BadenP

What is a bible thumper?

 

Barry

Barry- Usually they are people who take scripture text and twist its true meaning to fit their own personal outlook on an issue or life.

The only problem I can see from this new format is that the participation level has dropped significantly. Is it because it is too hard to navigate for many? Is it because there is too much of the old outdated topics you have to wade through? Whatever the reason I see much fewer participants and much fewer ongoing debates with this format and that is just very sad.

When I met and talked with Wayne Brock when he was the ACSE a few years back he struck as a very indecisive man who wanted to please everyone. This mindset has now spread throughout the National staff rendering them virtually unable to make the tough and important decisions rendering themselves totally irrelevant to the scouting program. I vote for the local option in deciding what kind of program you want for your units, within some loose structured guidelines. The only problem is I rather doubt ANYONE at National is even capable of developing such guidelines. So lets return the scouting program back to the local level where it really belongs.

dc

 

Why are you so surprised, these entertainers live in a little world of their own and probably didn't know BSA policy. You only have the weak willed and indecisive leadership at National to blame if anyone as to why the entertainment went away.

 

I also agree with you others who say the Summit will be be a big mudhole come jamboree time. Medical and Safety are also big concerns it sounds like without military backup National has been caught being totally unprepared for this event. I certainly hope there are no serious injuries or worse because of poorly done facilities or equipment.

You know all of this speculation is interesting but is strictly individual opinions and not much else. All of us will have to wait until the decision is made and has been in effect for a while before you can draw any factual conclusions. At the rate National moves it may be another year before they actually make their final decision.

 

Barry, come on now, you really think that this will really destroy the BSA, I rather doubt it, besides the deemphasizing of the outdoor program and skills started in the 70's had already started that process and the watered down program of today is the main reason so many scout packs, troops and crews have lost membership, along with incompetently run councils by incompetent professional scouters who lack any kind of ethical or moral work ethic.

Those of you who think only sex segregated scout programs work should come see our crew meetings on the local, district and council levels sometime. The young ladies are not at all intimidated about taking the lead from the guys and often do. As I have mentioned in my previous posts, our Venturing Crews in my council run like well oiled machines. We all pitch in to make sure the youth and adult leaders get the best training and experiences in all our crews, as a result all of them have strong programs and continue to grow each year. We are all so well organized and well trained that the SE comes to us to head up and organize council training as well. If the BSA ever does make all programs coed, like in other parts of the world, we all might be in for quite a positive surprise.

Sequoia

 

Premature rash actions usually lead to poor decisions and ends with disasterous results! IMO that is exactly what your CO did. I find it hard to believe your leaders had no input to this decision. Now as a result you are no longer a scouter, nor are your youth scouts, what a sterling performance, what have you really accomplished, and who are the ones who are truly hurt? The BSA decision hasn't even been made yet and you all have torpedoed scouting for your youth, so I ask you who is the one really being unscoutlike. I hope other CO's will take a much more rational approach before deciding the future of scouting in their organizations.

Yes. Actually I believe that our troop and pack are beyond the danger threshold . Without any discussion with the church/ CO, we were sent a certified letter (via the council, I understand) that our 36-year relationship was ending.

Sequoia I think you better review how scouting works, the units are owned by the CO not the leaders, you have no authority to terminate any relationship period. As a leader all you can do is to resign from your position, so you wasted your time with a meaningless and hollow gesture. If your CO wants scouting in their church then there is NOTHING you can do about it.

 

Bottom line this will be a CO decision to make and no one elses, so get over yourselves already!

Moose

 

As Eagle92 said if you complain to the SE on the DE's behalf all you will do is get the DE in trouble and make his life a whole lot worse. Now you better understand why many DE's leave in their first year, it can be a thankless job. As a DE for almost five years I was very fortunate to have two districts where the volunteers knew me, trusted me, and supported 100%, resulting in our districts surpassing all our goals each year. The three SE's I worked for saw our districts prosper and pretty much left me alone, except for them trying to poach some of my key district people to the council board. Fortunately all but one of my district people told him NO.

