NJCubScouter

DaveCO, if you want to promote lone Scouting, that's fine. I have never really looked into it. (Living in the most densely populated state in the country means that isolation is not a big issue.) I just think it is rarely going to be the best alternative in a case where the Scout has a unit available, and especially where a choice of units is available.

Scouter99, I was responding mainly to Skip's first sentence. I understood what the third sentence meant. I was reiterating that I think most people would be wary or cautious of accepting a completely unknown person as a leader. The concern would be any kind of potential ulterior motive, not just sexual abuse.

Well, in a sense there is a time limit, but I see no requirement to do the tests in front of the counselor.. Did the Scout do, record, compare and analyze exactly as it says in the requirement? If so he is ready to talk to a counselor, discuss and describe as it says, and pass that requirement. The first counselor quit on him. I think he is entitled to a substitute.

Lone Scouts does exist and is primarily intended for youth in isolated areas or who for other practical reasons cannot attend unit meetings. It is true that the last bullet point in one of those documents mentions home-schooled children whose parents do not want them to be in youth groups, so I guess it could be stretched to include any child whose parent does not want them to be in a youth group. But I really dont think this is the best solution. Scouting is meant to be done in groups. There has to be a better answer than intentionally and unnecessarily isolating youth from each other. But it's up to each of us to make choices for our own children.

I've seen both.

It seems to be that I read somewhere on this forum, probably within the past 6 months or so, that Scouting was indeed moving in that direction. (Later added note: Maybe I should have read perdidochas's post before I typed that.)

Are you proposing this only for Cub Scout related topics? If not maybe it should be moved to "Forum Support and Announcements". It would probably get more responses that way. I can move it if you want.

I kind of liked the idea of "Scout" being something that a brand new Scout (especially one who was a Webelos) could earn at his first or second meeting by doing just a few fairly simple things and immediately have a "badge", though not a rank. Ok, you're a Scout now, here's the "Scout" patch to go with it, and it's basically a "blank" patch, with no detail like the rank patches have, to show that almost all of your learning as a Scout is ahead of you. By the way, maybe I missed this, but can a Scout now work on Scout at the same time he is working on T-1? Or does Scout still have to be completed first?

DavidCo, this is the second time in this thread that you have referred to gay people as being "disordered", but I decided to go back to the first one since you said it more directly there: The issue is, how do we have one organization where some people believe as you believe, but others believe that homosexuality is NOT "disordered", and therefore that it is wrong to exclude them? Should we impose your religious beliefs on others? Should we impose the religious beliefs of others on you? The only way to even TRY avoiding either one is local option. It isn't perfect, especially since not everybody gets to exercise the option. But what we have now just isn't viable, and what is replacing it is better. Sometimes "better" is the best you can do.

Jaron, what about the issue that Calico raised, that these camps are not owned by the council?

Yes, I think many leaders would exercise a certain amount of caution in this situation.

Packsaddle already asked you for evidence of this, so I will just note that in my area there are many BSA units chartered to places of worship and, as far as I am aware, all of them are open not only to non-members of that particular church (etc.) but to members of other religions as well.

RS, it seems unlikely the Scout badge will be dropped, considering they just expanded the requirements for it. It is not the "joining badge" any more. (As of Jan. 1)

That was a little confusing. But If you mean your council has 17 LDS troops, that's about 8 times as many as mine has.

I realize that was directed at Packsaddle, but I will respond. The old policy imposed one group's beliefs on another group. The new policy allows for choice. It isn't perfect, because non-religious CO's that want to remain gay-exclusive will not have the option. I wanted everybody to have the option, but legal issues make that difficult. As I said before, if people want to make this work, there will probably be some realignment of units and people moving between units. But more people will have more choice, and that's a good thing.

They should count from the BSA's and OA's perspective. Whether it counts differently in LDS, I don't know. Maybe your son should ask the records-keeper in the troop why the nights aren't in the "system." And besides, your son's handbook has a place to keep his own camping records.

The court would take into account that there was a good reason for declining the application. And I know it's costly whether you win or lose, even if there's insurance. But lawsuits can happen even under the soon-to-be-old policy. In fact the BSA's own legal memo says they expected the Dale decision to be overturned. That would have to have started with a lawsuit in some state or federal trial court somewhere.

I recall two guys who filled out an application who were not parents, but one was a friend of the SM so he had a connection to the troop, the other was a police officer in town so he was "known" in the community. In neither case did the person become active, but they were accepted. I also recall that in the last version of the YPT video that I saw (not the online course and I don't think it's the current video) there was a warning about the unknown prospective leader who is "too good to be true." The BSA does not expect to accept just anyone off the street.

Christine, do you really think there are secret campouts going on, or do you think these Scouts are being inducted into OA without meeting the eligibility requirements? And when you are counting the nights, are you including the (one) week-long camp (6 days, 5 nights) for those that went?

BadWolf, I take it your CO is not a religious organization? Without identifying it, what kind of organization is it? I think we all need to remember that the BSA has said that the CO's usual discretion to appoint leaders is still in place. Does this hypothetical gay person just show up from out of the blue with no connection to the troop and unknown to any of the leaders or families? I think most troops would be very wary of such a person, regardless of this change and regardless of avowed orientation.

I am sure there are many more than that. Some of the gay people I have known would never be seen at a gay pride parade themselves. Two couples I can think of (one male couple, one female couple) were just people living quiet suburban lives with the person of their choice. One of the couples I would have to call pretty conservative. I don't think any of them ever got involved in any sort of activism. And then other gay people I have known (mostly younger than the two couples I am talking about) were very "activist", and others were at various places in between. Kind of a spectrum of people - almost as if they were real people and not stereotypes. Imagine that.

I have already answered that. I said that I am not responsible for any Scouts participating in "activities like those photos", but I am one of the people with some responsibility for what people see in this forum. I can't explain what other people do. I don't necessarily agree with what another particular person may do, even though I might agree with him or her on one or many issues. I can only explain what I do.

Well, I am, and the wording leaves a lot to be desired. That does not necessarily mean the writers were not professional wordsmiths. It was probably written or at least approved by the BSA's attorneys. I think they were trying to be clever and avoid saying certain things for BSA-internal political reasons. It may also have been "written by committee" which is often a recipe for poor and unclear wording because the final product ends up being a compromise.

They can surprise you sometimes. There have been some strange combinations of justices, particularly on the kinds of cases that don't necessarily make the news. Breyer can be unpredictable, although probably less so now than earlier in his time on the Court. Roberts surprised some people with his votes on the health care statute. But in general, many votes are predictable because different justices' philosophies on various issues are known from past cases.

I have two answers to that: One: "Activist court" is a political term, not a legal term. Two: In my opinion almost every Justice on the Supreme Court, going back many years, could be said to be an "activist" in one way or another. They are just "activist" on different issues and in different directions. "Activist" is used as an epithet for decisions the speaker does not like. (See Answer One.) Take your pick, or make up your own. We could even change the question: "Without justices willing to find rights in the Constitution that are not specifically stated, we'd be without those rights. Right?" Right. But the Bill of Rights itself creates part of the issue about what other rights are protected in addition to those specifically stated. The Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It should not be a surprise to learn that the meaning of that amendment has been controversial over the years.