ghjim

Don't know how accurate Ron Paul is but this is interesting: http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-the-sequester-crisis-and-what-should-be-done/

To repeat, Lodge489 states he got the two-thirds figure directly from a member of the executive council, not from NBC.

At least may we all live in interesting times.

Where do you get the idea that the local option is still insufficient to satisfy the political stances of the secular CO's? It looks to me that only the far right-wing COs are against this option.

The two thirds figure was provided by Lodge489 in a previous post. I think it was under "Boy Scouts close to ending ban on gay members, leaders NBC". I can't find it now because I can't search through all the posts in that topic, one of the bugs in this new software. He states he got the information from a member of the executive council.

I keep hearing that today's BSA has a "watered-down" camping and outdoor program. Not being a current member I wouldn't know. But I can say that Philmont is going very strong, much stronger than in the 1970s. I would think if there is any litmus test of the veracity of the BSA's outdoor program it would be the participation at Philmont.

The most important post I have read in the last few weeks on this forum is the one from Lodge489 who stated that two thirds of the councils weighed in wanting to change the membership policies. So much for outside forces pressuring the BSA into surrendering their values. I have stated before I believe that the majority of BSA volunteers and parents never wanted the BSA to be exclusive. I very much hope the BSA will release the result of the upcoming vote in May. Don't be afraid of transparency, let the world see what the members think.

Eagledad, you are again making the assumption that organizations that are not religion-based do not have values. From my perspective the BSA starting going downhill when it became exclusive and required all members to be religious.

I think this idea is being explored in a number of other threads. However your questions are still good. As has been brought up before the BSA is now in a no-win position where there is no answer that will please everybody. I still think the local option is the best solution. I don't think the BSA can continue being exclusive, not when it appears that two thirds of the councils don't want it that way. And I don't think you can force a CO to accept members they don't want. There will be people who will stomp off but I am agreeing with some of the other posters here that there won't be very many. There will be troops that will avoid each other but overall I am really thinking this is going to settle down, and fairly quickly.

"Someone who is truly atheist cannot, by definition, respect the beliefs of others" Not sure I agree with this. I don't have very much respect for the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. But I do have respect for their right to believe what they do.

So who gets Philmont?

Like other posters on this forum, I am having a difficult time understanding the views of the people against the local option. It would seem that the fact that they can run their troop the way they want ought to satisfy them (everyone). But somehow their world view requires that everybody be forced to subscribe to their value system. This is something about conservative thought/philosophy that has puzzled me ever since childhood.

So it is my understanding that this Pope eliminated "limbo"? Is that correct? Can a Pope do something like that? I would think only God could do that. Seriously I intend no offense or ridicule. I am curious about how that came about.

Rick, I agree with you. Many posts on this forum have complained about the left coming in to force the BSA away from their traditional values. Nonsense. The BSA turned in the 1980s. I don't think a majority of parents and scouters ever agreed with that decision. Now it looks like the tide is turning. I hope the BSA rides this wave without swamping.

I think National made the right decision to delay the vote. The news leak has put everybody into an uproar. The Southern Baptists made the case for the delay so they could mount an organized objection. I have no problem with that. Anything else would have appeared unfair. I agree with Clark Green's position that he takes on his website. There is time for more debate. This thing has been simmering ever since the 2000 Supreme Court decision. We can wait a few more months.

And who are the members of the executive board? And are they the ones who all these decades have been mandating the membership policies? Or were the put into place by a vote of all of the representatives mentioned by Lodge?

Interesting poll here, but I have to say not very scientific. I am far more interested how the councils are voting, and if that information will every be published/released.

ghm......so what exactly is that opinion???? Good question. My point is that for the first time in a generation we may find out. An earlier post by Lodge was that 70% of the councils favor changing the membership rules. I hope that is true.

I am encouraged by this whole thing. It seems to me for the first time in at least a generation National is trying to get input from the entire Scouting family. MomtoEli posted earlier this decision should not be made by outsiders like me, but by the insiders. I am in total agreement with that. But until now it looks to me like the policy decisions have been made by a small group of people on the executive council. Now the BSA appears to be actively reaching out to the volunteers. Now maybe we will get a real picture of what BSA volunteers and parents really want from this organization.

If I am following all of this correctly, at least we have a survey of the council positions, something I have never seen before.

cchoat: I would be interested to know what your lawyer tells you about your legal risks. I find it difficult to believe that the discriminating COs will face many lawsuits. There is always somebody suing somebody over nothing, but the issue of whether the BSA can be exclusive or not has long been settled in the courts. I never agreed or liked that situation but it was resolved a long time ago now.

good point

It is going to be extremely interesting to watch what happens in the next few months/years. Will the LDS and right wing Catholics pull out, starting a downward spiral in the BSA? Will that pull out result in the BSA moving back the way it used to be, before those groups tried to force it to the far right? Will it get bigger? Will they stay in and the BSA become a contentious organization with a lot of in-fighting?

With the exception of "Duty to God" which is heavily dependent upon what you mean by "God" an atheist can easily comply with all other parts of the oath and law.

Sentinel, I am an eagle scout too and also a religious agnostic. As such like Merlyn I am considered unfit for membership now. For whatever it is worth to you I think you are doing the right thing staying in the BSA.