jrush

The Red Cross does not do WFA in our area anymore and is dropping it from their offerings.  BSA and others have been doing it so it's no longer feasible to provide it.  I was hoping to get it for free, being an ARC volunteer.  Nope, nothing in our area is offered.

 

BSA or 3rd party.  The question is why isn't BSA putting it on for free?  It's their program after all.

I went through some of this with regard to CPR.

I don't know if it's the only one, but the Red Cross does have a Wilderness and Remote First Aid course, same as they have various First Aid/CPR/AED courses.   You can get certified to be an instructor for the ARC.  The Red Cross will set up a user agreement with your council and the instructor can do the courses for a significant discount.  I can do First Aid/CPR/AED under $10 per card for scouts and scouters.   Anyone can get certified to be an instructor for the Red Cross...not sure why the Red Cross would drop it in a specific area unless they didn't have an instructor on staff in that area anymore.

I would presume the BSA uses the Red Cross version and instructor so they have some legal standing of "this was taught by a qualified instructor" before accepting the liability for high adventure outings which require WFA...no different than requiring some form of certified CPR instruction for BSA lifeguard. 

But, in any event, someone can go to the Red Cross, get certified to teach it, get an agreement with your Council office knocked out, and teach the course as often as needed.

Totally unplanned.

 

So is the implication that people will hate the New Scouting so much they will join Classic Scouting?

The implication is a total shift from sugar to corn syrup is an assault on the senses, so you punt and the next time, you gradually replace sugar with corn syrup and nobody notices.

And here we have an illustration at how out of touch BSA is. Their own survey of the membership showed the majority were against the policy change. Another survey a few years earlier showed that religious institutions that were COs were fairly conservative in their values, but were the overwhelming majority of their COs. Only a group of completely clueless businessmen would alienate their largest customer base. HOPING they won't leave.

 

...

 

I think in 20 years you will see BSA at the 1 million mark if they go coed. Why? The tradition of the program is a single sex outdoor program. You will lose the traditionalists and the progressives -- mostly Millennials - won't ever replace them.

There is a difference in a majority being against a policy change, and a majority being so morally opposed that they would leave the program.  It wasn't a "hope" that people and COs wouldn't leave; the BSA KNEW people and COs would leave.  So short term retention of members and COs wasn't the point.

The point was moving socially from a 20th century organization to a 21st century organization.  Yes, the BSA could have delayed the membership loss by backing down, but the bill would have come due eventually.  You know what else is falling in the US?  Church membership and opposition to gay marriage.   You want to talk about "clueless business moves"?  How about maintaining a discriminatory policy to appease a shrinking population? 

As to the "tradition" of a single-sex outdoor program?  You could have fooled me.   I'm not talking about 50 years' worth of co-ed Ventures and Explorers or sisters attending events, I'm talking about moms have been part of pack and troop leadership for a long time.  I'll wager that the number of COs that prohibit female leaders for their single-sex units because of the "single sex tradition" wouldn't fill a soccer stadium.  The BSA has no single-sex tradition.  

It's possible that others won't take up the slack from the numbers lost from lifting bans on gays and girls, but one thing's for sure, the shrinking population of those who support the bans won't.

Hypothesis or theory?

 

All that dancing around of words just to say you want a national policy change for girls memberships in cubs and troops.

 

We just have agree to disagree.

 

Barry

Again, what I want is irrelevant, regardless if we agree or not.  The BSA finally had to choose which fork in the road to take over homosexual/lesbian adult leaders.  That path led invariably to allowing transgender youth, and it leads invariably to a co-ed program.  Given that we've passed the transgender mile marker, co-ed is right around the corner.  The BSA gave a thumbs up to youth with female plumbing and XX chromosomes who want to be boys.   Personally, I thought co-ed and transgender would have happened simultaneously, but apparently the BSA is allowing to units and leaders time to emotionally adapt.

So, co-ed is going to happen.  If you're committed to the program itself, you might as well reconcile yourself and look for some of the benefits for the organization as a whole.   I'm not sure it helps to sit around and disagree with a decision that has essentially already been made, and since I'm on board, I'll tout the upside whether I privately agree or not.   

