MomToEli

I am sure there is some special salute I'm supposed to do when in the presence of all this superness ... :-)

And my post count is only 109? For as many years as I have been a member and *read* here I didn't realize I've been mostly quiet! My husband will have a difficult time believing this.

Our day turned out rather exciting when, right at the end of the service, one of the elderly congregants went down. Thankfully there was a "doctor in the house". The boys directed traffic, cleared parking area for the ambulance, ran for cold cloths, etc, while I was able to work with the doc to provide a little more hands on care. He was sitting up and talking by the time they took him out to the ambulance.

And it was a great sermon reminding us that through everything love needs to be our highest priority.

I also had the opportunity after church to have an in depth conversation with my ASM.

As usual, the Lord provided me with the circumstances to give me the perspective I need to have - not saying it changed my mind about anything, but certainly reminds me to temper my remarks. So, I will wait and see what presents itself next.

So, how did you spend Scout Sunday?

Our boys are heading out to spend the morning with our Charter Organization. This is a special day to the elderly congregation as the boys present the colors (including the Christian flag), each say a little about what they have done the past year, what they are looking forward to in the coming year and why they appreciate the over 60 years this church has chartered us in our small community. Then they honor us with a reception where the boys are served all the cookies they can eat. It is a day our charter organization serves the boys - they will have it no other way :-) I doubt if there is a single member in the congregation that hasn't been touched in some way over the years by the Troop. Having a son in the program, buying popcorn or Christmas wreathes, having the boys shovel their snow or rake their leaves. It is so nice to see the love they pour out.

I am struggling with putting on my shirt and wearing it to church.

Consider this, Sentinel947 - organizations like the VFW and American Legion, at least around here, are made up predominentally of older folks. Considerably older folks. They tend to not be all that progressive in matters such as this.

Another I'm contemplating today - I wonder how this is going to play out in our local fundraising efforts.

I think I am thankful we are heading to the movies. My brain needs a rest.

Thank you for being so responsive, Terry! I totally appreciate the new link to show me the active threads since my last visit!

I am finding posts that I have written in my profile yet cannot find them in the actual thread.

Beavah, you hit smack on the head. It does feel like a betrayal. Yes, it was a place where I felt safe as a woman and felt somewhat safe for my kid to be with people I barely know, if at all at times. Now I am very thankful that we decided not to send him to Jamboree this year and have reservations about him going to a specialty camp as a provisional camper.

One thing I would like to point out is that there already WAS a group of people that hashed this whole thing out, looked at it from every angle and made a recommendation. That committee was made up of volunteers from around the country. and the Board adopted their recommendations, resulting in the statement affirming the policy that has been in place since 1910. That statement was just issued 7 months ago. And that was the end of it. Until Monday, when we all learned otherwise, that is.

So yes. It feels like a betrayal in the worst way.

1910 .... NOT 2010 ... NOT 19:10 or 20:10 today ... 1910. Yeah. Betrayal is the right word.

Packsaddle:

I have a problem with it because I don't believe it is true. And thank you to whomever decided to jump the gun and start making a stink even before the Board votes. Nothing like the true agenda clearly stated to wake people up. Sorta pushes that whole willingness to let people choose at the local level bs right out the door, eh?

Anyway, here it is:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/furor-proposed-shift-scouts-gays-policy-18369767

Furor Over Proposed Shift in Scouts No-Gays Policy

By DAVID CRARY AP National Writer

NEW YORK February 1, 2013 (AP)

The Boy Scouts of America faces intensifying criticism from the left and right over a proposal to move away from a mandatory no-gays membership policy and allow troop sponsors to decide the matter for themselves.

The Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group that initially welcomed the BSA's possible shift, said Thursday that it was inadequate and demanded that the Scouts adopt a nationwide policy to accept gays as scouts and adult leaders.

The HRC said corporations that continued to donate funds to the Scouts if any troops were allowed to discriminate would lose points in an annual evaluation of how major employers deal with gay-related workplace issues.

