NJCubScouter

Well, congratulations to your son, finally! I would say "all's well that ends well" but I'm not sure that applies here. I know this was a very discouraging experience for your son. So just to clarify, the rank was awarded by council, not by the new troop, correct? That is what I thought would (and should) happen, but it should not have taken so long. Is your son happy in his new troop?

Let me guess, the Chipmunks' den chief is named Alvin and the den leader is named Dave. Sorry.

A "new" bumper sticker? Wasn't the campaign last year? Though maybe it is still going on; after all, there are still campaign rallies going on. Or maybe that's the next campaign. It's getting difficult to tell. Oh, by the way: Ha ha.

Aw, does that include the "important papers" skit?

If the point is that adults should not have intimate relationships with 14-year-olds, I don't think the author will get an argument from anyone here.

I don't even want to know what web site you went to to find that photo, Stosh.

I cannot help but notice that this thread has gradually stopped being about "Push for coed Scouting" (or "coed Scouting" at all) and has morphed into... well, several things, we've had discussions of the changing nature of the merit badge program (including a delightful diversion into calf-birthing), other aspects of "traditional" Scouting vs. however you define what it is we have now, Webelos-to-Scout transition, etc. These "new" subjects have one thing in common, which is that they belong under "Open Discussion" and/or other sections of the forum, but not under Issues and Politics, which is where we are now. So if you all want to continue this sort of hodgepodge thread here (as opposed to letting this one scroll down the list and open new discussions elsewhere) I suppose I could go through and try to split out most of the last few days' posts into a new thread in Open Discussion. (It's just an idea, because it would take some time.) And then if someone has anything new and different to say about "coed Scouting", you could start another thread on that, preferably under Issues and Politics, because those discussions always get "political".

The BSA has been talking about "making that break less distinct" for a long, long time but they have not really done anything meaningful to accomplish it. I believe the term the BSA uses is "seamless transition." Some of the things they have done have been really superficial, like when the Webelos hat was changed from its previous pattern (blue and gold with the plaid on front?) to green with the plaid on front, because green was the color of the Boy Scout cap. I kid you not, when this occurred a guy running a Scout Shop explained to me that this was supposed to increase the odds of a boy wanting to cross over because the main color of the hat would be similar. (This was about 15 years ago or so I guess.) Needless to say, I don't think that's the answer. If the BSA really wants a "seamless transition" then Cubs and Boy Scouts needs to be one unit so the Scout is not leaving one unit and joining another. But of course that would be a big change and there would be a lot of resistance to it... and I am not necessarily advocating that. It would be more like it is in the UK (or at least how I understand it to be), with different age groups meeting separately but all as part of one "group" and you just go from one age group to another. But it would raise issues at various CO's, for example where my son was in the Cub Scouts, there has never been a Boy Scout troop, and some of the CO's with troops have Cub Scout packs, and some don't. So do you eliminate the "standalone" units or do you create new units to "fill in the blanks"? The latter might seem like the right answer, but I know that in our area if you added a new troop in one location (because there is a pack there), you would probably lose a troop in another location. I am sure a lot of people would not be enthusiastic about this.

[Moderator hat on] I have scrolled through today's posts in this thread, but I cannot say I have read everything, so I am going to make a general statement. Not to single anyone out (for now at least) but it is clear that the general tone and tenor of this discussion (including some specific posts) has gone past the bounds of the Scout Law, even the somewhat lenient version we apply to Issues and Politics. We all (as a group) need to cool down, dial it back, hit the pause button, and any other cliches you may want to throw in there. Please do not criticize other individuals. Address the posts and the issues.

I think that would not have the desired effect.

I have tried to get my daughter to put her son in Cub Scouts. This is when one learns the difference between being a parent and being a grandparent. If they lived near me I would volunteer to take him to the meetings myself, but they live 3,000 miles away from me.

Plus the same family is also being asked to sell other stuff to raise money for the PTA (or whatever). And sports teams. And other activities. Multiplied by however-many children you have. And of course if one or more of those is female, Girl Scout Cookies! It got to be a little too much for me. Of course now that my children are adults, nobody is asking me to help sell anything anymore. It is easier to say no to buying things than selling things... until of course my grandson becomes one of the sellers, then I will have to buy. He is in the 2nd Grade so it can't be too far away. (He's not in Cub Scouts though.)

Isn't it the policy of the BSA that Scouts should not engage in sexual activity of any kind? And I don't just mean in the context of Scouting activities (obviously), I mean anywhere, any time, with anyone. I know there was a statement to that effect when they changed the policy on openly gay Scouts, but it was not limited to gay people. I'm also pretty sure that the version of the handbook when I was a Scout had a statement about (paraphrasing here) "saving yourself for marriage". I don't know if that's still in the handbook, but I think it is still pretty clear that that is what the BSA prefers, at least. That being the case, I don't see how one can criticize a Scout for saying they are doing (or rather, not doing) exactly what the BSA wants them to (not) do. On the other hand, a Scout bragging about his "conquests" (with persons of any gender) is a different story. "Out of bounds", as we say in our troop. Both are "talking about sex", in the broadest sense, but if one person is "modeling" the behavior preferred by the BSA and the other is modeling the opposite, I don't see how you treat those situations the same.

No doubt it was the bowline: The rabbi comes out of the hole, goes around the tree... Sorry, I couldn't help it.

