NJCubScouter

If the late great OGE were here, he would probably say this thread should be closed under "Godwin's Law." I will just say that the sentence quoted above is just about the most hideously inappropriate statement ever made in this forum. It is absolutely disgusting. Scouter99, you should be ashamed of yourself

It is more than equivalent. I would count it. On the other hand, neither I nor any of us here are the ones signing your card, so you might ask their opinions as well.

Scouter99, you might have a point were it not for all of the straight people who have engaged in predatory sexual activity with underage persons of the opposite sex over the years, and all of the "openly straight" people ("He was such a good family man," neighbors said - This latest guy being a very rare exception, where neighbors suspected something was wrong) who have engaged in predatory sexual activity with persons of the same and/or the opposite sex. Do those people perpetuate the "worst stereotypes" about straight people? I don't think so. All of us, gay, straight, or whatever, are capable of doing bad things. If we judge all people of a particular sexual orientation (or "avowed" orientation) by the behavior of those who act the worst, then NONE of us can be a Scout leader. I will let your use of the phrase "normal people" speak for itself, except to say that it sure does show where you are coming from. As for your point about what "gay activists" were seeking until the 1970's, I have to say that I cannot challenge you on your knowledge of gay history. From your past posts on the subject, you do seem to be an expert on it. I know very little about it. Like last week when you referred to "Quentin Crisp" and I had to look up who that was, because I had never heard of him. What I know about "gay activists" is that, today, most of them seem to be seeking equality with the rights that straight people have.

I hate to interrupt the completely off-topic discussion about the crucial subject of a deceased cartoonist's religious beliefs or lack thereof, and I also hate to disappoint JoeBob who apparently thinks it's good that nobody is talking about the original topic, but hey, here's something about Eric Holder, and about this thread. AZMike started this thread by pasting an article from USA Today -- except for the headline. In USA Today, the headline on the article was: "Holder: Boy Scouts gay ban preserves worst stereotypes." AZMike deleted that headline, which was an objective headline (as one would usually expect from USA Today, which is about as middle-of-the-road when it comes to journalism as you can get) that summarizes, in one sentence, what the headline-writer thought was the most important thing about what Holder had said. (After reading Holder's quotes, I probably would have chosen a different one for the headline, but that's just me.) In place of that headline, AZMike titled this thread "Eric Holder attacks BSA policy before LGBT pressure group." I find that to be an interesting choice. It "slants" the thread right from the beginning. It also includes something that is not in the article itself. Holder did not "attack" the BSA. He criticized one policy that has been maintained by the current leadership of the BSA. (I will leave aside whether Lamda Legal is a "pressure group"; I think that what AZMike means by "pressure group" is a group that advocates policies that he doesn't like.) I also found it interesting that when I got past the "revised" headline and actually read the article, I found myself in agreement with virtually everything that Holder was quoted as saying. What is in italics below is taken verbatim from the article, with the actual quotations in quotation marks. (Where they should be.) Holder said, of the current policy on adult leaders, "It's a relic of an age of prejudice and insufficient understanding,'' I am sure that those who agree with the policy don't like that description, but I think it's completely accurate. Holder said that "too many organizations, policies and practices that discriminate against LGBT individuals remain persistent concerns.'' I have a bit of a grammatical issue with that, which makes it less than 100 percent clear what he is saying, but that may be because the reporter cut off the beginning of the sentence of what he actually said. But he seems to be basically saying that there is too much discrimination against people solely because they are gay, and discriminating against people solely because they are gay is a bad thing. I agree. "Unfortunately, the continuation of a policy that discriminates against gay adult leaders – by an iconic American institution – only preserves and perpetuates the worst kind of stereotypes,'' he said. Interesting. First of all it is notable that he calls the BSA "an iconic American institution," which does not sound like what you'd call an organization when you are "attacking" it. Second, he makes a point that we seldom discuss in this forum when we are talking about the "gay issue." Usually we just talk about the impact on the BSA itself. Some of us, like me, believe that adopting local option would automatically make the BSA a better organization, simply by ending a policy that forces local CO's and units to discriminate when they don't want to. (Those CO's who do want to discriminate would not be affected by the local option.) Others, who favor the current policy, speculate about other impacts. But we rarely discuss what a local-option policy would mean for the rest of society. The BSA is, in general, a well-respected organization - iconic, as the Attorney General puts it. By changing the policy, the BSA would set a good example for others to follow. And maybe that is part of what the supporters of the current policy are afraid of. (Though I do realize, at this late stage of the game the BSA would look more like a "follower" than a "leader" on this subject.) Yet Holder said that just as gay men and women "put their lives on the line as members of America's armed services...then then surely they are fit to mentor, to teach, and to serve as role models for the leaders of future generations.'' Well, some are fit to mentor, serve as role models, etc. Some aren't. Just as some heterosexuals are fit to mentor, serve as role models, etc., and some aren't. The point is, being straight or gay is not the determining factor in whether one is a good role model. And there is a bit of a nuance here that Holder doesn't deal with, which is that under a local option policy, it would be up to each CO to decide who is a good role model and who isn't - which is the way it works now in choosing unit leaders, for every characteristic other than sexual orientation, belief in a higher power and past conviction of a serious crime. As I have said many times before, some people don't think obese people are good role models, yet a unit can have an obese Scoutmaster if it wants to. Or a Scoutmaster who visits the local bars too often. Or a Scoutmaster who is known to have had an affair. Or, I guess, a Scoutmaster who is a Communist, if there are any of those left. BSA National does not prohibit any of these people from being leaders. But the den mother who is known to live with her same-sex partner, she's out, regardless of what the pack CO wants. Even if she were legally married to her same-sex partner, which you can be in about 10-15 states now, she's out. Makes no sense.

