NJCubScouter

This actually is a much "milder" statement than I expected from the GSUSA. It doesn't include the words "we'll sue", for example. On the other hand, the statement quoted in the article is from a GSUSA council, not their National. I suspect that discussions are going on there about how to deal with this, whether on a legal basis or a public relations basis or both.

I'm not saying they won't act on it. They probably will. But we really do not know the scope and details of what they may do. National has floated trial balloons before and the actions taken have not always been what was expected. And my main point was really that nothing has happened yet. As for leaving issues on the table, one could argue that the issue of belief in God has been left on the table. There was a lot of talk for awhile, but if anything the BSA seems more determined than ever not to change that policy. And if you had told me 10 years ago that there would be female Cub Scouts and parallel-Boy-Scouts while non-believers were still excluded, I would have said you were crazy. But here we are.

Maybe there isn't. If every rumor posted in this forum over the years by people who say they heard such-and-such from "top guys at council" or "someone from National" turned out to be true, the BSA would be a much different place than it is. Scouting professionals are as susceptible to believing and spreading rumors as everybody else. I think a wait-and-see attitude is called for here. Those of us who are concerned about the issue should make our opinions known, whether through surveys, attending meetings, writing letters to National, talking to people of influence within the BSA, etc. etc. Whatever seems appropriate for each individual. Then when something happens, it happens and each person decides how to deal with it. But nothing has actually happened yet.

I think it is regrettable that this thread, which started off as a nice story about acts of friendship and kindness that occurred in the midst of terrible and tragic circumstances, in the Scouting History section of the forum, got turned into a comparison between the Japanese internment and the Holocaust (and some other things, but mainly between those two things.) We all know the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WW2 was a terrible thing and a shameful episode in the history of our country. Do we really have to get into debates over whether it is "as bad as" or "not as bad as" another historical event that stands on its own? And yes, I suppose my feelings about this are probably influenced by the devastating toll that the Holocaust took on my family: Great-grandparents, great-aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. killed, and cousins never born. I grew up around two grandmothers who had to live with the fact that their parents (not all but a majority), siblings, etc. had been slaughtered, for nothing. So when someone says that some other event was "as bad as" the Holocaust... I am not even sure how to complete that sentence.

Maybe they want to see the results of the survey first.

Well, there clearly is a "coed proposal" being considered, at the Cub Scout level. Your boss may not want to call it "coed" and may justify that based on the fact that dens will not be coed. But a pack with boy dens and girl dens is a coed pack. (Which I actually don't have a problem with, at the Cub Scout level, as a matter of local option.) As far as the Boy Scout level is concerned, the "parallel" units that are being discussed are not coed by design, but there are some people in here who think that boy-troops and girl-troops will quickly join together and effectively become coed troops. Apparently some local leaders are already planning to do so. I am willing to give National the benefit of the doubt that coed troops is not the plan, but in some places it may be the result - just as there are now, in effect, female Cub Scouts in some places, who are registered through LFL. I rarely point out spelling errors on the Internet because its usually an obnoxious thing to do (and I am not infallible typo-wise), but if you are going to quote a buzz-phrase from your own organization, you really should learn how to spell it correctly. Your boss knows how to spell "accessible." More importantly, please don't insult our intelligence. We all know that what is being discussed is increasing opportunities for girls and young women in the traditional programs of the BSA. If you want a reasonably neutral phrase, which does not include the term "coed", there it is. Some people like the idea, some dislike it, and some like some parts and dislike others. But we all know what the issue is.

I agree with you that girls should be able to earn Eagle (in their separate "parallel" units or in Crews, having first made First Class in a "parallel troop.") I do not agree that it shouldn't be discussed. If it isn't discussed, it's not going to change.

Stosh, if you don't know the difference between dead and alive, I can't help you.

What exactly does that mean? Boys and girls in the same troop, if that's what the CO wants? Or separate units by gender?

I can't believe it either. Who ever thought it would be Barry leading the Resistance?

To be fair, Lions seems to be fairly well received by most of those who are actually involved with it. It is mostly those (including me) of "a certain age" (i.e. those of us who remember when Lions were 10-year-olds) who have an issue with it and cannot understand how it could possibly work.

