NJCubScouter

Just to confirm, moderator approval is NOT required to start a new topic. Though now that you mention it, in a certain area of the forum, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea...

Some of MY Jewish friends say the same thing, and even go further (beyond just synagogues as CO's) and express surprise that there are any Jewish people at all in the BSA. (Even though they know I am, and I am.) The Schiffs are good examples, but I stay closer to home and point out that my father was a Scout and then a Scouter from the age of 12 in the late 30's, to the day he died, 67 years later. His troop, as a youth, was chartered to a Jewish Community Center, and as of the time he became SM, was all Jewish. He once told me the story (this all happened before I was born, apparently) of the time that the troop "next door", consisting of everybody in the neighborhood who wasn't Jewish, folded, and he told the head of the CO that if he was not permitted to invite the displaced Polish, Italian, German, black, etc. etc. kids into the "all Jewish" troop, they would have to find a new Scoutmaster. So now it was a troop for everybody, in the early or mid 50's. I'm kind of proud of that.

I actually agree with walkinthewoods on one point. Why worry about Trail Life or try to figure out what they are doing and why? I don't. Let them do their thing and we do ours, and try to make this new policy work for the benefit of the BSA. In real life the "transition" is kind of simple for me. Our troop's CO (a church) has made clear for years that they do not exclude gay people, and they do not want us to do so either. The BSA policy has now caught up with them. There have not even been any recent discussions about this issue with the CO, because nobody has any doubt about what their "policy" is.

I just wanted to "second" what 00Eagle said about the National Jewish Committee on Scouting. They never "not recommended" Scouting. I am fairly certain they did pass a resolution at some point advocating a change in policy, but then I am pretty sure my council did as well. They were all part of Scouting at all times. Dis-affiliation or non-affiliation with the BSA was recommended, to my knowledge, by organizations within the Reform movement, but it has always been up to each congregation to decide what to do. Like the head of the National Jewish Committee, I am hopeful that this decision will help broaden the base of CO's among Jewish congregations and other organizations. (And, I would add, new-Jewish organizations as well.)

Again with the rock. That was a hypothetical used by a BSA spokesman who was apparently trying to articulate the furthest possible boundary of what might "qualify" as a belief in "God," and didn't articulate it very well. It does sound kind of ridiculous to say that a particular rock is God, and I don't know that anyone really believes that. But it begins to sound less ridiculous to say that someone believes that "God" is IN the rocks, that is, all the rocks, and all the trees, and the air, the earth (small e - and large E too, I guess), the water, etc. I'm fairly sure that there are Native American beliefs that are exactly that. And I would add that God is to be found everywhere else in the Universe as well. So can a rock be God? More accurately, it's one of the infinite manifestations of God. If that's what you believe. We also need to remember that although the BSA uses the word "God", in practice any higher power(s) or supreme being(s) will qualify. There may be some exceptions, for example, "Satan." But the real issue there (in my opinion) is that if you worship "Satan", you probably believe in a philosophy that is contrary to all or part of the Scout Oath and Law.

I do agree that National probably should not have made the change "effective immediately." When the change was made regarding youth members, I believe the vote was taken in May and the change was effective January 1 - and since that policy change affected all units, it did not involve potential changes in CO's or movement of members from one unit to another, as this one does. It probably would have been better to make this change effective Jan. 1 as well.

He can be a leader. Just not there.

Chapter 10 of the Guide to Advancement is entitled "Advancement for Members with Special Needs." I think the Scout, if he is able, and/or whoever is advocating for him, needs to read it and act on it. Immediately, if he is 17. If there is any question about what to do, I would contact your council professional who is in charge of advancement (I assume all councils have this, in our council it is one of the DE's (not for our district) who also has responsibility for advancement), and/or the council advancement chair. (You could try the district advancement chair but I am pretty sure they would have to kick up upstairs to the council chair.) Depending on how close the Scout is to his 18th birthday, he may not need more time. He may just need some modification (or maybe just an interpretation) of the leadership requirement that is part of the project requirement. Maybe he needs to be able to give instructions to his "labor force" in handwritten or typewritten form, or using computers, smartphones, etc. Obviously it depends on the project. There are projects, and ways to do projects, that could be geared toward an Eagle candidate with speech difficulties. As an aside, you shouldn't have to "sway" the Scoutmaster. The advancement program accommodates young men with special needs. It's right there in the book. Just out of curiosity, has this Scout fulfilled a position of responsibility for 6 months since becoming Life? Or is in the process of doing so, before his 18th birthday?

I agree. National will have to do that. Hopefully the major nationwide CO's will stick around and LET the BSA do it.

JoeBob, I don't trust National at all. But what I think is more likely than the doomsday scenarios I see being painted in this forum recently is the possibility that if things start looking too bleak (like the LDS and the Catholics and the Methodists all deciding on a nationwide basis that all of their churches will dis-affiliate from the BSA), National may suddenly "discover" a little-known codicil in the BSA bylaws that they can interpret to require that a decision like this must be made by a full vote of the National Council. (I know they have already said that that's not required, I am saying that as a subterfuge, they might suddenly decide it is necessary.) Or some other mechanism to allow them to "take back" their decision. I'm not saying it will be pretty, but I am supposing that they would prefer creating a huge mess to watching the whole ship go down, taking the top execs' 6-(or 7) figure salaries with it.