Meanwhile, conservative groups which support the long-standing no-gays policy asked their followers to flood BSA headquarters with phone calls opposing any change,

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, urged callers to persist even if they couldn't get through at first.

"The BSA national leadership were not prepared for the thousands of Americans who were shocked to hear that an organization that could always be counted on for standing for what's right was about to cave in to homosexual activists and corporations," Perkins said in an emailed appeal.

"It is so important that you keep the pressure on, to show them how devastating this moral collapse will be for the Scouts and the country," he said.

Similar appeals were made by other conservative groups across the country.

The Boy Scouts, who emphatically reaffirmed the no-gays policy just seven months ago, announced on Monday that they were considering a major change. Instead of mandatory exclusion of gays, the different religious and civic groups that sponsor Scout units would be able to decide for themselves how to address the issue either maintaining the exclusion or opening up their membership.

The proposal is expected to be discussed, and possibly voted on, at a meeting of the Scouts' national executive board next week in Texas.

Deron Smith, the Scouts' national spokesman, declined comment on the Human Rights Campaign's announcement and also denied reports that the Scouts were taking a poll to gauge public sentiment on the controversy.

"When we receive calls we allow people to provide feedback, but if the board decides to address this topic, it will be about what is in the best interest of Scouting," Smith said. "Regardless of what people think about this issue, America needs Scouting."

Many Scout units are sponsored by relatively conservative religious denominations notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Southern Baptist churches. Catholic and Mormon leaders have withheld official comment on the proposal, but Southern Baptist officials have criticized it.

The Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in a blog post that the new policy "is almost sure to please no one and to lead to disaster for the Scouts."

"Those pressing for a reversal of the national policy are not likely to be satisfied with a local option," he wrote. "They had demanded a national policy mandating the full inclusion of homosexuals throughout Scouting at every level.

"On the other side, those who wanted the current policy to remain in place will now have to reconsider any relationship with the Boy Scouts," Mohler added. "The scale of potential membership loss to the Boy Scouts of America is staggering."

Fred Sainz, a vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Scout board members now needed to decide "what kind of America they want to be a part of" one that frowns on all discrimination or tolerates a degree of it.

"The board has to make a decision one way or another," he said. "The policy proposal they're considering makes the problem worse, not better."

The Human Rights Campaign's president, Chad Griffin, likened the proposed policy change "to a national restaurant chain saying that it will not discriminate at its corporate headquarters, but allow local restaurants to discriminate at will."

To back up its stance, Griffin's organization said it would change the criteria for its annual Corporate Equality Index. To receive a perfect score, companies would have to prohibit philanthropic giving to civic organizations that have a written policy of anti-gay discrimination, or permit its chapters, affiliates, or troops to do so.

Amid pressure from petition campaigns, two corporations UPS Inc. and Merck & Co. announced last year they were halting donations to the Scouts until the no-gays policy was changed. For 2011, UPS donated more than $85,000 and Merck gave $30,000 to the BSA and $10,000 to a regional Scout council.

(equals)

Follow David Crary on Twitter at http://twitter.com/CraryAP

Thank you for posting that Lodge 489. Rather takes the question of why would anyone think the LGBT would go after Charter Organizations that would maintain the status quo right off the table, eh?

At least it is now out there for all to see and National will not be able to just push this on down the line but have to man up and make a decision.

I just asked my 14 year old. He said home and school - then looked at me like I had grown two more heads. :-) I chose not to give him context.

I buy Crystal Light drink mixes as they are very tasty and sugar free. Even for our Boy Scouts too much sugar is not a pretty thing :-) I don't mind chips so long as it isn't all they eat. Single serving bags, while more expensive, help control portion sizes. All beef hot dogs are a better choice - low fat tend not to get eaten.

Walking tacos are a great hit with kids that age (all ages, including parents, actually) and can be packed full of good stuff. We combined those with a single cookie and a drink and served that at Pinewood Derby. It was *always* a hit.

I don't think I would stress about it too much no more often than you are talking about. Snack time at Den Meetings are where I would stress better choices.

