NJCubScouter

So in other words, a subdivision of the council (a district) wants to have an event, so they are going to conscript a unit to host and run the event, and if the unit wants to host it at the council's own camp, the council will charge a fee? Do I have that right? Putting myself in the shoes of the first troop whose name is pulled out of the hat, a response quickly comes to mind, but it would take a little longer to think of a way to put the response in Scoutlike language.

Let's keep in mind that the last post in this thread (until yesterday) was in 2007 and the "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures" is obsolete, having been replaced by the Guide to Advancement around 2011, and the third edition of that one just came out. In other words, the discussion in this thread is out of date along with the publication it is discussing. The current definition of "active" is written somewhat differently than it was back then. The concept of "reasonable expectations" is still in the book, and I think there is still no definition. However, there is an "alternative test" for meeting expectations that did not exist in 2007, which allows for (requires?) consideration of activities outside of Scouting. Our troop committee recently discussed whether to adopt an "attendance requirement." We're still thinking about it. I have to chuckle at that a little bit. In my area, if a boy said he quit the troop and someone called him up every week about coming to meetings, depending on the family, it might not be long until there were threats of calling the police, restraining orders, etc.

"Provide the site"? Can't it just be at the council's camp? (Assuming there still is one.) Most of our district camporees are at county parks, though occasionally they use one of the council's "summer" camps. I assume there is a cost involved with the county parks.

Scouternetwork, Do the boys seem appreciative of what is being done for them? Are they doing what is asked of them? (Including showing up to meetings, camping trips and service projects, if any?) Do they seem to be benefiting from the program? Are they having fun? Do you feel like what you are doing is having a positive impact on the community? These are the kinds of questions I would be asking myself if I were in your position. If the answers to at least some of these questions are at least partially "yes" - with a little added weight perhaps being given to the first two - I would not concern myself very much with the "entitlement" aspect. If this project is working out positively, there will come a time when you have more volunteers and you can do some fundraising. Assuming the funding is in place from the donors you mentioned previously (and not coming out of your pocket) I think it is more important that these boys get the benefit of the program. It sounds like, if left to their parents, these boys would never have a program like this. Quite frankly, if the parents have a little time on their hands between doing what they need to do to survive, they should probably spend it taking English lessons - and I don't mean that the way it probably comes across. I mean it for their own benefit.

oldisnewagain1, what does the "hosting" actually entail? But unless the answer is far different that what I am expecting, this would probably produce a revolt in our district. Our district camporees are organized and run by a committee at the district level, which includes volunteers from units. But the volunteerism is voluntary.

Our troop had a table at a community street fair last fall. I think the Scouts set up a tent as a demonstration, but there was nothing really "fun" or interesting to attract kids or their parents. We probably got a little more attention because we were right next to the multiple tables of the high school robotics team, which did have some interesting things going on until their batteries ran out. We did recruit one new Scout from that event. It seems like he is having a good time and is going to stick around, and his father (who had no prior Scouting experience as far as I can tell) has registered as a committee member and has gone on a few camping trips. So that's a lot better than nothing, but the troop does need to do a better job at recruiting.

In Soviet Russia, forum quotes you.

I think we already had a thread about that article. Of course, that's just an opinion. Get it? Just an opinion?

I roll my eyes in your general direction.

I'm pretty sure you mean "skewering", not "skewing". And Jon Stewart does do a lot of skewering. Colbert was replaced by Larry Wilmore, who was pretty funny/insightful for a few minutes at a time once a week or so as one of Stewart's commentators, but for a half hour every night as the main guy, I don't think he's "got it". (Then again I also liked Colbert on the Daily Show a lot more than on his own show.) What was this thread about again?

Interesting. We in the U.S. tend to forget that the UK, which otherwise seems so much like "us", does not have an Establishment Clause, and it's not just a symbolic thing. They would have to make significant changes in their system if they had such a clause. For that matter, they don't have a Free Speech Clause either. (Or a "written constitution" at all, in the sense that we do, but I digress.)

Just out of curiousity, was this young man an "avowed" homosexual? Or as the BSA now puts it for people under 18, "openly gay"?

