NJCubScouter

Click, I do not understand why you would WANT "firm rules" from National. National is basically saying, "figure it out for yourselves based on the situation in your own unit." I think that is the way it should be. And I have to ask, how many openly gay Scouts do you think you are going to have in your troop after this policy takes effect on Jan. 1? In other words, is this an issue you are actually going to have?

I believe that one of us moderators could change "Oath" to "Law" in the title, and if you'd like, I can try it. I did not just go ahead and do it because there has already been some discussion of what the title should have been, so changing the title at this point would probably just make things MORE confusing to readers.

I don't see what the restriction to members of the CO is going to accomplish. What if there is an openly gay youth whose family is a member of a church, and the youth is also a member of the troop chartered to the church? Are they going to kick the whole family out of the church so the youth is no longer a member, and get him out of the troop that way? Or are they going to tell the family, you are still members of the church, but your 17-year-old son isn't? Is any church really going to do that? Maybe the more important question is, how many times does anyone think this is really going to come up? I really doubt that there are very many OPENLY gay kids 17 years old and below. Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems to me they are still in the process of figuring out who they are, and not very many are ready to advertise it.

WAKWIB, if it were me who had created two topics on exactly the same controversial topic within a couple days of each other, and they each quickly vanished, I too might have a little difficulty accepting that it was just a coincidence and a technical glitch. However, I am asking you to accept that it was just a coincidence and a technical glitch. I have made inquiries with the site owner as well as the other moderators and am convinced, for myself at least, that these topics were not intentionally deleted by anyone. What actually happened apparently has not been determined, and given the way these things go, may never be. But in light of the quantity of technical problems that this forum has suffered in the past seven months, the disappearance of a couple of threads becomes a little easier to understand. Again, and especially from your perspective, it does seem a little too coincidental, but that's exactly what it was.

I am pleased to see they have made that change. It brings the expectations for the program, and the role of the advancement coordinator (which is me in my troop) in line with what I have always understood them to be anyway. We don't "bring" Scouts from one rank to another. We provide opportunities for them to pass all the T-2-1 requirements, but they have to "bring" themselves to each new rank. They have to do their part, by actually attending the meetings and outings, participating in the program, and doing what the requirements say they are supposed to do. The clarification of my role is good too: I do not "establish" the program, and I do not really "establish" the "practices" by which Scouts advance, either. The SM does that. I do "assist" the SM by making suggestions about how the program might be improved, and in so doing, how the activities required for advancement might be better integrated into a fun, exciting, program. So now the book says what I do, and what the program is supposed to do.

You beat me to it, dcsimmons. Here is the link again, and I think this thread IS the right one in which to discuss it: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/tr...tation_FAQ.pdf So here, again, is the question and answer: "Q. Will local units be able to deny membership to youth based on same-sex attraction? A. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of same-sex attraction alone." Unfortunately, as with many BSA statements over the years regarding this issue, it is not quite as clear as it might be. One might say, it doesn't answer the question at all, because exclusion from a particular unit does not equal exclusion from the entire BSA. But the way they have answered their own question, it seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that what they MEAN to say is that a unit may not exclude a youth for being openly gay. So maybe some units might not like that. There does not seem to be a "local option" to exclude gay youth. But before anybody else leaves, I would suggest reading this entire document. The BSA seems to be trying to clarify what "openly gay" means (notice the use of the term "same-sex attraction alone") and to draw a very clear line between expressions of "same-sex attraction" (ok), and "conduct." (Not ok, and never ok, regardless of what gender the Scout is attracted to.) I also found this Q and A very interesting: "Q. What should a Scout or leader do if a youth member lets them know that he or she is attracted to members of the same sex? A. It is an individual’s choice how public they wish to be about their sexual orientation. As always, Scouting teaches respect and courtesy for all people. It is the Scout leader’s responsibility to address the issue with concern and sensitivity, while ensuring the member understands the boundaries. The leader should emphasize that there is no place in Scouting for any sexual conduct by youth of Scouting age." ​So they are making it clear, expressing a same-sex attraction is not "conduct", and it is not "flaunting." There are other interesting statements in the document, and as I said in the other thread, I wish I could cut and paste the whole thing. Just cutting and pasting those two Qs and As took a lot of tweaking to avoid having text scattered all over the place.