Sentinel947 said:

"As for your comment about the molestation. I'm aware that stuff happens. The question is, would it be more common because you allow in gay members? Are gays more or less likely to molest another teenager? Or is orientation irrelevant to this discussion? "

Not as a general statement, but certainly as a matter of exposure. The only circumstance you have 14 year old girls in a position to be fondled by 17 year old boys would be in a Venture Crew or maybe an Explorer Post, and both represent a very small percentage of Scouting units. However, when you expand that to the entirety of Boy Scouting units you are talking a whole different dynamic. And once you say it is acceptable to openly declare your preferences you are also implying that you find them acceptable and all that goes with that. I am talking about BOYS - not adults. Everyone one of us here I presume has raised or is raising at least one teenage boy. We should all know they aren't the most self-disciplined group nor are they the best at exercising good judgement.

For the record, I have no interest in throwing a 14 year old girl into the mix, either. I just didn't sign on for all of the challenges that presents, though there are organizations that do and they have varying degrees of success. The point is - that is NOT what I signed up to deal with.

So, yes, I do believe it would be a bigger problem.

Well, until yesterday I didn't have a clue there was any change even being considered in light of the Supreme Court decision and all of the commitments to maintaining rights as a private organization, blah, blah, blah just a few short months ago. So to me - yes, one voice could very well represent a ground swell when coupled with how things have worked out in several different venues in recent years.

If that is the case, scoutingagain, please explain to me the boys who have been denied Eagle rank as a result of being openly gay. Maybe I am missing something.

"Cowardly? The Supreme Court has stated that the BSA may set membership standards as they see fit due to the fact that they are a private organization.

Charter Organizations have always had the right to pick and choose Scout leaders. They could choose to pick only left handed, Catholic females of Swedish decent under the age of 25 with a weight proportional to height for their adult troop leadership positions if they wished. I bet that would be a thriving troop!"

I think we would all agree this is a decision BSA is even considering due to pressure from both the LGBT and corporate sponsors who support them. Additionally, even in our little area of the country churches have been picketed for their stances on same sex marriage and homosexual pastors. Why would you think a Charter Organization would be somehow excluded from that?

Unless they have issued a new statement, the BSA potential policy change does NOT limit the conversation to adult leaders only.

Thank you, pchadbo, for a respectful and thoughtful dialogue. It has forced me to clarify my own thinking about several points. I will await the Executive Board's decision, have discussions with our Charter Organization and will decide what is next based on those conversations.

There are several options available for folks who are not interested in an organization with no religious basis or biases. If this passes there will no longer be one (as far as I can determine) for those of us to whom that is important. Perhaps it is time to start a conversation about creating one. Another one.

Edited to add: Yes, and individual CO can continue the status quo. I do not belong to the charter organization - I belong to the Boy Scouts of America. That is what it says on my membership card. Just because they shift the responsibility/liability down the ladder does not change that fact.(This message has been edited by MomToEli)

Moosetracker -

I don't know what my CO is going to do. As I said, I am not a member of their church and I don't know their position on this. Nor do I know if they, as a small church, feel able to bear the costs of litigation should they take the position to say no and then are subsequently sued.

The questions are complex, actually. Even if a CO says they are going to stand firm they and the individuals involved are still inherently tied to the national organization and what it does and does not stand for.

As for the karate teacher - if that club/school/whatever represented themselves as standing on one set of values and then changed later then yes, I would withdraw my son. If I went in to it knowing that the instructor was gay I would absolutely NOT attempt to change the school to be anything other than what it is. If I objected I would either have not joined in the first place or would leave and find something different. To try to force them to change to be what I want them to be would be simply wrong. If something didn't exist which suited me, I would find like-minded people and start something which met my needs. Which, frankly, is what I think the homosexual community should have done - and actually has done as there have been several scout-like programs that have been organized to be more consistent with what they believe. (You, too, can google it, as did I.) I simply don't see anyone bent on making those organizations be anything other than what they clearly say they are.

