NJCubScouter

I don't believe the person who that thread is about has filed a lawsuit - or at least he hadn't as of the time of that thread. If he does, and the church wins (as it should and probably would), that would demonstrate that (at least in that court's jurisdiction) the local option is legally viable. That wouldn't be such a bad thing. (Let's remember, this person applied to be a leader in a troop chartered to a Catholic Church, and was turned down. That's how the local option is supposed to work.)

I hope the BSA will explain that statement about new troop applications needing to be approved by national.

I know I never said that, so maybe someone who did can respond to you.

Leaving Scouting aside, it seems to me that a religious organizaion does not have much of a future if it turns away its own youthful members who are seeking to learn more about their own religion.

Good question. I suspect we have different viewpoints on when the BSA "stuck it's foot in the politio-religious door." I think that's what happened in the late 70's.

I agree this is not a change in policy, it is just adding something to the charter agreement that is already policy.

I posted some incorrect information above, which I have stricken out in that post. A new Scout who began working on the Scout badge (old requirements) before Jan. 1 but has not completed it as of that date may continue working on that badge. He does not to earn the new Scout rank. After completing the Scout badge he must then use the new requirements for all other ranks. Sorry for the confusion.

Can we please keep the discussion on the new service requirements?

My understanding is that if the youth has completed the Scout badge (old requirements) before Jan. 1 (and is therefore considered to be "working" on Tenderfoot before Jan. 1), he may then do Tenderfoot, 2nd Class and First Class under the old requirements until Jan. 1, 2017. Any ranks not completed by then must be done under the new requirements. Once he makes First Class, he must do Star (etc.) under the new requirements. However, if he has NOT completed the Scout badge (old requirements) before Jan. 1, he must then do the Scout rank (new requirements) and all other ranks under the new requirements. That's my understanding, anyway. (Later edit: Struck through incorrect information, see post below.)

Welcome to the forums, Raignis!

We have had the same issues. In the past couple years our FOS presentations have been done by one of our own ASM's who is also a UC, so the "pomposity" factor has not been much of an issue. But the reason he does it is that the troop committee has made clear that we didn't appreciate the "attitude" we got from some of the "outside" presenters in the past. So this guy stepped in and volunteered to do presentations that won't tick off our parents, for which he deserves applause. (But I don't think his presentations raise much money from our unit.) I also think that parents in general take the attitude that their son joined a troop - not a district, not a council, not a national. They realize they have to pay the annual registration fees, which are built into our troop dues. But beyond that, the parents don't see the council/district as providing much value, if any.

I guess it goes to show, you can't give people in this forum a limited number of options and expect that to stick. We'll always make up a few of our own.

Apparently our CC can't withstand whatever pressure is put on her to have one of these things once a year, so we do have them. I don't know whether that makes it "mandatory" or not because I don't know what "they" say to her. Their return from presentations in our unit is very low as I understand it.

Stosh, we all understand that your skills in dealing with youth are beyond those of mortal men. I'm guessing that Rock Doc is an ordinary guy like most of the rest of us and we all just have to muddle through the best we can. You are fortunate to be exempt from such limitations.

If it's supposed to be a monologue, not a dialogue, that's probably a good idea, but I wish they had made that clearer in the requirement do you don't have to read some blog that probably 5 percent of Scouters read. Yes, the requirement says "tell", but I don't see how you stop a SM and a Scout from discussing anything in an SMC that they want to discuss, and now they have called attention to this particular aspect of the Oath over all others. What about having the Scout tell how he does his duty to his Country? Himself? Others? IOf course all of those can be discussed in an SMC, but only one is mentioned in the new requirement. My issue with this requirement, as I discussed in the previous thread where we discussed this (which I think ended up in the dreaded Issues and Politics), is what is an SM supposed to do when he hears an answer that makes him wonder whether the Scout... how shall I put this... whether the Scout has raised a "membership issue"? Is there going to be any training for this. If you have a SM who believes as Calico says, that a Scout does his Duty to God by living the Oath and Law, then everything is fine. I just wonder about the SM who hasn't thought this through as much as a lot of us here have, and hears an answer he wished he didn't hear. And if anybody thinks I've just pushed this thread into I&P-land, sorry about that... the bright side is that I can move it myself, if it comes to that.