There have been some comments in this thread on the idea that the YP guidelines may be modified as a result of the change being made to the youth membership policy. It appears that the guidelines will not be modified. There is a document on the BSA web site (dated August 2013) that contains guidance for units on implementing the policy change. (I am not sure what the BSA has done to make sure people are aware of this information, other than putting it on their own web site. I have not seen any discussion of it in this forum.) I tried to cut and paste parts of this document but it is formatted in a way that makes that very difficult - for me, at least. Maybe someone else can figure it out. Suffice it to say that this document contains some statements that are going to be viewed differently by different people in this forum. On the "tenting" issue, for example, it basically says that the local units can figure out the tenting arrangements for themselves, which is what I have been saying for years. The whole theme of the document is that very little will change. There is a question in the "FAQ" about to do if a Scout tells you he is attracted to persons of his own gender, and I am pleased to see that the answer makes fairly clear that such a statement does NOT amount to "flaunting" of a Scout's orientation. In other words, a Scout can be openly gay as long as all that's involved is talking. That is my interpretation, anyway. A discussion of this document probably should be in its own thread, but here is the document: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/tr...tation_FAQ.pdf

Huzzar, I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that the name of your local Catholic youth basketball team is probably either something like St. Mary's (for example) Basketball Team or the CYO (Catholic Youth Organization) Basketball Team, or something else that tells the world, World, we're a Catholic-sponsored basketball team. Which doesn't mean there might not be a Jewish kid or Hindu kid on the team, but if the parents of the Jewish kid want to know why there is a game scheduled on Rosh Hashanah or no game scheduled on Easter, the answer is, look at the name of the team. The local Jewish synagogue may also have a basketball team, maybe its called the Beth Israel youth basketball team, and the parents of the one Catholic kid on the team shouldn't be surprised that maybe there is a game on Easter, and none on Rosh Hashanah. And so on and so forth. Trail Life can name itself what it wants (within the bounds of intellectual property law, which doesn't appear to be a problem), but it is also legitimate to point out that nothing in the group's name suggests that adults need to sign on to a Trinitarian Christian statement of faith in order to be leaders. It also is legitimate to point out that the "open to all youth" is slightly disingenuous when the leaders have to conform to certain religious principles -- but hey, if they are a little disingenuous, maybe a little tricky or clever in their wording, well, they have a good role model (heh heh) in the current leadership of the BSA. In some ways they are being MORE honest than the BSA. As I have said a number of times over the years, while the BSA claims to be "absolutely nonsectarian", the fact is that the religions (or parts of religions) that have as part of their religious principles that gay people should NOT be excluded, are treated like "second-class" religions. (Examples would be Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, many Episcopalian churches, some Methodist, some Presbyterian, etc.) The BSA will take your money, enroll you and your children as members, but when it comes to your unit's freedom to make decisions about who should be a leader, the BSA dictates that you obey the values-system of some OTHER religion, which on that issue are contrary to the beliefs of your own religion. This isn't advertised anywhere, it's just pointed out by troublemakers like me. (And yes, I continue to be a BSA leader, because I think the good still far outweighs the bad, and things will change someday.) And then some religions are really treated more like "third-class" religions, for example Wicca and UUA (at least in the past, not sure about currently.) At least Trail Life is a little more up front about it. So, nobody's perfect. I wish Trail Life success within the sphere of what they are trying to be, and I hope the BSA will someday soon fully live up to the ideals that it represents. (And if that isn't clear enough for everybody, I think that means rescinding the ban on openly gay leaders.) One thing I do have to say, in agreement with Eagledad and some others who have posted today -- there is NO evidence that Trail Life intends to discriminate on the basis of race. Let's not make those kinds of accusations based on a few photos of who was able to attend a particular event. If they do struggle to remain "demographically representative", well again, they do have a "role model" in the BSA.

Actually, the last time I looked there was no rule that Jewish people could not celebrate Christmas, and some Jewish people do to some degree, mostly the secular aspects of the holiday. I celebrate it too, but that doesn't count so much since my wife is a Catholic. First of all, it is "yarmulke", though you can't be faulted for spelling it phonetically. Second, anyone is allowed to wear one, though I suppose if you wear one in church that would be contrary to the general rule that you are supposed to have your head uncovered in church. A visiting Baptist man would be welcome to wear one in a synagogue. (For that matter, in many Reform synagogues a visiting Baptist woman would be ok wearing one too.) I believe the Pope wears one as well, and I have seen photos of Cardinals in the Catholic church wearing them, though I suspect they don't call them yarmulkes. And just for informational purposes, the majority of Jewish people (including me) do not wear one except at religious services or at other "religious times." For example I wear one when visiting the grave of my father and other Jewish relatives. Now you can all go back to your regularly scheduled discussion of Trail Life. About which I will say, basically I agree with you. The only situation in which I could see a Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist boy wanting to join Trail Life is if he were friends with a bunch of other boys who were joining, and even then I would expect most parents to try to steer their son toward an organization that was equally welcoming to all religions. (I know that's what I would do if I still had a son of Scout age.)

