Once_Eagle-Always_Eagle

Pack: I'll try to answer your question by asking some other questions first. Where would you propose the new line for membership be?

- Should we allow girls into the Boy Scout program? After all, why should we discrimiate on gender and prohibit them the same freedom granted to boys?

- Should we remove the minimum age from cub scouts? Why discriminate based on age? Allowing freedom of younger scouts to join to before they get involved in other programs.

- Should we open the program to devil worshipers? Alas, there may be units that do this already although I'd hope not. But would you constrain beliefs to those that worship a loving God or would you restrict the free exercise of choice by governing the spiritual deity someone chooses to follow?

- In fact, why even require a belief in God at all? Surely freedom to choose would include the freedom to not choose as well. Why should the BSA mandate a belief in God when freedom would allow you to believe whatever you wish?

Needless to say, my rhetorical questions are dripping with sarcasm. and while I actually don't like starting so aggressively, I am utterly tired of the assault on traditional conservative principles. This is not about freedom, discrimination or even sexual orientation. To paint the conversation in this light misses the point of the opposition. It is about the ability of an organization to set and maintain it's core values vs. having those values dictated by those that disagree. And yes... to me is is also about standards of right and wrong and how we define what is acceptable to our youth- including my son.

In Scouting for Boys, Baden-Powell wrote specifically about Christianity

>> We aim for the practice of Christianity in their everyday life and dealings, and not merely the profession of theology on Sundays

When asked where religion came into Scouting and Guiding, Baden-Powell replied,

>> It does not come in at all. It is already there. It is a fundamental factor underlying Scouting and Guiding.

I understand scouting is no longer a Christian organization (nor was it ever) and only requires boys to maintain a belief in a higher power (for the time being)... but you cannot escape that it was founded on Christian principles- of which homosexuality is a sin.

Lest you believe I am hypocritical, I acknowledge that I have in the past, I still do and will in the future sin myself. The difference is I don't habitually seek to make my sin a lifestyle nor force others to accept it as normal.

So to answer your question? I would absolutely afford anyone the same freedom I have. Either:

1) Accept the organization and the core values and beliefs

*OR*

2) Start your own organization with core values and beliefs you can support.

And this is why I love this forum. Thanks ADC! I just didn't read far enough down the policy,but that lays it out really well. As qwazse said, this isn't a slippery slope at all. you guys are great!

So the YPT policy says no boy may share a tent with an adult other than his own parent. Pretty black and white, right? ok, so here goes the slippery slope.

1) What about sleeping on an aircraft carrier, battleship or submarine? Most scout units do this at some point and they've never given us separate quarters for adults and youth. Is this a violation of policy? Personally, I believe we were fine.

2) What about a lock-in/sleep-over? In the past we put the boys on the floor and adults on cots in front of the doors. We had 15~20 boys in a room with 4 adults. Did we break policy? Something inside me says we were still compliant with the intent of the rule.

Now we are looking at an outing in January with our Webelos 2. Historical weather for this time of year often has lows in the 20's with daytime highs in the 40s ~ 50s. To ensure the best experience for the boys, we are looking to rent 2 cabins at the state park. (Skip giving me flack over the cabins instead of the tents. If it gets the boys excited about joining Boy Scouts, I'll let them do the winter camping in a tent next year.)

So can we put the 2 adults in a cabin with the boys on the floor? I suspect it is fine and I see little distinction between this and what transpired at a lock-in or on the battleship. Second choice is to put the boys in a cabin and the adults in the second. That leaves the boys in a cabin without direct adult supervision. I question if this is more of a risk to the boys than the first option.

Thoughts?

There has been an abundance of talk after the unspeakable horror of what transpired in Newtown, CT on 12/14/12. Most of the talk since has been around solutions or blame. I've listened to various sources over the last 5 days and a non-exhaustive list of things I have heard includes:

Solutions:

We need to allow teachers to carry guns.

We need armed/trained security guards in schools.

We need to ban semi-automatic weapons.

We need to prohibit or greatly limit violent video games.