Again, wait until the first law suit comes out for the boys' only troop. The CO says, "Forget it, not worth the hassle." and the unit is forced to go coed.

Like all the all-male Venture Crews that have been sued out of existence?  It's a private organization.  Until the US Supreme Court revisits the issue (which is unlikely), it's a done deal. 

Now, I can see a unit that went co-ed getting sued if they kick out all the girls at recharter to go back to all-male.  That's a vulnerability.  Once a unit goes co-ed, they are going to have to stay co-ed.  If they have an issue keeping co-ed leadership or whatever else, I think the CO would have to fold the unit and start up a new one from scratch as all-male. 

Redesigning BSA's various offerings (CS, BS, Venturing, Explorers) would be a monumental task, to be sure. 

Which is why they won't be redesigned.  They'll just announce that Charter Orgs have the option to charter co-ed Packs and Troops.  The Packs and Troops that already allow female siblings to attend events will hand them a membership form and parents will go buy a uniform.  BSA will update YPT and that will be it.

At this point, I can't even see it causing any disruption.  The Charter Orgs that are with the BSA for the long haul have already reconciled with homosexual leaders and transgender youth.

Unfortunately in today's litigious society, it is easier to cave in to a lawsuit than to fight it.

Well, the issue here is that at face value, the unit violated state antidiscrimination law by accepting the membership, then later kicking the kid out.  So the council had a legal and public perception loser on their hands.  Settle the suit and have a lesson learned. 

I can't add much except to second Stosh's comments. 

Well, okay, I can.  If that means that you tell the Pack's leaders "my den's racers voted, here is the envelope with the winner", that's what you do.  Maybe you have to go out on your own, get some tchotchke for "Den's Choice Award" and present it based on the boys' vote (if the wound is still fresh, you could still do this).  If the unit leaders insist on adults making the choice, have someone unconnected with the Pack do it.  Invite your district exec, maybe someone from the charter org who doesn't have a child in the pack, maybe invite local news to the PWD, there are myriad ways.  Failing that, ask that family on the "council of leaders" recuse themselves from voting Den awards that their kids are in.

All that said, the unit is supposed to be administered by adults, and adults should be able to handle an adult conversation about parents selecting subjective awards for their kids. 

Jrush, nobody has said anything official. We are all just blathering through our fears, hopes and desires. Your theory doesn't have anymore relevance than mine. You completely missed what I said in my post because I imagine you really want girls in the program. Badly.

 

Barry

No, I was just addressing points made/implied that allowing COs to approve homosexual leaders was the BSA turning away from God.  Heck, my theory as to the BSA's reasoning isn't even a theory...it's a hypothesis.  I have no way to design an experiment and test it to see if I can upgrade it to "theory".  As to girls in the program, what I want is irrelevant.  Girls are already in the program, including packs and troops.  They are attending meetings.  They are attending outdoor activities.  We just make them wait until age 14 to let them buy a uniform and earn recognition.  In practice, units can do the same thing now they will be able to do when the BSA goes co-ed across the board.  The Charter Org says "all male", the unit policy can prohibit female siblings from attending events, the CO can stipulate all-male adult leadership.  As I said, these units can take boys all the way through the program without ever interacting with a co-ed unit.   

All that said, it's not a hope or fear that the BSA will go 100% co-ed option across all units for Charter Orgs.  It's going to happen. The BSA can't pitch itself as a community organization in the 21st century if it doesn't. 

I can honestly say that if girls had become part of the program when my oldest son was old enough for cubs, I would not have joined as an adult. I thrived on a program for boys and wanted the same for my sons. As for the gays and godless, well my scouts were guided by my interpretation of the Scout Law, which was instilled by my interpretations of my faith. Without a god to guide the adult leaders, the program is nothing more than a camping club. Leading a program of taking youth into the woods is too hard to not have a greater purpose of raising adults of moral character.

