fgoodwin

Prairie Scouter writes:I'd be perfectly happy to be able to say, "you know, I understand the BSA policy on gays and where it came from. From their perspective, it makes sense; I just don't agree with it". Where I am right now, tho, is looking at what BSA says about gays and not seeing any sense to it, or having any historical perspective of how it got that way. What I see are arguments from BSA that seem to conflict with their own policies, or are just arbitrary findings, like "gays aren't able to be "morally straight".Actually, I think "morally straight" has meant that from the beginning. He

Torveaux, the Texas Badge is sponsored by the Sam Houston Area Council -- so if you have an idea for such a badge, you might approach your local Council about it. Sounds like a great Wood Badge ticket item (hint, hint) for those who need a ticket suggestion! Finally, please note that Tigers are not eligible for the Texas Badge -- not sure why that prohibition is there.

ScoutNut, I can't comment on how any particular Council teaches it, but the standard BALOO syllabus (which itself says should not be modified) teaches a one night Pack campout. Page 105 (Appendix G) shows a sample agenda; although the days aren't listed, its obvious that it implies check-in at 9AM on a Saturday, and breaking camp at 10AM on a Sunday (after a 30 minute worship service). I've taught three different BALOO sessions in two different Councils, and that's how we did it. YMMV

I think packs are authorized to do overnighters, only. A stay of two or more nights is a "resident" camp, which can only be offered by a District or Council. But hey, if they approve your tour permit, you've got nothing to worry about, right?

Here's a slightly different one: http://www.dacbsa.org/Resources-DACWorkshop/Career%20Arrows.pdf

Here's a slightly different one: http://www.dacbsa.org/Resources-DACWorkshop/Career%20Arrows.pdf

Here's a picture of the Cub Scout Texas Badge -- my son earned it and it looks pretty nice! http://www.pack414.com/images/texas_badge.pdf

Fireworks on July 4th can be a great (free) event, assuming there is such an event nearby. But I do not support units doing their own fireworks!

NJCS, I suppose that the military and BSA could agree to move Scout charters anyway, SOS Act or not, to avoid future lawsuits, as is happening with public schools. As long as BSA access to public facilities is no worse than that of other private entities, I suppose that's the best that can be hoped for.

EagleWB, there's no problem running BALOO concurrently with either WLOT or IOLS. But the BALOO syllabus specifically prohibits combining BALOO instruction / sessions with material from other courses (see p9). My Council also runs the three courses concurrently, but we don't combine sessions -- the three courses are independent, as they should be. They are intended for different audiences and they serve different purposes. Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

Torveaux, I'm not taking issue with you personally, but with your Council. Ask them where can you buy the so-called "OWL" syllabus. Because there isn't one (at least not an official one from National). If they are making up their own course, that's fine, but you need to understand what they are teaching isn't sanctioned by National. As I said, the only official syllabus is Webelos Leader Outdoor Training. And while I've heard many allegations that WLOT is outdated and even incorrect, not once has anyone ever been able to pinpoint page and paragraph that's either out of date or inc

A personal pet peeve of mine: there is no "OWL"; there is only "WLOT": Webelos Leader Outdoor Training. The long promised new syllabus is just that: a promise. This vaporware has been "around the corner" for more than three years. So the last syllabus is still the only official syllabus, and its called Webelos Leader Outdoor Training. I don't understand the urge for Council & District people to "cutesy-fy" training names, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "OWL". Fred Goodwin Ass't WDL, Pack 66 WLOT-trained, spring, 2001

nldscout: I agree with you; by that logic, non-BSA folks shouldn't come in here and talk about BSA issues, but their lack of membership certainly doesn't stop them from whining about everything under the sun when it comes to BSA membership policies. So by analogy, there's no reason that non-UUs should be precluded from discussing UU issues here, although I agree there is little that we (non-UUs) can do about it.

OGE, there would be no decision for the judiciary to make, if ACLU would stop suing everybody in sight . . .

I'm Episcopalian -- and while our national office does not actively discourage parishes from sponsoring Scout units, they certainly don't encourage them to, either! I think the Unitarians take a similar stance, as does the United Church of Christ.

Will the ACLU now sue Congress? Inquiring minds want to know . . .

Since Rick didn't bother to give the link, here is the UUA announcement: http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/050316_statement.html In my opinion, Rick's conclusion (implying something nefarious about UUSO's motives) does not follow from the official announcement. And unlike Rick, I invite readers to read the announcement for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

acco40, what I meant was that the vast majority of Cubs don't bother to earn their religious medal and thus don't have the purple knot to wear. I agree that those few who do earn their medal may wear the knot (and device(s), for that matter).

lyncc: Let me second Fuzzy Bear's suggestion. I've been involved in two different Councils and have been extended four invitations to attend PTC (three were at my request; the last came unrequested). I've been to PTC twice, both as a result of district or council-level functions. Everyone I met at the two courses were also there as a result of district or council-level responsibilities. Because slots are limited, I assume (but can't swear) that district & council-level volunteers get priority over unit-level volunteers. I don't think PTC makes that determination -- I thin

"Those who talk don't know, and those who know, aren't talking" Someone in this thread posted that very sound comment above. There seems to be much talking without the benefit of many facts. The only facts we have are that PRAY has announced BSA approval of a Unitarian religious awards program. The announcement was silent with respect to the relationship of UUSA to UUA. So any speculation on that relationship amounts to "talking by those not in the know". Why don't we wait for an official announcement from UUA before speculating on that relationship?

CMF, as a former CC myself, I must admit I lean more toward your position, and I think the Cub Scout Leader Book supports that view. It is the CM & DLs job to "deliver the promise" of Scouting by being responsible for planning and executing the program at the Pack & Den levels. But the CC and MCs do have a role in the program: * The CC conducts the annual pack program planning conference * MCs "ensure that all Tigers, Cubs & Webelos receive a year-round, quality program But the responsibility for planning and carrying out the year-round program of

Prairie_Scouter writes:For what it's worth, I don't believe that there's anything inherently "unScoutlike" in either a belief in Atheism or a gay lifestyle. There should be room for all in Scouting, and I think there would be if it weren't for a few people at the top of BSA who are more interested in political agenda than BSA itself. Is it "unScoutlike" to recite the Scout Oath ("duty to God") if you don't believe in it? Is it "unScoutlike" to refuse the say the Oath? Learning the Oath is a joining requirement -- or would you suggest (as the GSUSA has done) that "God" be made optional?

packsaddle, you give Irving far too much credit. If this was BSA's desired result, do you really think ACLU would've played along, to further BSA's ultimate goal? I've heard some wild conspiracy theories in my day, but this one takes the cake . . .

packsaddle, I don't think the folks in Irving are that smart; but as I said, I don't think ACLU has thought this through, either. I think in their zeal to "punish" BSA, ACLU has lost sight of the best interests of those whom it claims to represent. ACLU is driving BSA to becoming more and more private. Once its done, those private sponsors will (for the most part) want nothing to do with homosexuals or atheists. So ACLU will have won the battle but lost the war.

Hunt writes:To put it another way, with the current decision by BSA to move out of government sponsorship, there is not much more the ACLU is likely to gain by pursuing BSA, so they are likely to put their resources elsewhere.It is my fervent prayer that you are right -- but I'm already on record as saying that it will not end there, and I stand by my prediction. Nothing will satisfy ACLU until they utterly destroy BSA as a youth organization.