It depends what "that" is. If it is local option, which is what some people in this forum have been advocating for years (and my council's SE supported it when National floated the idea two years ago), I think the net impact on membership would be negligible, and maybe positive. Sure, there would be a lot of yelling and screaming and huffing and puffing like there was the last time, but once the action was taken, how many CO's would really leave the BSA because some OTHER unit could POTENTIALLY have an openly gay adult leader? Not many, I believe. Not that that's really the main issue - the main issue what is right and wrong, and the current policy of FORCING CO's to discriminate is wrong. The Biblical example of the adulterer, mentioned above, is interesting because there is NO National policy that REQUIRES a unit to exclude a known adulterer. A unit can choose to have an adulterous leader, or not to. (And here I go on my usual litany.) Same with a leader who is living, unmarried, with a member of the opposite sex. Same with a leader who is grossly overweight to the point of (in the opinion of some) setting a poor example for the kids. Same for the leader who is regularly seen exiting the local watering hole and staggering home (not driving, and not at troop meetings.) Same with the "exotic dancer". And on and on. The CO may accept, or exclude, all of these people as leaders. Why not the openly gay leader? What is that a decision that only National can make, when almost all of the other adult leadership decisions are made at the local level?

Here is an article on the same subject that might be more to Mozartbrau's liking: http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/30/texas-guard-jade-helm/26603719/ It does not really tie the Governor's action to the loonies who think the US military is invading Texas. I also like the part about the "FEMA death domes".

Here is the link to the press release: http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/20805 And here is the link to the letter to the Commander of the Texas State Guard that is mentioned in the press release: http://gov.texas.gov/files/press-office/20150428125759.pdf Mozartbrau, the press release and letter are carefully worded, but I think they go beyond what you have described.

I agree tyke. Not with the way and your fellow British folks spell "realize" and "civilized", but with the rest of it.

Well Stosh, at least we agree on something: The BSA's principles are for sale to the highest bidder. We just don't agree on what the true principles are, or on who the highest bidders are. I am a little surprised that you trivialize one of the major events in your own religion like that, but I guess it's yours to trivialize as you wish.

In that photo, at first I thought the patch on the green jacket said "Packsaddle", but it probably says "Packers".

Well, they obviously know what make$ National $it up and take notice, but they're probably about three zeros short.

::Banging head against wall, in hopes that it might feel better after I stop.::

He asked what color it is. Not that I want to further contribute to the delinquency of this thread. But I guess it's better than more discussion of evolution.

Well, that's not really an explanation, it's just a statement of the policy. I think that by having girls in this program starting in the third grade, and calling it "Scouts", with the Scout Oath and Law as part of the program, the BSA has seriously damaged (if not destroyed) the last logical argument for keeping girls of the same age out of packs and troops. And I am speaking as someone who thinks it's ok to have programs for boys because there are corresponding programs for the girls. But the BSA itself is undermining that idea - especially when they imply that STEM Scouts will have an outdoor component. Maybe this is all part of a master plan - maybe in a few years STEM Scouts will be merged into Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts - girls and all. I don't think it would be because the BSA particularly wants girls in the traditional programs - I think it's because the BSA wants their registration fees.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's utter nonsense. (Well, I guess I could have been blunter, but I would have to give myself a warning.) I don't know of anybody who thinks Scouting should "evolve/morph/mutate/whatever into something else." Some people, including me, believe that Scouting can go merrily along developing honorable men of character without have policies that exclude gay people or "nonbelievers", however one defines that. In fact I think that dropping those policies would improve Scouting's ability to develop honorable men of character, because unjustified discrimination is not honorable. (I had another word there instead of "unjustified discrimination," but people have a way of getting all bent out of shape in reaction to it, and I'm one of the people who is supposed to be gently enforcing some level of decorum around here, so that will have to do for now.)

Sure we did, it is some number of pages up in this thread, but I'm not going to go look for it. Maybe the phrase "clock work God" was not specifically used, but the concept is the same. And I was right in the middle of the discussion because I seem to be the only one in this forum that has acknowledged that that is the nature of my belief in a higher power. I have to ask the same question Packsaddle asked below. What would be the point? Wouldn't every discussion in it just turn into the same endless discussion of whether evolution exists, and whether there's a God or not, and what the nature of God is? Wouldn't every discussion have to be moved into Issues and Politics? Or would "Faith and Chaplaincy" have its own "warning label" like "I&P" saying that here is another place to stay out of if you are tired of the same endless debates about controversial subjects? Why do we need another one?

This thread has sailed so far off the deep end, I don't think any of the rescue methods taught in Scouting can save it. When the new requirements are announced in a few days, I think we are going to have another one of those experiments in requiring a thread to stay on topic. Of course, people can continue to debate evolution and slavery here if they want... for reasons I don't understand...