Walnut

 

As far as the LDS is concerned that decision will be and can only be made by the Church President and council in Salt Lake City who governs all LDS stakes nationwide. As NJ stated I doubt as well that there will be a mass signup of gay scouts and scouters if this change goes through. As far as boycotting council events all you will be doing id depriving the boys of the full scouting experience which is a little short sighted and immature if you ask me. What are you afraid of your boys will turn gay or what? I doubt strongly you or the boys will even be able to tell which scouts are gay at big events.

What some of you seem to not understand is that the BSA has been taking membership hits, some very hard since the 1970's because of some of the half baked ideas and changes that have come out of National, and has still survived. At least the CO will have the control on this issue since National is too cowardly to take a stand. You might be surprised how little impact this change will have on an already struggling organization.

 

For the proscouters at National it is all and only about the money, they need deep pocket corporate sponsors to keep the Summit, HA bases, and the obscenely high salaries at National going.

Write something here

BadenP, fear-motivated nonsense is apparently how I roll.

 

I am, however, just doing the favor of taking those who want the New Model of Scouting at their word. If the failure to change to the NMS is all that is keeping a large group of gay scouts, gay scouters, socially conscious liberal parents, and morally impeccable corporate funding sources from rushing to participate in scouting, doesn't it make sense that a change will cause "an overwhelming mass of gay youth and adults rushing to join the BSA?" I have read those on this forum in favor of the NMS claim that the changes will mean that we will have huge Jamboree special effects shows created by Steven Speilberg and that George Takei will create loving media attention by being named the Chief Scouter. If it will have no effect in causing gays to join, but will probably cause social conservatives to leave, shouldn't the discussion focus on why the demands of the few must outweigh the needs of the many? You shouldn't claim that the NMS will change everything, but then say we shouldn't talk about how we plan to deal with what might happen, because after all it really won't change anything.

 

If, as you say, the Local Option allows the units leadership and CO to set the parameters for what is or is not allowable activities, is it not prudent to discuss now how we individually plan to deal with the issues that arise? Clearly, some of those issues have already arisen (like participation in Gay Pride parades, and all-gay scout troops) in Canada Scouting (possibly to its detriment), and, in the Girl Scouts of America, transgendered child issues. Do you think the Boy Scouts of America operate on a special reservation that protects us from the problems of society as a whole?

AzMike, It is not prudent discussing how we individual units will make our determinations of what is proper or not proper activities. Local option means exactly that, it is for the owners of the units to decide and not a concensus of the entire membership. As I said since National has lost their decision making ability and buried their heads in the sand it is now in the hands of the CO's to be the guardians of the units scouting values. In the long run this could result in scouting becoming a stronger organization but it is going to be a long and bumpy road.

AZ Mike

 

Your premise is purely fear motivated nonsense. Local Option means that the units leadership and CO will set the parameters of what is or is not allowable activities. National is abdicating that responsibility because they have lost their vision and lack the guts to declare what scouting should be on a National basis. IMO it is the most cowardly and gutless move National has ever done, and it shows me Nationals professional scouting has reached its end and is time to dissolve it once and for all. The last thing anyone needs to fear is a sudden overwhelming mass of gay youth and adults rushing to join the BSA.

Write something here

No response in another thread. I'll try it here:

 

I guess we can just pick a random thread on this topic now, they're so mixed up...or maybe it's me.

 

Anyway, I'm still trying to understand the reaction in which someone decides to leave scouting, not because their CO has lost its ability to discriminate, but because OTHERS have gained the freedom to choose NOT to discriminate. I just don't get it. Why does one person NOT want another to have the same freedom that THEY have?

pack

 

I agree with you 100%. A few years back the show South Park,{ yes that irreverant non PC show, lol) did an episode on the BSA and Gays with the recurring character "Big Gay Al" as the scoutmaster of the towns troop who is forced to resign by the council leaders because of his sexuality. The guy they pick to replace him turns out to be a child abuser/molester. I think the show in a humorous way did an excellent job dealing with all the issues being discussed here, and what happens takes quite a twist. I suggest all scout leaders whether anti or pro gay in the BSA watch this episode if for no other reason to see both sides of the issue.