We need bullet proof glass/locks that would prevent a gunman from breaking in.

We need a better way to keep guns away from criminals.

We need a better way to help the mentally ill.

And blame...

It's the mother's fault because she didn't keep her guns locked.

It's the parent's fault because the trauma of divorce was too much.

It's the media's fault for giving 'fame and attention' to the murderer.

It's Hollywood's fault for glamorizing violence.

It's the government's fault for removing God from the schools.

It's God's judgment on Connecticut because they allowed gay marriage.

For the record, I find that last statement on judgment repugnant! Anyway, God didn't ask us to find solutions or to blame. He called us into relationships with others (more on this in a minute). Until then, there are some things I believe everyone can agree on regardless of your political or religious ideology. They include:

Families of those innocent murdered children and teachers need significant sympathy and consolation right now.

The young man involved was deeply troubled (to greatly understate it). To call his actions evil or say "Evil visited Newtown" was accurate. Regardless, the person that committed these unspeakable acts needed a different spirit than the one that controlled him.

During this Christmas season, peace, joy and hope was taken from Newtown. These three principles though are not limited to a period of time at the end of the calendar year. They must endure year-round and saturate our lives. They are needed by all people at all time.

Placing blame or assigning fault does nothing to bring the children back nor does it lessen the pain of those so filled with grief right now. Looking at preventative measures (more guns, locks and laws) fails to address the root cause. At best, they mitigate the impact of evil.

So what is my conclusion to all this?

As Christians, we know who has overcome this world. We know who has conquered death. We know who Him who will conquer evil. We know the true source of peace, joy, hope, compassion, sympathy and love. We know the healer that is able to quiet the anxious soul. We know the one that has authority and power over demons. Let's stop going day after day keeping this light 'hidden under a basket' or at best commiserating in our holy huddle. Let us unashamedly and with renewed vigor take our message to a world that has shown it needs answers. Let's take the message of the Gospel to a world that clearly needs Jesus.

(This message has been edited by once_eagle-always_eagle)

Yes the other roundtable of the other district is closer to us but the extra 20 mile drive to roundtable once/month isn't going to break us. And yes I think the neighboring district is better run, but that isn't why I am interested in switching either. Bottom line, our unit has lost confidence in our DE entirely... and the district chair is even further gone- yet council supports these two lock, stock and barrel. In fact, they dismissed *ALL* volunteers on the district committee EXCEPT the district chairman. We had people in there with 10~20 years of scouting experience who were abruptly removed from district positions without warning.

The only thing holding me back is that council/district mandates all recruiting in schools is to be run through district. Any individual unit efforts to recruit in schools are prohibited. They even confiscated our recruiting signs in August and we received a council threat to revoke our charter if we tried to 'undermine district recruiting' again.

Our council has defined districts based on population centers- no qualms there. However, for a number of reasons it looks like it is conceivably better for our unit if we could switch districts. Is this possible? If so, what is the process? Has anyone ever done this or heard of it being done?

I was able to collect a lot of opinions and draw them into a single document. If anyone is interested, you can see the finished product here: https://sites.google.com/site/forneycubscoutpack1007/importantdocs/tips_and_tricks_to_a_great_pack_ver2.pptx

i believe the bsa spokesman said it well. There is a difference between disagreement and disrespect- and i see many posters that make no such distinction. i can respect your difference in religious beliefs or even your belief that homosexuality is normal... but it doesn't mean i agree. the problem i have is you are changing the standards after the fact. if you don't like the standards start a new org.

and allowing local CO only works to the extent we have agreed upon standards. Take it to the Nth degree... lets allow girls in too if the chartered org will- i can think of MANY benefits! But i suspectthe BSA won't fit the original mold of what B.P. intended.

as usual beavah- wise reply. i'm just scared the bsa will cave to the societal pressure... but i conceed the wisdom of your position.

Ah packsaddle... :-( I didn't link to the petition on purpose. I didn't want anyone to sign it. I want to support the BSA policy.