Ah. So Stosh made a pun and I didn't get it?

I thought it was also strange how the GSUSA got stuck in there. I am sure they realize it is two different organizations. I think it is just a case of poor writing/editing, i.e. you need to finish with one subject before you start another, otherwise everything gets all mixed up.

I find it amusing that some people in here suddenly care so much about what certain outside groups think. I care about what the BSA thinks, and what it is willing to do, and not do.

The closest troop to my house (not the one I am a leader in) is chartered to a Roman Catholic Church. The person who was Scoutmaster while our sons were in high school together is Jewish, as are several of the other current and former leaders from that troop who I have known. I have attended a couple of ECOH's for that troop (at the church) and they have a very diverse membership - more diverse than ours. I assume there are even a few members of that church in the troop, but I don't know that for sure.

BadWolf, unless you can travel through time like a certain fictional character who you seem to be a fan of, you don't actually know what's going to happen in the future. I think the BSA can make this work and that we, the volunteers, can help make it work by continuing to deliver and support the program and making whatever adjustments (switching units, finding new CO's, etc.) need to be made. That is, if we want the BSA to succeed. I know I do.

I don't see how you get that second sentence from the statement made by the Bishop of the Diocese of Bismarck. His statement says: "Thus, effective immediately, the Catholic Church of the Diocese of Bismarck and each and every one of its parishes, schools and other institutions, is formally disaffiliated with and from the Boy Scouts of America." That has nothing to do with how troops are to select leaders. The statement means that Catholic institutions in that diocese will no longer be CO's for BSA units. No troops, no leaders - at least not within the BSA. That is completely different from what the Fargo diocese is saying.

BadWolf, the question was not about what goes in the workbook, and that is not what I was answering. The question is whether the Eagle Project hours "count" in the Scout's "career service hours," which is an unofficial statistic unrelated to advancement. We seem to agree that if that statistic is tracked, the Eagle Project hours should count.

If you are talking about the total number of service hours a Scout has done, from joining to Eagle, I am not sure why the EBOR would want to know that. It is not directly relevant to any requirement for Eagle or any other rank, though of course the specific number of hours required for the lower ranks must be done. On the other hand, I have heard references at ECOH's and elsewhere to total number of service hours. And I know Troopmaster keeps track of it. In my opinion it is counting for the sake of counting. But I guess if you are going to count for the sake of counting, you might as well count everything.

For anyone who is confused about this, I removed a "cartoon" from this thread, which is the subject of a couple of comments by walkinthewoods, above. For anyone who saw it and sees the comments about it, I will explain that I removed the cartoon because I thought it was "graphic" to a degree that is inappropriate for our forum. I do not think the cartoon "denigrated" any "group" but rather it criticized an idea, which is fair game. Walkinthewoods, I need to reply to your comment that "the silence of moderators is deafening." The cartoon in question was posted at 11:55 p.m. last night. Your comment, which is the first and only thing that anyone said about the cartoon itself, was posted at 6:04 a.m. today. I saw all of this and decided to remove the cartoon at 7:04 a.m. The moderators are volunteers and we are not patrolling the forum 24 hours a day, especially in the middle of night. I would say this was acted on pretty quickly.

I find the NPR story (at least the transcript, I did not try to listen to the video) a little strange because it does not even mention the local option. If you didn't know what the BSA had actually done, you would think that LDS troops were being required to appoint openly gay adult leaders, which they aren't. The newspaper article does mention the local option, but basically dismisses it because some people have questioned whether it is legal defensible. I find all of the panic over the legal status of the local option to be very premature. It has been in effect for seven days. Nobody has made any legal challenge to it yet. Why do some people seem ready to give up without a fight?

It was a one-way blind alley until Monday. Now it's a two-way street.

Really? Sorry, can't help you if you don't know what those who oppose the ban are being asked to do. I don't think anyone is being asked to "accept" anything. The only thing that is being "asked" is that if you are the IH or COR of a non-religious CO, that you do not exclude leaders solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

SouthScout, what I see in that picture is Scouts marching in a parade that is at least partly political in nature, which they shouldn't be doing. I see some odd uniforming, in addition to what has already been mentioned, most of the Cub Scouts are wearing non-uniform pants, which is typical in our area but it looks stupid in a parade. Not to mention the adult leader trading salutes with the Scout in the front row, what is THAT all about? But I sure don't see what you're seeing. Everybody seems to be behaving themselves. Take away the rainbows and it looks like a St. Patrick's Day parade, without the beer.

Who is making that argument? And I am not sure what "accepting of lifestyles" means.

WAKWIB, what is your basis for saying that Randall Stephenson is "not content with 'local option'"? Is there a quote somewhere that you can link to?