So, who is being discriminatory/unfair to whom?

PC - I thought I did address that in point #1 - sorry. I will try to say it a different way.

For National to make policy changes/compromises based on peer pressure does not set the example that re-enforces what I am teaching my own son, nor the boys in our troop for that matter. I teach them that right and wrong are not simply matters of majority vote, popular opinion or found in the quest to necessarily get along. I want my son to be a man of conviction. National is now undermining that teaching. We joined an organization that supported our values and they are choosing not only to depart from that, but to do so for all of the wrong reasons.

Is there ever room for dialogue about right and wrong? To a degree, depending on what defines right and wrong in the first place. For me and my household that standard is established by God and laid out in the Bible (the Christian - cannonized - Bible specifically). That is not open for debate for me. I will stand and fall - die on the or by the sword - on that standard. That is me. Can there be conversations about interpretation? Absolutely - and that is where there is room for compromise and changing opinions. For the BSA, I would have preferred they have a change of heart based on conversations with someone other than the money sources. I feel like they have been bought and sold out. At least then I could disagree with them on principle. Instead all I see is a group of men who value money more than honor. There is a whole lot of that going on these days. That is not the example I want for my young man. I am raising him to be willing to risk standing alone if need be. Many men of God have done just that through the centuries.

My allegiance is not to the BSA. It is to a set of values that it has supported. The BSA is a tool that, in the form it existed when we joined, supported what we are teaching our child. The day may well be coming that it will support someone else's values and we need to find a different tool. Honestly, other than the rank of Eagle, which in the past has meant a great deal, there is little that can not be accomplished in a little different setting.

Does that make sense?

Beavah, you said that so much better than I did - and you said exactly what I was trying to.

I want to respond before I read any other replies as I want this to be from the heart.

1. One of the things we really try to teach the young men in our unit is to not compromise their core values because of pressure. A living example of that: we have had boys bullied because they are in scouts rather than sports, particularly those in high school. They aren't called "gay". They are called "goody two shoes" and the equivalent, because they don't bully others, they are respectful to adults and other youth, they are conscientious about doing their school work, chores, etc. We spent a great deal of time talking about how it wouldn't matter if they were in scouts or not, they would still be the person they were being made fun of for being, as to change to please the masses would simply backfire - those people would continually pressure them to compromise until who they are gets totally lost. In order to successfully teach youth not to cave to peer pressure then we as adults must do the same. IMO, that is exactly what BSA is doing right now.

2. This is two different questions, so I will answer them differently. Scouts first. We don't house boys and girls in the same tents because - well, most of the time boys and girls have an attraction to the opposite sex. We do not put our young people into the most intimate position possible - sleeping quarters and/or asleep - and subject them to the possibility of being abused by the other. We also all know that an 11 year old or an 18 year old do not have the reasoning abilities - the simple brain development - to think through consequences. It is an incredibly experimental age. So, how is putting a young man who openly states he is attracted to other young men in that setting any different? And many young people (and adults) find the idea that someone of the same sex finds them attractive in that way rather repulsive. And, many of yes (yes, many) are teaching our children about sexual purity and the virtues of waiting until they are married. I wonder how much abstinence is taught in the homosexual community? (I don't expect you to address that question.)

That said, I would also deprive a boy of the scouting experience. Gay boys will/are/would be expected to operate by the same guidelines as any boy - sex is not the topic de jour and acting out sexually will get you sent home packing pronto. What we may end up doing is going to individual tents, however.

Adults - that is difficult. I do not want to discourage anyone from helping with the unit. However, I do want people who share my core values teaching/mentoring my child. Yes, there are things he can learn from all people that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. However, when that adult makes their orientation an issue then that pushes that front and center.

3. Have you quite beating your wife so that your kids get the benefit of a loving home? What the heck kind of question is that? Certainly not one that is inviting honest dialogue. I am not homophobic, whether you want to believe it or not. You don't get to determine reality for me. Sorry. I do believe I answer to a much higher power than you and conduct myself accordingly.