The reality here is very simple, BSA has now passed the buck, responsibilities, and the reprocussions squarely on the shoulders of the CO's. This is not a moral issue for National their SOLE motivation for this decision is MONEY. With allowing gays into the BSA they are desperately hoping to get back into the good graces of the United Way and the evergrowing number of corporate sponsors who have left the BSA in the dust. In reality this is really a hypocritical decision on their part, they can now tell everyone (money people) they have done everything they can do to open up the BSA to all, and at the same time have the CO's as the scapegoats when admission to a particular unit is denied to a gay person because of the CO's own policies.

 

In this and another thread a poster mentioned a CO and its scouting leaders potentially being sued for denying a gay youth or adult the opportunity to join their scout unit. I wonder how many of you have really thought about this particular minefield being set for the CO and unit leaders with Nationals new policy. IMO this has the potential for a mass exodus from the BSA by the more conservative CO's and leaders who will feel that a potential lawsuit is not worth the trouble or headaches of sponsoring any scouting unit.

 

Yes those wunderkins at National have really done it again and put ALL the burden squarely on the shoulders of the CO and volunteers, simply because they lack the guts to take the responsibility themselves and making the decision a National Policy. From Wayne Brock on down is there anyone left at National who has a backbone and can make the hard decisions?(This message has been edited by BadenP)

If the BSA does adopt the local option for gay leaders and members and the AHG pulls out from associating with us, that would be a win-win in my book.

 

Seriously though this issue has been and always will be a hotbed for the BSA no matter what they decide, and this will also be a true test of just how much influence(control) certain religious groups have over the BSA. However IMO the BSA could wind up ticking off enough of the membership and religious organizations sponsors that they could be accelerating the final demise of the BSA, and that would truly be a sad, sad day.

Brew

 

If you mean the current watered down, classroom oriented, and overly simplified scouting programs with little to no outdoor scoutcraft, challenges, or fun coming out of National today then the answer is a resounding YES!

 

If you are talking about the core essence of scouting its morals, values, and the skills needed to not only live in the outdoors but to learn a real appreciation and the desire to protect our natural resources then the answer is a big NO!

 

There are still some very dedicated unit leaders out there who are staying true to what I call the true core of scouting, and our units are thriving with youth who REALLY want what true scouting is supposed to be all about. Robotics, chess, and the internet are all fine and good in their proper place, but not in scouting, that is not what we are all about as an organization. As the BSA continues to try to squeeze in these non scouting activities and alter the program from an outdoor emphasis to an indoor sedentary activity base we will continue to lose youth and adults at an ever increasing rate.

 

Case in point, this past week our crew reached 90 active youth, our crew committee has decided to split the group officially into two crews so that we can handle the numbers that are still wanting to join our outdoor high adventure oriented crew. We will still do activites together but with two groups of leaders the youth will get the proper attention they want or need.

 

So to all you naysayers out there who feel we should allow National to continue to take us further and further away from our roots in the outdoors I say you don't really know what you are talking about, and neither does National with their radical switch of emphasis in all scouting programs.

Richard B.

 

You know what my friend Baden Powell would be PROUD that there still are scout leaders out there who are still trying to preserve his vision of what true scouting is supposed to be in spite of the pressure by National to have all scouting programs adopt the watered down, pablum, sedentary, clasroom oriented programs coming out all those "great minds"(sarcasm intended) at your office. I challenge you and National to actually get your fannies out of your chairs and get out in the field for at least 3 months to see how scouting is truly being done in the field, actually talk to the leaders and the youth and ask them what they want and need to deliver or have a fun quality program.

 

Whether all of you at National realize it or not scouting is rapidly declining, not growing, due in large part to the kind of changes coming out of National for decades, from a group of self absorbed bureaucrats. The facts and statistics, and scandals are all there for anyone to see, from ghost units created, grossly inflated membership numbers, systematic dismantling of councils, failed new programs, absurd restrictions, losing United Way support as well as more and more corporate sponsors, and on and on. It is not the scouters and scouts in the field at fault, like you claim hurting scouting it is the ever increasing mindless bureaucracy of National that is the TRUE cause of the problem.

