Huzzar

Bye

 

All very good points. But I'm afraid you are bringing facts into a fact-free fight (facts have a well known liberal bias).

 

.

Ha ha ha ... and thanks for indicating, once again, your dissociation from the real world.

I wouldn't sign off Scout Spirit for these boys until I saw a real change in behavior and attitude. Then it goes back to Council and possibly National for an EBoR under disputed circumstances. You'll be asked to state why you won't sign and they'll have to decide if your actions were "correct."

As an aside, I never would have agreed to step up as SM under the conditions that you have. I would have advocated dropping the boys from the charter and telling them to come back in a year or find some other patsy to sign their forms. Had the SM and CC insisted that drug leaders be allowed to continue I would take my son to a different troop.

It's a none issue in America too. You can't join as an adult leader.

 

Where does it say that? I can't find any requirement for a belief in a supreme being (or even a "belief in a higher power").

 

The BSA requires a "belief in God" but leaves the definition of that up to the individual. If the individual defines a "belief in God" as "I like ice cream", they are fine. As long as the person doesn't self identify as an atheist or agnostic the BSA is fine with them (it's the label, not the underlying belief structure that the BSA has a problem with).

 

From the Guide to Advancement:

You're being silly.

If he's a Humanist that believes that there is no supreme being then he is not allowed to be a member. Nothing's changed. If he wants to lie about it then it's between him and his ...whatever...

>> Unit throws out a boy for saying he's "gay oriented" (I interpret as SSA), Unit is in trouble. <<

I don't think this is correct. The membership change applied to BSA, not unit. If they wanted to force units to accept gay youth they would have worded it that way.

AHG membership had increased to 30,000 last year so it's not "rapidly dying on the vine." It's not a big group but being so specific in their religious requirements that's hardly surprising.

It's a shame for the girls in the OP's unit that it's turned upside down but they can either recharter with a church that meets AHG's requirements or move on. Sounds like they chose option two.

What's the back story? It sounds like the Scout doesn't want to ask his old SM for a signature.

It sounds like you need a HA patrol of Scouts not a separate Crew.

The core of this messy case is the Democrats in her county did not want a Republican governor appointing her replacement.

Still don't really know how the Alaska incident went down. Sounds like one of those deals where you ask 5 people what happened and you get 5 different versions. I guess now it's in the news we have to identify the "liar" when there may not be one.

Anyway...I recently came back from England via Gatwick airport. Thanks to making the mistake of putting a bottle of mead in my hand luggage I had to hang around in security with my kids. For a goof I started taking a "selfie" of the three of us sitting on a bench. A woman in uniform came over and asked if I had taken any pictures as it was forbidden inside the security area. I replied no and she asked me to show the last picture on the camera. I complied and she was fine when it was a pic of me on a beach. She reminded me that pictures weren't allowed and moved on. No camera confiscation and no big drama.

Maybe the Rutherford guy doesn't like the confiscation part of the story.

Couple of things to point out though. 1) The UK Scout Association did not unilaterally decide to allow gay adults to be leaders. Tony Blair's left wing government passed legislation forcing them to comply. 2) If you make any statements about homosexuality being immoral in the UK you risk a visit from Plod investigating a hate crime.

Carry on...

So what if the SE of the Council involved thinks the policy should be changed? That gives this pip squeak local politician the right to drag a Troop over the coals so he can get his name in the paper?

There are plenty of SEs that think BSA shouldn't have changed the policy for youth. That's also irrelevant to how the Troop in question should react to being used as a pawn.

They did the right thing walking away.

How did the Klan get in here? Let me emphasize something AZMike said, the pictures he posted are as tame as you get in that parade. Why on earth would a Scout leader think participating in that kind of event would persuade anyone that the BSA is wrong to bar homosexual men from membership.

There are plenty of organizations out there that would love to have the Scouts' volunteer time. Good for them. Walk away and find people that appreciate what you do. Life is far too short to enter into "discussions" with hate-filled, left-wing bigots like Mr. Guerlain.

You cannot refuse a celebate gay-oriented scout for being attracted to other men. Once he acts on that inclination' date=' you can refuse membership based upon the religious standards of your charter org. Would you throw out a scout for shoplifting? Would you throw him out for coveting an item and saying he was temped to shoplift?[/quote']

 

For youth, as far as I am aware, the only explicitly stated reason you cannot deny membership to your unit is the religious affiliation of the youth. If a unit does not want a gay scout as a member he can be denied membership of that unit. The change last year specifies membership of the BSA, not a unit.

 

The BSA has since 1988 allowed female leaders, local option is a don't care in your logic statement.

I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to explain this to you. If Robert Gates is to be believed you have at least 2 years to figure it out on your own.

My answer to your question is #9. Non sequitur.

I'll humor you though and rewrite your statement in its logical form.

Local option for adult female leaders = BSA allowing adult female leaders.

BSA knows this is logically correct so they don't bother with the left side and simply state "BSA allows adult females to be leaders."

I take it that you didn't read this thread... [h=2]Just for fun; "Ten Commandments of Logic". All of us might refer to this at times, me included.[/h]

Local option for gay adults = BSA allowing openly homosexual men as leaders.

It really isn't that difficult to understand, Pack18Alex.

I always thought the name calling was because of the goody two-shoes reputation of Scouts compared to their peers.

There were a few "rump rangers" gibes when the youth policy was changed but it hasn't persisted as best I can tell.

At this point it doesn't matter what we guess the practicalities are of a local option. BSA seems to be trying to deal with the fact that the negative effects of the youth change were worse than they anticipated. To me at least, they look very scared of appearing to favor the same change for adults.

The cold, hard reality is BSA is worried about losing a lot more members and a lot more $$ if they entertain the idea of allowing homosexual men to be adult leaders. Local option would not be considered anything but a capitulation to the gay lobby by the 60% of parents and leaders at the Scout level that did not want to see the membership criteria change.

It's a nice idea, Pack18Alex, but it won't shut things down so much as possibly destroy the BSA. As has been said on here before, local option ends at District, Council and National events. If BSA allows any unit to have openly gay men as leaders then all joint Scouting activities are adult gay friendly. That's why a greater number of people would leave than was caused by the change for youth.

 

I will let your use of the phrase "normal people" speak for itself, except to say that it sure does show where you are coming from.

 

It also shows exactly where you are coming from when you want to redefine the English language to suit your politics. By definition, male homosexuality is an abnormal sexual proclivity.