NJCubScouter

TAHAWK, thanks for bringing up the training syllabus - but it seems to me that they should word the requirement itself better and not have to clarify it in another document that most people don't know exists. They don't even have to add all of those categories into the requirement, they could just put "such as" before the list in the requirement, so it is clear that it is not an exclusive list. I understand changes to the requirements are being announced in the next few days, maybe they will improve the wording of this one. Personally, I would have guessed that insects and worms did not "count" as "wild animals." Technically they are of course, but most people probably don't think of them that way. As far as birds are concerned, I do think that if you are going to count a bird, the Scout needs to know what kind it is. But on the other hand I wouldn't want to see a list of 10 different birds and nothing else. Hopefully the adults and Scouts use some common sense with this requirement, which I think is really calling for a variety of animals.

Are you in that video?

By the way, I went back to look at that Facebook page to watch the video a second time (mainly to see if I could spot any other interesting Scout hats) and noticed that the number 1 trending story on Facebook right now is "Georgia Teacher Arrested for Letting Kids Have Sex in Classroom." Great. And these were middle school kids, which I suppose isn't any better than if they were high school kids, except maybe just more sick and stupid, plus the potential sentences for crimes involving children start to get a bit more serious in many states when the children are age 13 or below. The last line of the article was, referring to the teacher, "It is unclear whether he has a lawyer." I wouldn't expect that will remain unclear for very long.

I saw at least one whole troop of Scouts wearing red berets in that video. I am presuming that is why this is in Issues and Politics. By the way, I notice that the source of this BSA-bashing is the Fox News Channel. Kind of unusual for them, isn't it? Maybe if... Nah, the rest of that line might send some of my fellow moderators over the edge. (As in the great line from Ghostbusters II, "He was borderline for awhile. Then he crossed the border.")

That's just great. Reminds me of the conversation I once had with the mother of a high school senior who was a Girl Scout, and Mom told me she wasn't encouraging her daughter to go for her Gold Award because it would be completed too late to put on her college applications anyway, so why bother? Great attitude to pass along to your daughter, Mom. Just great. (To say nothing of the fact that presumably nobody forced the young woman to wait until she was almost 18 to do her project or whatever, but we all know how that goes.)

Calico... you know, usually I agree with you but... And this is from someone who, unlike most people around here (I think) fully supports the policy prohibiting paintball or laser tag when it involves pointing a simulated weapon (though not so simulated in the case of the paintball gun) at another human being and pulling the trigger. But water pistols? I guess the silver lining for me is that, being a Troop Committee member, I am not in a Scouting position where I would be called on to either permit or prohibit a water gun fight.

And with that, I think the relative positions on the use of alcohol have been made clear and in light of where this thread has gone in a fairly small number of posts, I would request/beg/urge/plead/ask nicely that we all just let it drop at this point. I guess future threads discussing the subject of alcohol use should be in Issues and Politics... except I would hope (since some people do not venture into I&P) that if someone wanted to start a thread specifically about the BSA's policy on alcohol use (which there have been a few of in the past) we could do that under Open Discussion or some other appropriate section but keep it narrowly focused.

"... out of my cold, wet hands"?

I think it would be more like saying that all people - not just gay people - are "potential pedophiles." Or potential murderers. Or potential doers-of-wonderful-things. "Potential" is being used in its broadest sense here, in which "anything is possible". However, laws and policies are usually not based on what is "possible", because then everything would be prohibited. There are risks just to getting up in the morning - and in not getting up.

I have no problem if your unit visits a brewery. I was just pointing out that the district "brewing based event" that you used as an example was actually a bunch of Scouters getting together in a bar and drinking. It appears likely from the name of the establishment that there is a brewery there, but they weren't in the brewery part of the brewery, they were in the bar part of the brewery. So you might want to find another example.

No, not "everything" will be OK. But it will be better, because the BSA will no longer be forcing people to discriminate when it is against their own beliefs. Through the local option everyone can have a membership policy that comports with their own morality - at least on a unit-by-unit basis. I think I asked this in the other thread, or at least I was thinking about asking it. Can anyone point to an actual BSA policy, statement, press release, rumor, legal brief or anything by the BSA on that subject? I don't know of anything. And just as a personal anecdote on the YWCA, in the first neighborhood in which I grew up, the local "Y" was a YM/WHA. That's H, as in Hebrew. (Though you didn't have to know Hebrew to join, and as far as I know you didn't have to be "Hebrew", but I think most of the families who put their kids into the programs there, were.) Unfortunately, given the changing demographics of that area in the late 60's/early 70's, that Y is no longer a Y to have any policies about anything, and very few (if any) H's live in the area anymore.

