this where we discuss and exist for discussion. In-person working with youth and new leaders is different. That should be completely obvious. ... We as scouters should support all SCOUTS; period. I've seen that happen over and over again even when we disagree or question the situation. .

Not quite... For example, a CO and Unit Committee can choose not to allow someone who is openly gay (or a sex-changer) be a leader or youth in their unit. In the case of the adult, if their lifestyle is not in line with the views and morals of the CO, then they have every right to exclude that person from their unit. But, not from Scouting... In the case of the youth, issues of sexuality should never be on the menu... but if they youth and or family push that agenda, then the unit has every right to exclude them as incompatible with their aims for their unit. But, they cannot

Absolutely, we tolerate those with those "views". What we do not tolerate is those who "act" against others in accordance with those views. What you are advocating is akin to being the "Thought Police." Not knowing the other specifics of the OP (that is, having only one version of the events), my pronouncement was simply that it was wrong of the person to use an open forum to vent his misgivings about membership policies. And, it was also a failure by the discussion moderators there to not steer that person into other territory. Zoom hosts can mute or boot anyone from a session.

I'm not sure that's a great example to pick, because when Tigers were added to the program, verbal or physical threats weren't made against those children by other scouts or adult leaders. I don't know why people think it's OK though when it's about girls. Protecting children shouldn't require discussion. It's not censure ship to expect that registered and trained youth leaders in a youth organization protect and support the youth in their care.

I don't know that there's a tactful way to say "your presence here is bad/unwanted". You can deliver it with more or less polish, but "you should be kicked out of this organization" is a fundamentally unfriendly message. Allowing scouts and scouters to tell scouts they shouldn't be in scouting is not a good idea. It creates all kinds of problems in the long run, for both individual scouts and the organization as a whole. Even if the comments aren't targeting a specific youth member, it undermines our value foundation (you only really need to treat some scouts in a friendly and helpful manner)

There is a huge difference between not agreeing with a policy and passionately working with youth. I'm a firm believer that the Tiger Cub program is the cause of thousands of families dropping out of the BSA, but I found a way to raise our numbers. I believe education about the struggles from policy changes is healthy because it provides dialogue for ideas to approach and improve or fix the issue. Sad that so many folks feel that censure is the only way to stop discussions they don't like. Barry

Change is indeed painful but we are talking about adult leaders who are responsible for children so there really isn't much leeway to accommodate adult issues. Adults who resent the presence of some of the children they are supposed to be supporting and protecting probably shouldn't be in the organization six years in no matter what other value they bring.

A Sea Scout on his way home from a doctor, stepped into action when he noticed his school bus broken down on the side of the road. Great story , there is some train 'em and trust 'em in story. Read the rest at sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/student-school-bus-repair-danvers-essex-tech-gavin-natti/ https://www.facebook.com/seascoutshipno.5/

That might have made sense the first year as people adjusted, but it has been six years and girls are nearly fully integrated into scouting. The fact that adult leaders, who are in charge of girls' safety and well being, are still allowed to hold such positions while espousing those views is a Youth Protection failure, not dissent. Keeping struggling units alive isn't an acceptable excuse. If old time leaders haven't worked it out by now to the point where they can accept it and focus on the kids then they shouldn't be responsible for them in scouting. We don't tolerate leaders with out of dat

Boy Scout Troop 47's Mighty Duck Patrol all earn LIfe rank. Scout Salute! More at source: https://www.times-herald.com/arts_and_community/mighty-duck-patrol-simultaneously-reaches-rank-of-life-scout/image_1c3ab2d8-f2b8-11ee-893f-8f204c1509a5.html

One of the many reasons why my district and council are in trouble "old school Scouters" that left when membership changes occurred, and there was no one with the knowledge, skills, abilities, time, and treasure to take their place. They leaving left giants gaps that years later still have not been filled. Someone with 10, 20, 40, 60+ years experience in the program is extremely hard to replace. You got others who still disagree with the membership changes, and will tell you why they disagree with them. They remain involved for "their boys," and are slowly coming around.

I'm suggesting it's OK for adults to express reservations about membership changes online or in a Zoom meeting, provided it's done in a tactful manner. There is no need to "crack down" on them unless their comments target specific youth members or are deliberately hurtful. If you feel a youth in your area has been treated unfairly, by all means intervene on their behalf. Scouting would not exist in some communities today were it not for some of these "old school" scout leaders. Change takes time and I'm not sure you can get there by extinguishing dissent.

I have to take back my outrage at that specific girls-only camporee. Just in case there was some additional context, I reached out to the organizer, and it turns out that the camporee is there to solve the problem of weak scoutcraft experience among both scouts and leaders. I had most of the facts, I just didn't put them together in a way to predict the problem because of my own scouting and family backpacking experience, including my current scouting involvement in a family pack with family dens where girls and boys learn the exact same scoutcraft skills, hike the same miles, set up the