ScoutingRadio, welcome to the forums and I hope you will participate in the discussions. I have a question about "ScoutingRadio": Is this a paid service?

I agree with what Calico says, except that if the decision is made to not allow the Scout to rejoin, I agree with Krampus that the DE should be notified - not necessarily asked or his/her opinion, just notified of the decision. The guidelines on youth behavior (they used to be handed out at YP training, now they are in the G2SS) say that if a Scout is removed from a unit for repeated behavioral problems, the council should be notified. I would say this falls into the same category, if you are declining the Scout's application due to past behavior problems in your troop.

How long has it been since he left the troop? How serious was his misbehavior in the first place? Did he pose a threat to the safety of others? Has anyone spoken to see if he recognizes the error of his previous ways, and has changed his behavior accordingly? How was his behavior in the other troop, and why does he want to leave them? I guess all of these questions (and maybe others) are part of a larger question: how much likelihood is there that if this Scout returns, he will be a productive and well-behaved member of the troop?

This is NOT a moderator note. Maybe this is breaking the "rules" of your thought experiment, but I'll ask this anyway: Quazse, in this version of reality, has our hypothetical 11-year-old already been in a Cub Scout (or "Cub-Scout-like") program that was also coed? And if so, how did that work out?

Moderator Note: This is the third currently active thread about the same general subject, but I realize it is presented somewhat differently than the others. If it remains about patrol method, troop organization, program, etc., it will stay here in the "Patrol Method" section. Otherwise it may get moved.

They actually don't. That story was about transgended girls - i.e. someone who was born male but is now considered female. Eagle was talking about "cisgendered males." "Cisgendered" is a fairly recent term used by some, to mean someone who is NOT transgendered. I can understand the confusion because a lot of people have never heard the term "cisgendered." Just to add: I don't think the GSUSA's exclusion of boys is really relevant to the BSA's decision that Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts remain all-male. The BSA has to do what is right for the BSA.

When I first read your comment about rules of membership that were "tossed away", I thought you were talking about the change in policy regarding gay people. But when I got to the last sentence of what I quoted, now I'm not sure if the "rule" you are talking about is that one, or the change to allow female leaders and Venturers, or both. Can you clarify that?

Stosh, I think the point of the physical fitness requirements and the service requirements is to instill in the boys the idea that these are things they should be doing on a regular basis. The point is not merely to "check the box." Whether it works that way in real life, of course, depends on the person and to some degree the "culture" in any given troop. In any event, the new requirements are almost here and boys are going to start becoming subject to them after Jan. 1, when they join Scouting, or earn their last rank under the old requirements. Whether they are a good idea or not is secondary.

Great movie (yes Skip, I'm sure that's what he meant), though I have watched it too many times. But there is one thing about that scene that I've never quite understood. The Soviet first officer (played by Sam Neill) seems a little surprised/confused when the captain (Sean Connery) asks for "one ping only", and VERY surprised/confused when he asks for it the second time (if I am recalling this correctly; at the very least I know for certain that he has a strong reaction the second time.) I have never understood why he is surprised and confused. (Spoiler alert for anyone who's never seen it.) The first officer is obviously in on the plan to turn the sub over to the Americans and defect. He knows the American sub is there. He knows there is going to be some communication with the Americans. And yet when the communication occurs, he seems surprised and doesn't seem to understand what is happening. He's the number 2 guy in the whole plan and is suddenly clueless about the whole thing. Isn't that strange? Or is it me who is missing something?

Quartermaster, please try your post again, it should work now.