I think the two paragraphs below are the key to that article. (I tried to put the really important words in bold but that is beyond either the forum software or my skills in using it, instead I am putting **'s around them.) That's the real issue. The previous files were from before the Youth Protection training and guidelines. These latest files to be released are from a time when YP has been in full swing. I am hoping that the files show that YP has been well-enforced and has made a positive impact by reducing the number of "incidents" and producing swift and certain separation of any offenders from the BSA. We shall see.

I have never been a commissioner, but if a unit is on the absolute brink of oblivion like the situation described by Moosetracker, isn't it time for the UC to get a "higher up" involved before "giving up"? I don't know whether that would be an ADC, the DC or maybe the DE. Whichever it is, this reminds from a scene in MASH where Henry Blake says something like, "That was the first thing they taught me at command school: Blake, they said, never surrender without orders."

Kudu, I agree with you that the three-mile backpacking requirement for Camping MB should have been kept, rather than being replaced by an "optional" version. I was not aware that it had been there, since (after some digging through the Internet) that change seems to have been made in 2000, when I was still a Cub Scout leader and not yet re-involved in the Boy Scout program. And although I don't really remember from 40 years ago, I suspect that when I earned the Camping MB way back when, there was a requirement to hike with a pack to a campsite. I wasn't even considering that "backpacking." The thing is, I don't understand why we can't have discussions like this without someone(s) using words like prissy, sissy, or (though I haven't seen it lately) cupcake. If we think some of the old requirements should be brought back, we can just say so, and tell National, without needing to "label" the program, or the kids.

I don't why I even bother, but... Kudu, isn't the "subject matter" of Camping Merit Badge, um, camping? Requirement 9a requires the Scouts to go camping. Requirement 9b makes backpacking (i.e. "walking into the woods with a pack on your back") an optional additional activity to do on one of the camping trips. But that does not make backpacking "the" subject manner of the merit badge. Backpacking is the subject matter of the Backpacking Merit Badge. Hiking is the subject matter of the Hiking Merit Badge. Was backpacking ever REQUIRED to earn the Camping Merit Badge? If I recall correctly from 40 years ago (which I might not), when I earned Camping MB I don't think I had ever been backpacking. I did later, at Philmont and many times on the Appalachian Trail, and as a result I earned the Hiking MB (the Backpacking MB did not exist when I was a Boy Scout.) But the point is, you do have to go camping to earn the Camping MB.

I have never been able to PM's to work (since the software change in February) either. But I agree with berliner, this place working imperfectly is still a lot better than not having it at all!

Personally I don't think that whether someone gets to be (or remain) a leader should depend on whether someone else has an "axe to grind." And in the Dale case, for example, it's not even clear whether anyone actually had an "axe to grind" or whether someone at the council office saw the newspaper article in which Dale was identified as a member of a gay students' group at his college (in a newspaper that circulates throughout New Jersey), and gave it to the SE who wrote the termination letter. If the latter is the case, it seems more like the SE was enforcing a national policy than anything else. But I suppose this is mostly a matter of semantics, so I will let you have the last word on it if you wish.

Eagledad, well, Trail Life is saying it's about religion, so I am taking them at their word. As for burdensome paperwork and silly restrictions, I think that if and when Trail Life gets to be anywhere near as large as the BSA, you will see a lot of the same things there. But actually, I think you will see many of them right now, because a lot of what we all complain about in the BSA is driven by insurance underwriters. (Ok, and attorneys.) A lot of the G2SS is there because if it wasn't there, BSA's insurance premiums would be a lot higher. Tour plans require excessive detail for the same reason. The health forms, in my opinion, maybe go a little too far, partly for the same reason. I do not think Trail Life will be any more immune from concerns over insurance (and insurance premiums) than the BSA is, and that will be from the beginning. I don't think they have come out with their version of the G2SS yet, but let's see what it looks like. Same with the Guide to Advancement, let's see if Trail Life experiences any less of the "lawyering" over advancement that goes on in the BSA, which has produced the monstrosity we now have as the G2A. (Laser tag is actually a little different, that is not really a safety issue, it's really a values issue. The BSA does not want to provide an activity in which people point a simulated weapon at another human being and pull the trigger, even if the "projectile" is just a beam of light. Unlike most people in this forum, I agree with that policy.)

I doubt there was any deliberate human intervention in either case. Beyond that, all bets are off. Odd coincidence, though.