Dang, I should have read all the way through YOUR post before I gave it the time and effort to attempt to address your questions honestly to see if that was really what you were after. :-((This message has been edited by MomToEli)

Packsaddle, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I do NOT know how our charter organization will decide in this matter. While we have an excellent relationship with the Charter Organization we personally are members of a different church. I would have to go back and read my original post but I don't recall making reference to any other unit or charter organization.

I don't mind questions about how I feel about this matter and will honestly dialog with anyone about it, however we must first agree to honestly represent what the other person has said.

Thank you.

MattR, I suspect there will be many more, as you call them, helicopter parents. I don't mind every scout having a parent along if they like, so if that's what it takes for people to feel comfortable, more power to them. There are plenty of ways to keep adults busy and out of the way of the boys.

I found this site years ago when my now 14 year old Life Scout was just a Wolf Cub and I was a new Den leader. It was a great resource to me during those early years. I came here when I was tapped to run Cub/Webelos Resident Camp, looking for ideas on the best features of a camp, and implemented so of those ideas at our own Council camp. Now, as a Scoutmaster, I still drop by from time to time. I have gleaned lots from great contributors and some of you lifetime Scouters. So, Terry, I, too, appreciate the repository of material and wisdom that can be found here.

Today I came specifically to read what some who frequent these boards had to say on the recent press release from the BSA,though this is a subject area I have very specifically avoided on these boards as I try not to immerse myself in the debate. Having been around as long as I have, including various volunteer positions at the Council level I agree with the sentiment that this would never have been made public if it hadn't already been hashed out in the back rooms and is simply awaiting the formality of the vote.

As I read your original post, Terry, there is one statement that stood out to me and shows, IMO, your true feelings of those of my ilk:

"Years ago I had the chance to meet one of our moderators face to face, and I shared with him my most basic observation about how this debate (and opinion) played out on SCOUTER.com: the more we allowed the most ardent supporters of the BSA's anti-gay position to speak, the more likely it was for people without a strong opinion on this matter to be repelled by that point of view."

There is simply no respect for the opposing view in that statement. I realize you don't state your own feeling specifically in that statement, but when taken with the whole of your post I took it really as pretty condescending to those who support the current and long-standing BSA policy.

To those who believe this will have little effect you are dead wrong. Perhaps not on either coast, or perhaps the large metro areas, but it certainly will in the heartland. As a parent and as a leader this is weighing very heavy on my heart. It will be just as I predicted to a friend of mine this morning - it will be Conservatives like myself and my family who will become targets of intolerance and ridicule. And that will come at the hands of those hollering for this to become the new policy as they demand tolerance. (I won't go in to the whole conversation that to be tolerant does not mean one must embrace or agree. Perhaps another time.)

I do not know what we will do yet. We will wait for National to make their official announcement. I have already had contact with our Charter Organization so they can be prepared to determine their position - it is, after all, their troop. Then my husband and I, through a whole lot of prayer, will determine what our actions will or won't be. I can tell you, as a Scout leader and a Christian, that one part of me fully embraces those of differing lifestyles as I believe Christ died for all men and there is no hope of His light shining if we are not willing to carry it. For me the dilemma comes in camping, honestly. That provides the most intimate and vulnerable for all boys, including my own. Well, I guess there is another really major area - who my son gets his moral training from. yes, he gets that from home and church, but that is also a big part of Scouts, and I am just not sure we are willing to set him in front of someone who diametrically opposes our understanding of the Bible to be his mentor on moral applications.

I am not even really sure why I feel compelled to share any of this, other than this place is one of the places where I have always seemed to turn when trying to find the right way to do this Scouting thing.

My heart is so very heavy this morning. :-(

Don't forget smelly and dirty.

I thoroughly enjoyed WB21C when I took it two years ago. One of the members of my Patrol did not - viewed it as pretty much a total waste of time.

I enjoyed all aspects of it - except having to unload the car when I got back home, but then I never enjoy that part. :-)

I predict you will have a great time.