I think it can be made to work, but I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. I would make up a list of questions, based on the issues raised in this thread, and then go meet with your DE or other appropriate professional at council and get answers before I would commit to do anything like this. The first item on my list of questions would be insurance, in other words, who (if anyone) is providing insurance for the girls and their activities that corresponds to the insurance that the BSA provides for the boys? If the answer is "you are", you may want to rethink your plans. YP rules, YP training and other training are also essential questions. And I would read these FAQs very carefully: http://frontiergirlsclubs.com/faqs/ Frontier Girls (which I never heard of before this thread) is not actually an organization with members like the BSA. "Frontier Girls LLC simply sells a curriculum product." So if there's an issue or problem, who you gonna call? Is your DE going to help you with issues regarding the Frontier Girls? Because it does not appear that there is a Frontier Girls DE, or anything like it.

This term "cultural appropriation" is something I have not known about for very long, in fact I think I first heard it in this forum. For those who actually use and it and "mean it", I don't think "appropriation" is meant in the neutral sense, I think it is uniformly meant in the "negative" sense, i.e. appropriation = stealing. That being the case, I think that what is meant is DISrespectful use of cultural elements, not respectful use. So drinking green beer on St. Patty's Day if you're Italian or Polish, or eating at Taco Bell if you're Jewish (or, I suppose, eating a bagel with lox if you aren't) is not "stealing" or "disrespecting" anything. Some uses of Native American cultural elements, may be. (I express no opinion on the OA, it has been eons since I participated.)

I think anyone reading this article should view it with the knowledge that the American College of Pediatricians is a splinter group of about 500 physicians which broke away from the mainstream American Academy of Pediatrics (64,000 members). They formed a new group because the AAP endorsed adoption of children by gay couples. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians) So it is not surprising they would take this position. Of course, anyone can believe what they want and listen to whoever they want. But I think someone looking at "American College of Pediatricians" and thinking that this is "the" pediatrician's group (as I did before I looked it up on a hunch) should be aware that it isn't. And I'll tell you what gave me the hunch. The web site from which this article comes is cnsnews.com, which I knew, without looking it up, the "cns" stands for Conservative News Service.

A CR can also be either Committee Chair or a Committee Member. Other than that, a CR cannot hold ANY other position, or what some people call the "uniformed" positions, including Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Den Leader, Crew Advisor and Assistants to all of the above. (I put "uniformed" in quotes because I too have a uniform, with a Committee Member patch on it, though I wear it mainly on "special occasions". But I have heard many people use "uniformed leaders" to refer to anyone who is not a CC or MC.) That does not mean that you will never see a CR being an "unofficial" Den Leader, for example. We had that in our Cub pack, where the CO was a PTA-type organization and the CR was usually a person who was both an officer of the CO and had a son in the pack. That person might, in practice, "double" as a DL or ADL, but could not be registered that way.

I am by no means a rabbinical scholar, and I don't know about the "leaving blank" part, but I can tell you that the word in question (which is actually anglicized as YHWH) is not pronounced today either, and it is one thing that all "movements" within Judaism agree on. (So when someone speaks or writes of "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or etc., they are not following Jewish tradition or practice.) When reading Hebrew text aloud, other words are spoken in its place, such as "Adonai" ("Lord"). Given my rather peripheral relationship with the actual practice of my religion, that's about all I know, but here is a lot more, written by people who know a lot more (and yes, it's Wikipedia, but most of what is on Wikipedia is correct, it's just that you never know for sure that what you're reading at any given moment falls into that category, but this looks pretty good): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism Not that this actually has anything to do with the subject.

But the BSA does not interpret it that way, that's the important thing. One might go further and say that the BSA does not fully "enforce" the DRP, and I mean the excerpted/paraphrased version, not the full version, which has been effectively superseded by the version appearing on the adult leader application. To make things even more confusing, the manner and degree to which the different aspects of "DRP lite" are actually enforced, and how the enforcement changes from time to time, are not shared with those of us out here in the field. Nor do we know whether it is enforced consistently. Rick-in-CA had a conversation with one guy at National who had one view, but who knows whether the guy in the next office at National, or the guy who will have the first guy's job next year, has the same view? Many of us remember the BSA spokesman who said it's ok if a Scout worships a rock or a tree in the backyard, which I think was worded "inartfully" (as people in my profession like to say) and really means that all you have to do is believe in a "higher power" of any kind and you're ok. And then National issues press releases saying that what is required is that one do his "duty to God", as if everyone interprets that phrase to mean the same thing. (As a long-time reader of this forum I can tell you this: They don't.) And now (phased-in during 2016, now effective for all advancements) for every rank, the Scout must "tell" how he does his duty to God. Can a Scout do that without actually believing in God (or a god)? I don't know. If anyone asked me, I would vote "sometimes". I think someone raised that issue earlier in this thread. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

I guess that is why I have never seen this. 80's through mid-90s is when I was not involved in Scouting.

On the subject of your feelings that other troops may be in danger, I think you have already done everything you can to be a "good neighbor" to the other units. The kids want to come to your troop, and as someone else pointed out, trying to "allocate" people may backfire in that the Webelos may decide not to go anywhere. I think the increase in size is manageable if you do as others have suggested above.

I think I've said pretty much all I have to say in this discussion, but let's please get our facts straight: Varsity Scouts is only open to boys. Actually two, Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts.

With that kind of argument, I almost feel myself start to lean more toward making packs and troops co-ed. I'm not there yet, though.