I am obviously missing something. Where are the requirements? Do they actually require that the Scout produce an animation? As far as I am aware, good software to do that is pretty pricey. While in high school my son was involved in producing several animations as part of his FIRST robotics team, including one where he was the animation team leader. (The animation usually did not relate directly to robotics; the competition was sort of an "add-on" to the robotics program.) The software, however much it cost, was "donated" by the company that was sponsoring the animation competition. (I say "donated" because what was actually donated were licenses needed to activate the software, without which it was of course useless. I recall my son going through a somewhat frustrating and bureaucratic process to actually obtain and activate the donated licenses, in the correct number needed for his team, and to keep them working through the project period. I suppose that was a valuable experience for him in and of itself, and it was several months after he had completed his Eagle project and other requirements and all the paperwork associated with THAT (at the last minute), so he had a few good doses of "reality" within a short time period.) Naturally, both the Robotics and Animation MB's have come out too late for my son to earn them. Maybe he can be a counselor for them someday? But I think that's some distance down the road yet.

That may be true for life in general, but I think "fairness" is part of what the Scouts are supposed to be learning from the program. It is at least implied in several points of the Scout Law. In fact, the BSA is very strong in promoting racial equality and in making sure Scouting is open to those of all religions (though not necessarily in the same unit, when it comes to religion.) Adult leadership positions once reserved for men only are now open to both genders. So in some ways the BSA National leadership does promote openness and equality and fairness - but not all. But of course, National does not justify its policies by saying "Get over it." That would probably be more honest than what they do now - which is to make up something about gay people not being good role models, and they force every unit to enforce that idea regardless of whether the CO agrees with it or not.

Better be careful that that limb doesn't break off. First of all, it appears from the flyer that it is not really a "brewing based event", but a drinking-based event. It is held at a place called the "Urban Legends Brewing Company", but the actual gathering is in the "tap room". In other words they are inviting Scouters to come and donate some money and drink beer and ale. Not in uniform, of course. Second of all, they are of course careful to say you have to be over 21 to attend. So this has nothing to do with youth members of the Boy Scouts. I don't think I have ever heard of an event in our council that was quite like this. They have dinners at restaurants where alcohol is served, but an event that is held in a bar and is based solely around drinking... I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but doesn't it seem a little odd?

In reading the exchange between Rick_in_CA and Seattle Pioneer, it occurs to me that this is what happens when we use vague terms like "culture war" instead of talking about what we are really talking about. That kind of labeling lumps issues together that are really separate issues. It is possible to believe that gay people should not be discriminated against (including by the BSA) while also believing that there is too much emphasis on sex in "popular culture", in products being sold to (or for) children, etc. As one major example, it is impossible to turn on the tv or radio without hearing about the sexual escapades of some celebrity - many of whom are "celebrities" merely because they have managed to get a "reality show." Usually these stories involve some sort of behavior that most people would regard as inappropriate - but it seems to me that about 95 percent of the time, the behavior in question is of the heterosexual variety, which makes sense because about 95 percent of people are heterosexuals. Which brings us back to the BSA. "Inappropriate behavior" by a heterosexual leader is dealt with on a case by case, unit by unit basis. Meanwhile, a gay person can be in a monogamous relationship, and can be married in states where that is legal, never bother anybody, and live a "lifestyle" that is exactly the same as the stereotypical family (except for their sexual orientation), but that person is considered a "bad role model" by the BSA and a unit cannot have that person as a leader even if it wants to. That's the issue. We should not confuse the issue by lumping it together with other issues under vague labels like "culture war."