I think we should avoid speculation about what other forum members are doing or are going to do. Back Pack did not say he was leaving the forum. I also think that when discussing "the survey", we should keep in mind that there are several different surveys. Someone said they believe there are as many as four different surveys. From BackPack's description of the survey (in previous posts and maybe other threads), it sounds like he took a different survey than the one I took. The "message from the moderators" deals with the survey that someone posted a link to in one of these threads (and I think there was only one of those) and which has the same options that are discussed in the video presentation. That is the survey I took, but there apparently are others.

To: All members of Scouter.com: In various active and recent threads in Issue and Politics, members have posted links to a video produced by BSA National on the subject of Making Scouting Accessible to Today's Families (a/k/a increasing opportunities for girls in the BSA), as well as a survey on the same subject. The moderators have been asked to remove all links to the survey, on the grounds that it was intended that the survey link be provided by councils, only to persons who have first watched the video. The moderators have declined to remove these links. We do agree, however, that the survey questions will not be well-understood without first having watched the video, which is introduced by the BSA National Commissioner and features the Chief Scout Executive, Michael Surbaugh. The moderators therefore strongly suggest that if you have not already taken the survey but plan to do so, you first watch the video so that you will be fully informed about the issues in the survey. The Moderator Team

How about you?

Me too.

That is what I saw in the presentation, except that the sentence I have bolded is not completely correct based on what I saw. The idea of being together for opening/closing and otherwise split up by den would ONLY be for "Mixed pack with gender-specific dens". It would not be used in any context for "Boy-Scout-age" youth, which I think is what you mean by "11-14 year olds." The Boy Scout-age units of different genders would not meet together - unless of course you believe that they will anyway regardless of what the BSA is saying. Another thing is, you say a separate program for girls starting at age 11 (regardless of whether a "partner" program or a "parallel" program) would be for "11-14 year olds." Other than your post, I have never heard or seen it suggested that a new program would end at age 14. Boy Scouts is for boys 11 (or 10 in some cases) to the 18th birthday. I would think the age range of a "parallel" program for girls would be the same. In other words, I see no indication that they are intending to remove the overlap in ages between Boy Scouts/Non-Boy Scouts* and Venturing. *I don't think it is going to be called "Non-Boy Scouts", at least I hope not. I just wanted a shorthand name to refer to this future program, and "Girl Scouts" is already taken.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I believe "local option" was mentioned in the presentation by Mr. Surbaugh that is linked in one of these threads. I could be wrong. I know it was mentioned somewhere. I think the whole structure of what is being proposed assumes that a CO gets to choose which of the new options it wishes to become involved with, if any. I think the presentation made clear that it is NOT going to be "Cub Scouts first." I am pretty sure the CSE specifically stated that the changes to Cub Scouts would not be implemented until a Boy-Scout-age program for the girls to cross over to was in place.

Welcome to the forum! I am not aware of any such rule, but be aware that there are some people who believe that anything that is not specifically mentioned in some BSA publication is not permitted, while others believe that anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted. And other viewpoints in between. But I don't think we even have to get that far with your situation. To me, you were not allowing Girl Scouts to participate in a troop activity. You were sharing the space allotted to your troop with another community organization, by letting them set up their own table. That organization could have been the Elks, the Lions Club, Friends of the Library, the local model rocketry club, etc. It happened to be some Girl Scouts. You were being helpful and friendly. No rule against that.

I assume you realize that a scene or two later, Picard acknowledges that he has been acting like Captain Ahab and orders the crew to abandon ship so he can start the auto-destruct sequence. So, to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, this isn't the analogy you're looking for.

Not if one is Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarian, etc. Technically they do admit youth members regardless of religion, but adult leaders must subscribe to their statement of faith, which is Trinitarian Christianity. I do not know too many parents who would put their child in a program where the parents are unwelcome. I also think that many Christian parents would rather have their sons be in a more religiously inclusive setting.

I'm betting they were told rather pointedly, not poignantly. I do agree with you that there is too much cloak-and-dagger activity in this process. Links to that video are all over the Internet. Do they really think people aren't going to talk about it?

Yes, some are. Alas, I am mostly in the "can't" category. My son isn't, but as I said before, the survey's computer may check to see if you are currently registered in the BSA before sending the link to the survey. He is an "alumnus" and an Eagle but is not registered currently.

It's very sad when these things happen, and they happen way too often. Condolences to the families.

I am not doubting you, but how do you know the full survey had 35 questions? I didn't count the number of questions but I am pretty sure it wasn't anywhere near 35.