NJCubScouter

Well said. I would just add, I can think of one reason why the religious emblem issue came up with the UUA and not the Union for Reform Judaism. (I really don't know much about the United Church of Christ.) The UUA is a single, nationwide (or worldwide?) organization which, while it does not control the policy positions of local congregations, generally reflects a consistent worldview on the "gay issue", and has its "own" religious award. The URJ represents only one of the several "movements" within Judaism (similar to denominations in Chrstianity, though not exactly the same.) There is no "Reform Jewish" religious award; all Jewish scouts are eligible for the same awards, so the awards are not in any way controlled by the URJ - far from it, since the URJ had distanced itself from the BSA, and many of the local Reform congregations had followed the URJ's recommendation. That doesn't mean there aren't Reform Jewish Scouts and leaders, there are many - but generally not in units chartered to their own place of worship. Hopefully, there will now be many more units chartered to congregations affiliated with the URJ, UUA and UCC, as well as the Episcopalian church.

That's the "principle" followed by the BSA, right?

Sounds like a winner all around to me. It looks like all of the funds are coming from federal grants and/or the University and not the BSA.

Stosh, I didn't say anything about camps or pigeonholing. (Though we do like camping here, right?) But if you want my opinion on where you stand on the optimistic/pessimistic scale, you sound pretty pessimistic where the future of Scouting is concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with being pessimistic. I am pessimistic about a number of things - including the outlook for my own troop, for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. So when I can be optimistic about something, I find some pleasure in that. I think Scouting is going to be fine.

I didn't say you can't. What I did say is that the change has not split apart the BSA, and you said "Yet." I do realize there was a smiley face attached to "Yet", and a smirky-smiley one at that, so maybe you didn't really mean the "Yet". If you did mean it, though, I would say that shows a lack of positive outlook for the future of the BSA. Or to put it another way, it isn't that "you" (in the generic sense) "can't"; it is that perhaps "you" (meaning specifically You) don't. But if "Yet" really was a joke, then I probably leaped to the wrong conclusion. And I think it is great if people who opposed the change have a positive outlook for Scouting. It has seemed to me that a few people in this forum do not. I do not "yet" know which category you fall into.

As people are so fond of saying around here, show me where THAT is in "the book." I'm sure people get tired of hearing me say this, but my immediate family has been continuously and actively involved with the BSA for close to 80 years, and I think that by most measures, all of the people in that chain (mainly my father, myself, my youngest brother and my son, the last two of whom are Eagle Scouts) would be described as "liberal", both ideologically and religiously. (Though "progressive" is more in vogue now.) My older cousin was also a Scout, and he is more "left" than any of us - though now that I think about it, also more religious than any of us, though the "denomination" in question is considered to be very "liberal". And I know that me and my family are not unique. Or to put it in a sentence, liberal thought and belief are perfectly compatible with the values of Scouting.

I prefer to have a positive outlook where the future of Scouting is concerned. Your mileage, as they say on the Internet, may vary.

Barry, I don't think the issue was just the badge. I could be wrong, but my impression was that either the BSA was not issuing charters to UUA churches, or that the UUA was actively discouraging its churches from seeking charters, or both. Maybe one of the UUA'ers around here can provide the actual facts, but my understanding seems to be supported by the UUA statement: (Emphasis supplied.) So, yes, individual UUA'ers could join Scouting, just as individual Wiccans could join Scouting even though National would not issue charters to their organizations, and individual Reform Jews could join Scouting even though the largest Reform rabbinical organization in the U.S. strongly discouraged its member congregations from being CO's. (A policy which, I hope and expect, has been discontinued.) But, as I am sure you will agree, when one's religious organization forms its own Scouting unit, there is more of a tendency for members of the congregation to join, and when the national hierarchy of a religion or denomination actively encourages its local congregations to do so, that has even more of a chance of increasing membership from that group, beyond just the right of an individual congregant to join a unit chartered to some other organization. In fact, that's a large part of the whole purpose of having the CO system in the first place, and it's a large part of the reason why the major religions have national committees on Scouting. The LDS Church takes that idea to the ultimate level, and their numbers speak for themselves. On a more typical level, the UUA seems to think that is the case as well, as shown by the above quote. That's how it helps.

It can only help. This can only help. Although, for me, the impact on membership was never the point. My only hope was that the change would not split the BSA apart, and it hasn't.

It would be interesting to see any actual statistical studies of this issue. For now, I am not convinced that the current "generation" of younger parents are much different from past generations. There have always been people like you describe - and there have always been others who "step up to the plate" and give as much time and effort as they can, and more. I think that is true in every "generation."

Well, that sheds a different light on the situation.

Yeah, that lazy dad. He works all week, and all he wants to do on the weekend (after shelling out some of his hard-earned pay for Junior's Scouting activities) is relax. The nerve of that guy! But it's ok. I have concluded that the vast majority of teenagers, and on up through college students, don't really understand what "working" really means - even if they have had part-time or summer jobs. I guess you can't really blame them, because they haven't "been there." I probably didn't get it. I know my son didn't get it. But he sure does now, now that he's been working full time for a year and a half.