Well, first, I expect that even once BSA goes co-ed, COs will be able to have all-male, co-ed, or all-female packs and troops, just as they can crews and posts.  A dozen like-minded families = a all-male pack.  You don't want your all-male pack exposed to the co-ed packs?  Don't go to council events.  Your PWD winners don't have to go the district PWD.  Once in the all-male troop, they don't have to go to summer camps or OA events or high-adventure bases.  Boys can go from Lion to Eagle and never once interact with a co-ed pack or troop.

Second, nobody here or at BSA has said "no god".  The BSA has always stressed faith.  Point of fact, they stress faith so much that atheists are barred, regardless of what the CO wants, and they haven't discussed budging a millimeter on that.   What they have said is that the BSA's position on faith is 100% non-denominational.  Thus the new policy on gay leaders was to not "endorse" specific religion(s) which condemn homosexuality.    Adult leaders in a unit still serve at the discretion of the CO, so if the CO doesn't want a gay leader, it won't have a gay leader.  If it doesn't want the pack/troop/etc it charters to interact with units that may have gay leaders, see the paragraph above.  Nowhere in the program is a unit required to interact with other units.

It used to be Young Men's Christian Association.  Then somewhere down the line Christian passed out of the picture, then somewhere down the line Men seemed to disappear.  Over the course of time Young got replaced by family.  It's more of a corporation today than any sort of association.  What they end up with is a gym called the "Y".  Without any real foresight, they wandered until this is where they find themselves today.  I wonder if that was where they wanted to go say maybe 50 years ago.

 

Journey's with out a clear path need no map or compass.  We passed the Boy mile marker a ways back, but there's more to the journey that isn't known.

I agree, but fact is, it is, and always has been, the Boy Scouts of America, not the Boy Scouts of Christianity.

Second, it is arguable that one should include young women when teaching boys and young men about virtues, as the community embraces, and then expects, gender equality in thought and deed.   So, passing the "boy" mile marker wasn't leaving the path, but rather staying on the path as defined by America.

The argument isn't just community versus religion.  The argument is if the Boy Scouts of America should set a path in stone and then attempt to move America in line with that path by training future leaders, or if America should chart the path and the BSA respond.

Maybe, but do you believe jrush's post to be anything more than a personal theory? Are the professionals at National motivated by a cause?

 

Barry

I certainly hope not, since it is just a personal theory.   That said, the executives at National are motivated by something to make the policy decisions that they do.  Policy for a national volunteer organization with the size and visibility of the BSA isn't made with a magic 8-ball.  At least, we hope not.

Wow! Interesting theory. I'm guessing that at least 70% of COs are religious based. Who in their right mind would want to be part of an organization with that business model?

 

Barry

According to the BSA, about 4 million youth and adult volunteers?

That may be what has torqued the program over the years, but what is described is NOT what the Congressional Charter for BSA is based on.  That's just an old piece of paper that doesn't mean anything anyway.

 

Like the YMCA/YWCA programs of the past.  It had a mission and a meaning, now it's just a gym.

 

Maybe the BSA is destined to be any paved walking trail in the park.

What does the charter say?  Section 30902 Purposes: "The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

Patriotism, courage, self reliance and kindred virtues, using the methods of scouting.  I don't see "via the applicable religion" in there.  Sure, lambast the YMCA for not pushing Christian morals.  The BSA?  I have a LOT harder time with the BSA pushing stuff made in China than I did with banning gays.  One of those two things is flat-out unpatriotic.  The other is immoral only within certain religions, none of which one must be a practicing member of to be a scout. 

The facts are that BSA was losing units AND members at a rate of 2-3% PRIOR to the membership chnage. Afterwards it's been 6%.

 

There's a net LOSS in units and members. That's a fact. The reasons many COs have given was the policy change.

 

The BSA never expected membership to skyrocket as a result of the decision.

IMO, the decision to allow gays, and the coming decision to allow co-ed packs and troops, isn't because of membership.  It's because the BSA pitches itself as an organization that grows responsible members of the community, not the church.  Yes, the decision cost membership, but that cost was anticipated and deemed worth it to be primarily a community organization rather than a religious one.

agreed.  In fact I've had this exact discussion with one of the dads in my unit.  Bear is just about perfect to start in my opinion..... maybe even wait for 1st year WEBELOS....although I suppose that would depend on having a well run pack for older boys introducing patrol method and such.... if it's too babied down maybe not so good...