 

 

Looks like Richard B. hightailed it back to National to find some support and answers since he didn't really offer any here. From his responses I really think it is true that National is totally oblivious to the way the volunteers think they are doing their jobs. Enlightenment is truly a wonderful thing.

Richard B

 

So you needed a "task force" working since Oct 2012 to figure out that you needed to drop the Lance Armstrong bit from NYLT? How many peoples time and salaries were paid to make this no-brainer decision? And you wonder why so many scouters have no confidence in National's ability to do anything efficently or competently anymore.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

Richard B

 

Your arrogant replies and overly simplistic ideas just verifies how out of touch National really is to the program they are supposed to be building and strengthening, instead of tearing it down and taking it further away from its roots centered in the outdoors. I was a professional scouting executive for five years and personally witnessed two SE's bankrupt the council I was working in, selling off ALL its assets until finally National closed it up after 80 years of serving the youth.

 

So here is my suggestion: National Office is overloaded with deadwood staff being overpaid for doing practically nothing except trying to get themselves promoted to CSE. So cut National staff by 75%, the remainder could easily handle the duties National is SUPPOSED to be doing from I witnessed firsthand years ago. National does not need these large committees of paid scouters to determine changes to the program, those should ONLY come from the field from those delivering the program to the youth and who really know what is needed. Since the 1970's EVERY change to the program from National has been a total disaster, resulting in ever declining numbers of scouts and units. National office should consist of a CSE, a Cub program Director, a Boy Scout Director, a Venturing/Sea scout Director,an Outdoor/Camping Director, and a small National Supply staff, each with one or two assistants. If you eliminate all those overly padded salaries there and in the council office the BSA would not be in the financial mess they are currently in.

 

It is highly questionable in my mind after 25+ years in scouting why we even need council offices with SE's making between $250,000 to $700,000 a year and mid management making over $150,000. Let the local district and unit volunteers administer the program, as was done in the beginning instead of bureaucrats who really could care less about the council and the people it serves, and instead look at their job as nothing more than a stepping stone to National.

 

If you truly want the BSA to survive give the power back to the people delivering the program who really only have the welfare of the youth they serve in mind.

 

It has been over 8 years now that I have been a part of this scouting forum and have had a great time conversing with, debating with, and arguing with some over the issues concerning a program we all love and give our blood, sweat, and tears to. I have always looked at being a leader in scouting to be a sacred trust with the CO, parents and the youth we serve to give it all we are and to make our units and youth better, stronger, a with a vision of service and giving back for all the blessings we have received from our Creator. Scouting has and always will be for me a voyage of discovery and treasures which will last a lifetime.

 

I have recently been asked by our church board to assume the title and duties of Pastor where I currently have been serving as the associate pastor. So now I enter into yet another sacred journey that will keep me even more busy than I am currently. So I have decided to close my association with this great forum after all these years to free up more time to pursue my new duties.

 

I just want to let all of you know I have been honored by getting to know all of you dedicated scouters, even those who I have disagreed with, and wish you all continued success with your scouting experiences. Peace and blessings to all of you. Goodbye and Venture On!

skeptic, et al,

 

My so called anomosity towards National is based on years of experience 25 years as a leader and 5 years as a DE/Sr.DE, with those so called "scouting professionals", and in case you have not noticed many other posters here have even more distain for National than I do. In my own case however I feel that National is necessary and could be saved from its own self created destructive path if there is some major changes made and soon, a sort of cleaning house of all the deadwood currently occupying that office. I really find it hard to believe that any current scout leader is actually happy with the current job National is doing as we watch our organization continue to dwindle and programs change for the worse.

 

In all honesty many of National supporters in this forum are long retired from active scouting and base their opinions on the good old days. Well the good old days are gone forever and the there are currently some serious weeds choking the life out of a program we all love and support, and all I am saying it is time to pull out those weeds before our progam dies out completely. It will not be the Methodists or the LDS or the Catholics who will decide the future of scouting it will be the leaders out in the field delivering the program every day.