Personally I see nothing wrong with wearing the knots you have earned. I have earned three knots, and wear three knots: The Arrow of Light, Cub Scout Leader's Training and Boy Scout Leader's Training. Nobody will ever accuse me of looking like a "Banana Republic general" because I just don't have that many knots. But I don't think it makes much sense to criticize other Scouters for wearing what they have earned. Our SM (who I think wears 3 or 4 knots) sometimes teases one of our other leaders for wearing what is, one must admit, a chestful of knots. But if you look at the knots he is wearing (and if you don't know what one is, he is certainly happy to tell you), I can't think of a single one that he should take off. Should he take off the "heroism" knot (don't know the exact level of the award he was given) he earned for saving the life of a fellow Scouter years ago? Should he take off the Silver Beaver knot? The District Award of Merit? I haven't earned any of those. There is nothing wrong with wearing them if you've earned them. Back to the original point of this thread: When I found that I was eligible for my third knot, there was no "system" in place for me to be nominated nor any person in charge of training or adult awards in my unit. I was hoping there was, but there wasn't. So I filled out the card myself and presented it to my CC for signature. It was an awkward situation and I did not meet with the warmest reception. Many of the Scouters in my troop simply don't go for the knots, partly for that reason. But I got the paperwork done and I got the knot.

Now make that THREE people un-Scout-like-ly making fun of it.

I have made a slight edit to the original title of this thread. I say this for two reasons, one, I did not want anyone to get confused, and two, I did not see any way other than this to "sign my work".

Well, just to pick one out that I think is very important, Objective III, Specific Goal # 4 As far as I can tell, that did not happen by December 2013, not did it occur by May 2015, nor (from what I can see) has any progress been made on it at all. Registration for each program and each unit is still required, and even if they worked out a new method of registration, the transition still would not be "seamless" because moving from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts would still mean selecting and joining a new unit. I am not necessarily saying they should do away with separate units at different levels. I am saying that this goal suggests that they will, and they haven't, nor have they made any move toward such a thing.

Ok, not the hill to die on, but I don't think there is anything wrong (or fatal, to continue the hill analogy) in asking whether there are other ways the troop and pack can support the church rather than a monetary donation. The idea of a fundraiser is not a bad one, and you might want to consider stepping up the "helping" of the CO, for example there might be Eagle projects that could be done for the church. I can think of at least three that Eagle candidates have done for the church that is our CO. Regardless of the "hill" analogy, your concerns about this practice are legitimate. If there is "financial support" flowing between the CO and the unit, it is supposed to be going in the opposite direction. But an annual fundraising event, to be added to what you already do, could allow you to sidestep the issue and not take away money that should be used for the Scouting program.

I will admit up front that I know very little about "gender identity" issues. Unlike others here, I have never (to my knowledge) known a transgendered or "transitioning" person. (And if it isn't clear already, I am not fluent in the terminology.) I mainly know what I hear or read in the news, and I have read that Wikipedia article before. (And I know you can't always trust what you read on Wikipedia, but that article does seem to be a well-researched summary of medical thought on the subject, although there are a few things in there about "gender as a social construct" that I don't necessarily buy. It might be more accurate to say that I don't know enough to know what to think about them.) There seem to be a few people here who do not believe that "gender identity disorder" (or "gender dysphoria" as the current term seems to be) is a "real thing." Among these, two people seem to be "making fun" of people with this condition. I don't think the latter is very Scoutlike. As for not believing it is a "real thing", I can understand that. After all, it is a "new thing" and it is contrary to the idea that was ingrained into most of us (if not all of us) that men are men and women are women and that's it, and until fairly recently the occasional person in the news who switched from one to the other was kind of viewed by most people as being a "freak." But I'll go with the medical people on this one. It is a biological/medical issue.

That seems reasonable, and unless I am misreading Bad Wolf's posts, the "travel" consists of a parent driving their own children to a Scouting facility. I don't see why a tour plan would even be required. If it is a parent driving their children, that is not part of the "tour". Is it?

TwoCubDad, thank you for your service to Scouting and it is good to hear that you will remain involved after you step out of the SM role. I hope you will remain with us in the forum as well.

Here is what the GSUSA's web site currently says on the subject: See http://www.girlscouts.org/program/basics/faith/faqs.asp#a5 Unless the web site is out of date, the policy seems to be a little more complicated and nuanced than what Fox News is reporting. Basically they are saying that if the person considers themself to be a girl and everybody else treats them as being a girl, so will the GSUSA.

It was clear from that clip that neither the host nor the guest have any idea what the policy actually is, they just know they don't like it. It was mainly an excuse for the guest to bash the GSUSA for everything the organization has done (or is accused of doing) over the past 40 years that she doesn't like.