It wasn't really that long ago that CS did start in 3rd grade and WEBELOS was only a year. 

Maric, if your issues were primarily parent-run operations and the age set of the Troop, I would highly recommend you find a Venture Crew or Explorer Post.  I hate to say this, but nearly all Troops are parent-run to a certain extent.  It's simply a fact of life about how a group of 12-13 year olds are going to get from point A (their home) to point B (the Scout meeting place) to point C (the outdoor activity).  It's not going to happen without adult volunteers, primarily parents, and most Troops will operate around the needs of the parents, without whom, there would be no Troop.  To compound your problem, most Troops will be a vast majority of 11-13 year old youth.  That's just what the program is designed around.

Crews and Posts, on the other hand, can easily (and so they often do) function with minimal, if any, parental involvement.

thanks for the responses.  NJCubScouter, it just caught me off guard because that was not what was explained to me in the past.  I was under the impression that any boy that met rank/age requirements had an opportunity to run for a position.  This does not seem to be the case and in fact, could exclude boys from the chance depending on their popularity in the troop.  

 

...

 

What is the point in having a QM that never goes on campouts or a ASPL that has a job and can never make it to meetings?  We've had that problem, so again, it seems logical to have boys that want the position and are "hungry" for it.

Well, don't get caught up when the BSA puts things out as guidance,  Yes, the elected SPL can appoint his "staff".  Yes, the boys can nominate staff, who then can accept or decline before being elected.  It's largely up to the boys. 

As to the other part, the point is the boys have the opportunity to serve actively in a position of leadership as required for advancement.  If they never showed up, the answer is "you didn't serve the unit actively in the position, you're not getting credit for this requirement".  Granted,  there is no set percentage that quantifies "active", it's subjective and up to unit leadership, and unit leadership is obligated to remove the scout from the position if the scout's neglect of his responsibility is that egregious. 

To address the problem of the "popularity contest", and the potential issue of a boy being excluded by fellow scouts by not being elected or appointed to a POR.  If there is a boy in the unit who is blacklisted by the group because of his toxic behavior toward his peers?  If 4 election cycles go by and a 1C can't even become the bugler, well, that should tell both the boy and the unit leadership something.  If it's a question of his peers are unfairly excluding him for a reason not related to his actions, SM can always appoint him to something appropriate (Troop Guide, Den Chief after talking to Cubmaster, etc). 

As far as "selecting" adults go' date=' we have the opposite problem. The units know how to go about nominating an adult, but the OA advisers reject them every year. I know this has happened in our troop two years in a row as well as it happening in another troop also. Just because you send in an adult application doesn't mean that adult will be selected for OA.[/quote']

 

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If a unit has a scout elected, then the unit may nominate an adult. As of this year, for each addtional three elected scouts, another adult may be nominated. If the scoutmaster is not an arrowman and has been in that position for at least a year, he is automatically nominated. These nominations should be accepted by the chapter and lodge adviser at face value. In previous years, if at least one scout was elected then an adult could be nominated. Another adult could be nominated for each 50 active scouts in the troop.

 

Now the district may also nominate a small number of adults for the OA. District nominations are completely separate from unit nominations.

I may be wrong, but it sounds to me as though your district committee needs to be re-educated as to their role in adult OA nominations.

 

Unless something has changed, it's one adult per 50 boys in the troop (or varsity team) if they had at least one boy nominated. The unit committee makes the nominations and the lodge approves them. According to national OA policy regarding elections/nominations, the district committee has nothing to do with it. I suppose it's possible that the lodge selection committee is the same people as the district committee, but they would be acting as members of the lodge, not the district, and that needs to be made more clear.

qwazse: The sad part about this is if a kid thinks a particular stone is his salvation and is not disparaging his buddy's devotion to Allah, I'd count it as reverent.

 

Why is that "sad"?

I'm always amazed at the mean spirited abuse others inflict on others by throwing around the word discrimination. It's not about clearly communicating. It's hate speech. BSA has always had a faith component.