Today? I don't think Socrates was talking about today. And I know you didn't mean he was, but it sort of highlights a point I make whenever we get into these generational discussions: EVERY generation (probably since Socrates) has taken a dim view of the antics of the next generation. "These kids today" - it's not a new saying. My parents' "generation" said it about mine - and Stosh, you are in the same "generation" as me, if you put any stock in these generational labels, which I really don't. So that's another point, I guess: Millennial (which to me is still Gen Y), Gen X, and so on are just labels created by media and marketing gurus. Nobody can even agree on what the dividing lines are. And what does it all mean anyway? After all, by most definitions, my children are an X and 2 Y's - but to me, they are all the same generation, that being the generation of my family after me.

I've never heard of that.

My troop's trailer is registered to the CO. They also have a piece of property where they are gracious enough to let us park the trailer.

Very, very carefully, and hope it's not that one from the last movie with the extra spikes sticking out of it.

Welcome to the forum, Midwest Scouter, and I sure hope you find someone here who knows what you are talking about!

As Matt Higgins said, you have an opportunity here to have a CO with which you can have a good relationship, as the current pastor, etc. are consciously deciding to charter a unit as opposed to having one handed down to them from 60 or 70 years of previous pastors. As is discussed all the time in this forum, the leaders of many CO's are barely aware that the troop or pack is there. And, as qwasze mentions, there is also an opportunity here to expand your pack membership and maybe get some new adult leaders out of it as well. (Although qwasze is talking about splitting into two packs; I am talking about the existing pack staying together at the church and recruiting new members from the parish.) One thing you want to be aware of is that if you are chartered to a parish, your leaders MAY be required to take the Catholic version of youth protection training in addition to the BSA's YPT, regardless of the leader's religion. Near me is a troop with a Catholic church as the CO and their leaders (which based on their troop's membership, probably includes Jewish, Hindu, Protestant and Catholic leaders - possibly Muslim as well) have had to take both youth protection courses. I don't know if that is a nationwide thing, but I doubt it is just our local Catholic church. I am not saying this is a negative, just something you should be aware of.

I do not see why anyone would have a problem spending 30 minutes renewing their YPT, but the number of people (regardless of age) who find it difficult to find that half hour is distressingly large. On the other hand I am not a representative sampling; I was a facilitator for YPT on the district level before everybody started doing it online.

A couple of places on the Internet say that change was effective March 1, 2015. It does seem longer ago than that. It was probably announced in 2014 but was effective in 2015. It was a result of the change in membership standards for youth, but was not simultaneous with it. I don't think the BSA ever officially said that that was the motivation for applying "adult" requirements to Venturing youth, but everybody knew it was. On another note, our troop just found out the hard way about dropping charters for lack of YPT. Apparently one of our "key 3" did not get around to taking it before the charter went in, and as a result our troop is not chartered as of March 1. Hopefully that was cleared up this week but I do not know for sure yet.

As a youth, I recall I had a shirt with a collar, and then a shirt without a collar, which said above the pocket "Scouts BSA" instead of "Boy Scouts of America", which led some to speculate about a possible merger with GSUSA. I probably got the new shirt while I was First Class, because in my personal patch collection I have both the rectangular rank patch (like the one on the original poster's new acquisition) and the oval one with the colorful background (which has since been muted.) My recollection from previous discussions in this forum is that there is some mystery about exactly when rank advancement was restricted to those below age 18. I recall that some say it was 1954, some say earlier, some say later, and most say that whatever year it was officially, unofficially it went "out of style" years before that. In the case of this particular Assistant Scoutmaster, even if it is technically possible that he earned First Class as an adult, it seems more likely that he earned it as a youth and simply chose to wear the patch as an adult. While incorrect, it is not unheard of. There is (or was) a SM around here who wore his Eagle patch on his uniform, and it is clear from his age that he did not earn Eagle as an adult.

I agree with all of the above. Coincidentally, I am about to submit a reimbursement request from the office where I work, and I don't have a receipt either. The machine that provided me with the services in question was apparently out of paper to print receipts. I am pretty sure it will not be a problem. I hope not, $14 rides on this.

Grae, welcome to the forum!

The way to avoid that would be to refer to "any girl in uniform that stops by my house personally accompanied by one or both of her parents." Which echoes the rule in our troop: Scouts can go door-to-door selling fundraising items but must be accompanied by an adult at all times. (It is ok if the adult is standing on the sidewalk or sitting in the car watching their son.) This has been the rule in the troop since before my son joined. It was probably prompted by a very specific incident in New Jersey (I'm guessing about 18-20 years ago) that ended very badly for a youth (not a Scout I believe) who was going door-to-door selling something. And the perpetrator in that case was also a teenager, a couple of years older than the deceased victim. Bizarre and tragic case.

There actually is something the Scout can do about it. If a SM (or CC) refuses to sign the completed workbook (or Eagle Scout Application), a Scout can request a Board of Review from the council "under disputed circumstances." See section 8.0.3.2 of the Guide to Advancement, which is here: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf But hopefully it does not come to that. Hopefully your son goes to the SM with his completed workbook, and I would bring along all the emails and other evidence showing how he communicated about the project, and apologize for forgetting to include the SM on one email, and hopefully the SM will sign the workbook and the Scout does not have to go through all the legal jargon in the Guide to Advancement.