That issue was also mentioned above by WAKWIB, with more detail (see points 3 and 4 in his post.) Trail Life thinks the new BSA policy "appears" to say (or mean) something about transgender issues, though as far as I know the BSA has been studiously silent on the subject. I am not sure it has actually come up anywhere (and I certainly hope I never have to deal with it!) It is interesting that this is raised now, because right now there is a HUGE "thing" going on at Wikipedia over how to refer to transgender individuals. It is the biggest controversy over there at the moment. When Bradley Manning (recently sentenced in the Wikileaks case) announced that he had had "gender identity disorder" since childhood and was now a woman named Chelsea (but without any, um, medical intervention so far, and the U.S. military prison system seems unlikely to provide any), the policy on Wikipedia apparently required the article on Manning to be immediately changed to use her female name and change all the pronouns in the article from male to female, including those from before Manning made the announcement. The other part of the controversy is that people kept changing the name of the article from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning and back again. (It is "locked" at Bradley right now, but apparently another discussion of the title is going to take place soon. And by the way, on Wikipedia I would be referred to as "transphobic" for what I just wrote, because I used Manning's male first name and said "he", once.)

I agree with skeptic, it never should have been removed in the first place. I was there when it happened, too. I earned Cooking MB, got the badge with the silver thread around it, then a few months later it wasn't required anymore. But while I think it should be on the required list, I think something else should have been removed. But I don't want to divert the thread with a discussion of what that should have been. Though I guess it has already been diverted; the question was, what the requirements are.

Well, that's the whole problem. "Flaunt" is a word without a single, clear definition. It's in the eye of the beholder. Like I've said (in 2 different threads now), my guess is that Trail Life USA will define "flaunting" as any statement by a young man that he is gay. Or does the young man have to explicitly discuss sexual behavior that he has engaged in, or wants to engage in (which is not the same thing as saying "I'm gay") in order to be "flaunting it"? My guess (there's that word again, and it's a word I always hate to use) is that Trail Life will go with the first definition - don't even say you're gay, or you're out (no pun intended.) On the other hand, I'm assuming (another thing I don't like to do, because you know what happens when you assume) that the BSA's new policy will probably be interpreted to mean that statements that are limited to sexuality (like "I'm gay") are ok but that statements about sex (what little Johnny did last night with Sarah, or Charlie) should prompt at least a "warning" and any repetition followed by expulsion. (Notice my gender-neutral policy here: You can tell us who you are, but we don't want to hear about what you did, regardless of gender.) As for holding hands at evening flags, BD, you may mean it as a joke, but how would we respond to a male youth Venturer and a female youth Venturer holding hands (or whatever else) at a Scouting activity? I have not been involved in Venturing, but I am sure things like this happen now and then. My guess (again) is that this would not be tolerated - if you're going out with each other, do it on your own time and keep the crew out of it. Right? If that's the case, the same should be true for two boys holding hands. The difference, again I'm assuming, is that in Trail Life the two 18-year-olds of opposite gender (that is the starting age for their coed program, apparently) will be told not to do it anymore, while the two of the same gender will be shown the door. In the BSA, on the other hand, under the new policy I would think there would be one warning, followed by expulsion, all around.

(Duplicate, fouled-up post deleted. What a mess I made of this. And it's basically just old-fashioned markup language like I've been using for 20 years.)

I responded to this in the other threat where you posted basically the same thing. The short answer is, I think they are being very clever with the words they are using and different media sites and bloggers are interpreting those words differently. I do NOT think this new group will allow an openly gay youth -- in other words a Scout who says "I'm gay" -- to remain a member. They will say he is "flaunting" his sexuality. That is my guess, anyway. Otherwise, they have spent a lot of time and effort (and some money, though we don't know how much) for nothing. I really doubt they have gone through all that for nothing.

::Cough cough:: I am sure there are even Eagle Scouts who go on to become insurance claims adjusters. No offense meant to anyone. Well, maybe a little... As for lawyers, there are even some Life Scouts who become lawyers. ::Waving:: I agree with others that Eagle, or any other achievement or recognition, is what you make of it. A human being with an Eagle patch is still a human being, subject to the same opportunities and pitfalls as the rest of us.

MattR makes a good point, and if you all are REALLY unlucky, it may be me who starts singing instead of Packsaddle. But seriously, while I believe people should discuss anything they want to discuss (within the boundaries that are more-or-less well-established in this forum), there does come a time when a conversation is producing little but ad hominem attacks, with little or no new light being shed on the subject. Except for Pint's helpful and informative post, I think this thread has reached and exceeded that point. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure what Moosetracker and Merlyn are arguing about at this point. (But you don't have to tell me. Really.) I should also note that as I write this, I am wearing my just-another-editor hat, but I've got my other hat in my hand.