 

Now we can debate if BSA should change that, but it's not discrimination any more than my neighbor discriminating against me when he doesn't want me entering his house without permission.

 

Personally, I think BSA should leave membership to the charter orgs because it's the only way to avoid the ugly interactions of people we've seen flood these threads for years.

The BSA is in the business of teaching young men and women to be responsible, moral members of society. 95% of Americans believe something. That's why the religious component of scouting is so important. Until the BSA says their goal has nothing to do with society, but is just a kids camping club, putting those who reject ALL faith systems in charge of scouts or awarding them scouting's highest award should be off the table.

Below is the BSA Declaration of Religious Principle

Article IX. Policies and Definitionsâ€â€From the Charter and Bylaws

Section 1. Declaration of Religious Principle, clause 1. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.†The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

Merlyn, you're not paying attention.

Someone who is truly atheist cannot, by definition, respect the beliefs of others. If he respects the beliefs of others, he grants value to their belief system, and he isn't really an atheist. He's just calling himself an atheist because it's fashionable, or he hates televangelists, or whatever. There's a difference between someone keeping their mouth shut and someone truly respecting the beliefs of others.

Christianity is a fine example. Yes, there are many, many christians who think wiccans, jews, buddhists, muslims, even each other are all damned to eternal hellfire and don't mind saying it loudly and frequently. Yes, I believe the BSA should exclude them too. 100%. However, there is nothing in the new testament that says all members of religion X are damned to hellfire. That's an invention of man. Same reason as to why christians gleefully persecuted jews for centuries. Jesus certainly didn't tell them to. But, there is no requirement that to be a Christian, you MUST consider all other religions to be false...there is only the requirement that you accept Jesus as your savior and that He lights the way towards salvation. I can respect wicca, islam, judeaism, etc without following them. Anyone who says they are Christian but does not respect the beliefs of others is doing so out of ignorance and/or prejudice. Just my opinion.

That being said, that's a seperate discussion. The discussion here is that atheists DO subscribe to the phiolosphy that ALL religions are false, and if you consider my religion to be false as a matter of doctrine, you cannot respect it. You can't do your best to do your Duty to God, because as an atheist, you won't even try. No atheist can try and still be an atheist. If you ARE trying, you're not an atheist anymore. You're undecided. "Undecided" is just fine with the BSA. A struggling wiccan, christian, jew, muslim or buddhist can still be doing his or her best.

To be as "inclusive as possible"' date=' don't have ANY religious requirements. The very fact that the BSA has religious requirements means that some people won't meet them and be excluded. So "inclusive as possible" is nonsense. And if your unchangable source of morality never changes, why was slavery acceptable in the past but not now? Why do Christians disagree about homosexuality? Don't they all have the same unchangable god? Should gays be put to death, as your god demands? That's a pretty big stick. By the way, I can think of few things more narcissistic than believing the creator of the entire universe is a personal friend.[/quote']

 

There's a difference between "as inclusive as possible" and "totally inclusive". The BSA welcomes followers of all types of religions. Whether I'm a wiccan, a baptist or a mennonite, the BSA welcomes me. A particular CO might not, but it's the purview of a CO to accept or deny my membership in their unit. I can always register as a lone scout, or join a unit not chartered by a religious organization.

 

Merlyn, the problem with atheism is it's basic premise...that all religions are wrong because none are right. The BSA doesn't require me to worship a particular deity in a particular way; what it requires me to do is respect the beliefs of others. If I truly subscribe to a philosophy that your deity and belief system is a sham, how can I respect it? I can't. Quite frankly, the BSA should treat baptists, catholics, jews, etc who disrespect the beliefs of others the same way as well, but that's a different topic.

 

So, as the BSA has a policy of respecting each other's beliefs, excluding atheists is being as inclusive as possible.

You know, if you want some advice on how to resolve an issue between adult volunteers before initiating a converasation with the COR about removing a volunteer from their position and the unit (because that's often the effect in the end) there are members here with many moons of experience.

But, yes, as others have said, the COR is the "decider" as to who the adult leadership of their pack/troop/etc is.