Scouter99, nobody shut down the thread you are talking about, and nobody tried to shut it down. I made a request of my fellow forum members, which any member can do, you do not need to be a moderator. I do have the "button" to shut down a thread, but in a year and a half as a moderator, I have never used it, not counting spam threads. To my recollection I have edited one word out of one post, which for whatever it's worth, was a post by Merlyn.

Scouter99, which moderator are you claiming shut down a thread? And which thread was it?

Carrying a "protest sign" in a parade is a political act. Marching in the same parade as someone who is carrying a protest sign may or may not be a political act - it kind of depends on the thoughts and intentions of each individual marcher (other than those actually carrying the signs.) I suppose that under certain circumstances, the number and placement of the signs could turn the entire parade into a political act - but we do not have enough information here to make that assessment. But I will tell you what is definitely a political act: The retention and enforcement, in 2014, of a policy that says no openly gay person may be a leader in the BSA. That is absolutely a political act, and it is being done in the name of the BSA by its national leaders, some of whom wear uniforms at least part of the time. And even when they are not wearing uniforms, they are acting in the name of the BSA. So I don't think they are setting a good example for the idea that one is not supposed to act in a political manner while in uniform, or while otherwise "representing" the BSA.

Minutiae of the minutes? Very punny!

That got my attention as well... perhaps more than most forum members. It sure isn't clear. Also unclear is the role and position of the "United Jewish Federation", which may just be an interesting coincidence. As for the whole thing, let's see here: "A Scout is obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them." It all sounds pretty "orderly" to me. At least, there is nothing in that article that suggests otherwise.

I think it makes sense to have the committee members review the "minutes" to make sure they are correct, and then pass them out to the parents so the parents know what it is going on. We don't do that in our troop committee, because our meetings really are not formal enough to produce "minutes", and we almost never vote on anything. Well, the biggest reason is that except for scattered times over the 10+ years I have been on the committee, there was nobody interested in taking minutes, and we rely upon the CC to communicate with the parents about anything that needs to be communicated. That is not a perfect system either. Also, it is not clear from the original post what is in these minutes. It really should just be actions taken, not what everybody said about every subject. If it is just a summary of actions taken, it could be a good communications tool with the parents.

:::Walks away muttering, to look for spam or something:::

I don't usually make requests like this - in fact, in 12 years in this forum I am not sure I have ever made a request like this - but can we move onto a different subject and let this thread begin its final descent down the list without further delay? Some of the comments are bordering on inappropriate, though not enough to hit the Big Red Moderator's Button. At least not so far, at least not for me. But, enough, okay?

Horizon, apparently you already could. Wikipedia just informed me that the Stonewall Inn and environs has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1999 and a National Historic Landmark since 2000. So it satisfies Requirement 2a for Cit in the Nation.

I think it probably depends on how many units the Wiccans have. If they have less than 25, you need 25. If they have 25 or more, you need more than that. (I'm only half -joking.)

TAHAWK, if your story is a reaction to mine about the recently-folded council, I agree with you, the folding of a council does not NECESSARILY mean that Scouting is in trouble in a particular area. But the circumstances suggest to me that this latest event WAS driven at least in part by a lack of sufficient units. As I said (maybe not in this thread), this was not a "merger" between two councils that decided they could both do better if they eliminated some overhead. This was a council, in the middle (hence "Central Jersey") of the most densely populated state in the country, that simply went under financially, leaving the local district and unit leaders to go hat in hand to the neighboring councils, like orphans, begging to be "taken in." That does not sound like a particularly healthy situation. (It has also resulted in the map of my district (which I haven't actually seen since this happened, but I can imagine it) looking very strange. Certainly not what someone would have designed if there were other options.)

I do not have enough information to give an answer. I only learned this past week that the Central Jersey council had folded, and do not know any of the details other than the fact that it was a financial decision. (Evidently I had not been reading the Council Relations sub-forum for a few months, because it has been discussed there, but even there, there was little detail given, and the links to the council web site (where apparently some detail was given) no longer work.) I suspect that there were a variety of factors, but I am sure one of them is the continued exclusion of certain adult leaders for no good reason. This is, after all, New Jersey and not... well, somewhere else where discrimination against gay people is still thought to be a good idea.

Whose plan, do you think?

Just to add, while membership may be up in Utah, we just lost an entire council here in New Jersey. And I don't think that's the end of it. I don't think it is going to make the surrounding districts and councils, which have absorbed the units from the Central New Jersey Council, any healthier financially. If more councils collapse, I see no reason to believe that the remaining councils will be able to absorb what's left. I am not talking about councils merging in an orderly way, with a plan for how to manage a larger number of units and a wider geographic area. What seems to have happened here is simply chaos, and I am afraid that what will follow is even greater chaos.

Yet another example of the unreliability of polls, especially polls about what people say they are going to do, and more especially polls about what people say they are going to do if something happens that hasn't happened yet. And the unreliability is probably enhanced when people say they are going to do something, as opposed to not doing something. Combine the multiple opportunities for people to change their minds with the powerful pull of inertia, and there's your big difference between the poll results and actual reliability. The same is probably true for the polls showing that X percent of Scouters would leave the BSA if local option is provided on the adult leadership issue. But of course, that's just a prediction.

Sharp eyes, I wish. Actually, other than the number 50 and the capital A under it, I can't actually read the words in that circle, but from the length of the words, I can make out enough letters to figure it out.

RememberSchiff, if you look closely at the poster it says "50th Anniversary Boy Scouts of America and Camp Fire Girls". So that is probably why the girl is a Camp Fire Girl. The poster is evidently from 1960, so the GSUSA was only 48 years old. Right?

What do these cords cost, like $2? In my experience the pack usually pays for things like this.