I fully realize this has been beaten to death in other threads (e.g. When will National realize this is affecting membership). My concern is that this topic appears to have a lot of social momentum and I'd like to see us rally together in support of the BSA policy.

For those that may have missed the national news headlines in the last week, this is all over the news again and is now a change.org petition. The wording of the change.org petition I am wishing to counter is shown below:

### start of change.org petition ###

My 7-year-old son, Cruz, loves being a Cub Scout, and he really loved when I got to be his pack's den leader. But the Boy Scouts of America asked me to step down as the leader of my son's group -- just because I'm gay. Cruz doesn't understand why that matters, and frankly, neither do I.

When Cruz told us last year that he wanted to be a Boy Scout, my partner and I were concerned. We knew the organization has discriminated against families like ours before. But the other families in Cruz's group were so welcoming and supportive - they even asked me to be a den leader on the first day.

One year later, our fears came to life. A representative of the Boy Scouts of America abruptly told me I was no longer welcome - that because I'm gay, I didn't "meet the high standards of membership that the Boy Scouts of America seek."

I hated feeling that my family had been discriminated against, so I started a petition on Change.org asking the Boy Scouts of America to stop discriminating against gay people. Click here to sign my petition.

During the year that I was den leader, my cubs performed volunteer service at a local soup kitchen, collected canned goods for area churches to distribute in food baskets, and worked on a conservation project for a state park.

After I was asked to leave, other parents from my pack were outraged. Some of them even waited for hours to voice their concerns to Boy Scout officials, but they were turned away. As for Cruz, he doesn't really understand why there's a problem. He made a sign that says "I love my two gay moms."

Other organizations like the Girl Scouts and Boys & Girls Clubs of America welcome gay kids as well as adult leaders -- I know that if thousands of people sign my petition, the Boy Scouts will see that it's time for them to adopt a policy that incorporates their own core values of compassion and respect.

Improved version now up:

http://www.vote4noneoftheabove.com

am I the only one disgusted with the choices for president this year?

ok, version 2 posted trying to incorporate a lot of the feedback. The main one I know I ignored is about the quotes because I have a sentimental attachment to them.

https://sites.google.com/site/forneycubscoutpack1007/importantdocs/tips_and_tricks_to_a_great_pack_ver2.pptx

Better?

p.s. - You may need to view the notes page now to get the context of some of the bullets.

p.p.s- oops- i forgot to correct Cubmaster(This message has been edited by once_eagle-always_eagle)

I am teaching a course at the University of Scouting on tips for a great pack. I'd love to hear your input and feedback for changes you think I should make- or more importantly, things that you believe I omitted. You can see my presentation at the following location:

https://sites.google.com/site/forneycubscoutpack1007/importantdocs/tips_and_tricks_to_a_great_pack.pptx

No offense taken. It's clearly not a black and white issue (at least not to me). And once again to be transparent, I don't feel 100% good about it. On the other hand, there are few things I do feel 100% certain of.

To me it *is* an issue of loyalty... and while you didn't profess a loyalty oath, it is the second principle in the scout law "A scout is trustworthy, LOYAL, ..."

His loyalty is to the other units- and I assert that loyalty is ultimately hurting the boys in our unit. Here's how it plays out. When I refer to finances, it's not about a big bank account. We're non profit and the difference between money in vs money out was $500 last year. BUT, money raised through fund raisers determines the types of activities we can perform and how much we can do for the boys.

1) By not directing his fundraising efforts to his home unit, we don't benefit from his sales efforts. That money is not available for our activities and resources for OUR boys to use. (Not a deal in and of itself, there are other boys that don't fund raise too, but they don't raise money for the other units.)

2) Second, his aggressive sales efforts limit our own ability to raise funds. For example, I called the local grocery store about selling scout cards in front of the store to discover that he had reserved every weekend for the OTHER unit through the duration of the fundraiser.

3) The money that he helps generate for the other units allows them to offer more activities, more 'cool' destinations and at a lower cost. When comparing units, boys will gravitate to the other unit because their destinations are better and at a lower cost.

And while removing him as leader won't change his ability to direct his fundraising where he wishes, this will slightly level the playing field. As a leader in our unit, he has access to all of our boys and their contact information, and he sits in the committee meetings where we plan our recruiting and fundraising ideas. It is my belief he then uses this as intelligence to give the other unit a competitive advantage.

When all is said and done, I want to put forth the highest quality program for my boys and for my charter org. My success does not hinge on one person, but one of my leaders does not share our goal of making our unit the best it can be- and if you're not on the side of making our unit the best, then I want to fill the position with someone who is.

These boys are new Webelo 1 scouts working toward their Webelo rank. From page 49, requirement "7B" is to "Explain the Scout Oath, Scout Law, Scout motto and Scout Slogan."

The requirements on page 63 are for the Arrow of Light- to be achieved AFTER a boy earns his Webelo badge.

In other words, I take it as a progression. In order to get their Webelo rank, they have to understand the meaning of the words. I could have my son learn the scout law in Russian too, but it wouldn't mean anything if he doesn't understand the meaning of the words. I am teaching our boys what does it mean to be 'reverent' Not one boy knew the definition of the word without being taught. Now when they MEMORIZE the scout law as part of the Arrow of Light, they will understand the meaning of the words they are learning and repeating from memory.

But you cannot rightfully withhold the Webelo rank because the boy has not memorized the scout oath/law- which is clearly an Arrow of Light requirement (pg 63), NOT a Webelo badge requirement (pg 49).

Prior to composing the email, I notified the CoR and the cubmaster and we all agreed. I *did* find out after sending it that while the CoR agreed with the decision to remove him as leader, he preferred that I do it in person rather than through email... so I have to figure out how I can recover from that.

The problems I had can be reduced to this:

1) The asst webelo leader wasn't trying to ensure our Webelos visisted all troop units in town (we have 3). He was significantly biased to Troop 2. I'm not saying the boys need to go to Troop 1 either, but I believe they deserve equal opportunity. The leader was using our pack as a recruiting field for his troop without consideration of giving the boys equal exposure to all the units.

2) To be honest, a lot of my concern has to do with the finances.

2a) Our district/council allocates initial scout cards/show & sell popcorn based on historical sales. By selling for these other units, our ability to obtain future allocations of cards/popcorn is reduced.

2b) Although his son is a Webelo 1 in Pack 1, his sales efforts were directed to Troop 2 who received the financial benefit of his sales effort. This is primarily because the father and son regularly attend campouts with the troop and need the money to fund the trips with the troop.

2c) This dad spent considerable efforts organizing fundraising for Troop 2 leading them to more than 10K in sales in our most recent fundraiser. His passion for generating sales caused Troop/Pack 2 to lead the district in sales (for cards and popcorn). To be entirely transparent, I am hurt that he and his son are in our unit but he is leading the "other unit's" sales efforts.

3) I have some concerns about how this leader was interacted with boys, but I wanted to keep my letter objective rather than subjective. It was easier for me to point to the things I did than to argue over things that would have been received as a subjective personal attack. Examples include:

3a) Calling the boys 'stupid' because they couldn't tie a square knot

3b) He said he would not sign off or approve any boy for the Webelo requirements unless the boys MEMORIZED the Boy Scout Oath/Law (I realize this may be a point of controversy here too... but the requirements state the boy is able to "Explain" I interpret this that the boys have to understand the meaning of the words and be able to EXPLAIN it in their own words. While I encourage the boys to memorize them and we actively recite them at the opening of every Webelo Den meeting, it is not a requirement for the boys to MEMORIZE it to complete the rank requirements.)

Would you have done the same if you were committee chair?

For background:

1) I am the committee chair of Pack 1.

2) We also have a Troop 1.

3) About 1 year ago, Troop 2 split from Troop 1 because the leaders didn't share the same vision for what a troop should be.

4) Last month during JSN, Pack 2 was formed.

I sent the following email to my asst Webelo Leader:

====================

Dear :

Over the last several months, we have grown at odds with each other and the tension between us has arguably increased. To speak to my side of the equation- looking at it from Pack 1s position- I have grown increasingly concerned about what I perceive to be a conflict of interest on your part.

I have seen you at numerous community festivals with Troop 2.

I understand you attend high adventure outings and other campouts with them

I understand you fundraise with them performing show and sell- selling more than 10K in show and sell popcorn.

I understand that as an individual parent, you contributed zero dollars in popcorn sales to Pack 1.

I remember that during sales of the discount cards, you sold hundreds of dollars in scout cards on behalf of unit 2, yet I think 8 cards were credited to unit 1.

During recruiting, you were instrumental in recruiting to establish Pack 2.

You are on the pack committee for Pack 2.

You are the webmaster for Pack 2.

You are the webmaster for Troop 2.

You are the treasurer for Troop 2.

With our permission, you have solicited other scouts to join you on Troop 2 outings.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for scouting, your position as an Asst Webelo Leader in Pack 1 raises a potential conflict of interest to your loyalties of our pack, and ultimately, our unit suffers because your passion for scouting is clearly directed to other units. You have expressed your interest in remaining in Pack 1, particularly because started with this pack and has friends in this unit. I can respect that and am not discouraging nor prohibiting from remaining active in Pack 1. However, after sharing my concerns with our chartered org representative, I would respectfully ask you to remove yourself as a leader in Pack 1 and continue your role simply as a parent.

I am certain my email is going to greatly upset you, so I am willing to have a meeting with you along with our chartered org rep, our cub master, the Webelo leader, or any other members of the committee if you desire.

Finally, I will assume responsibility to ensure the Webelo campout to happens without interruption, but at this time you are not approved to lead the boys on this outing.

Thank you for your passion for scouting, I only wish it were to the benefit of our unit.

With sadness,

>> but means the people who wrote the bible found it not to be a problem, therefore it was acceptable

I disagree. (we won''t get into divine inspiration in this thread. :-) Because something is recorded as occurring doesn't mean it is approved... Just means the writers were honest about what happened. The authors recorded David's sin with Bathseba and how he plotted to murder her husband so he could have her for himself. Doesn't mean that the people who recorded it agreed... or take Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. Again, the writer wasn't saying it was right- just saying it happened and God was bigger than the choices and actions of men. In other words, you're on thin ice if you pull a single verse and then base your entire world view on it. It would be like spenidng 10 minutes with me and then making judgments on my entire life. You just can't do it fairly or with wisdom.

>> Thing is morality does change over time, as people become more enlightened..

I would agree with your statement if you allow me to rephrase:

"Morality (and the willingness of society to accept sinful behavior) does change over time, as people become more biblically illiterate or indifferent to the content."

(This message has been edited by once_eagle-always_eagle)

I want to repeat what I have suggested in other posts because I doubt everyone is going back and reading all 9 pages of this. I'll go out on a limb and suggest the BSA prohibition against homosexuals is not due to any perceived risk by homosexuals nor prejudice toward them. It is simply their interpretation of what defines morally acceptable behavior.

However, the comment that drew me to re-engage on this thread was:

>> Well here is the original law for that citation... "Which is that there is no penalty for men who have sexual relations with

>> boys under the age of nine years and one day.".. So if the biblical beliefs have been fine for all for many a century as

>> Seattle claims.. We should re-establish the law as it was implied.. Or accept that beliefs in morality have changed over

>> time, the more enlightened we become..

>> The part of the above statement that is in quotes seems to imply that the Mosaic law permitted sex with boys under the age of

>> nine.??? Maybe I am misunderstanding the statement.

I am CONFIDENT there is no place in Mosaic law nor the bible that defines homosexuality as acceptable... and I am equally certain that whoever made the original claim cannot find a biblical reference supporting pedophilia either. Just because the Bible acknowledges something does not mean that it is morally right nor pleasing to God.

As an example, the Bible talks about slavery in many places... talks about God's people being taken into slavery, talks about how people should treat their slaves, but it is not endorsed as an ideal to be embraced by society.

(This message has been edited by once_eagle-always_eagle)

I have seen several people advocating the CO decide who is and is not qualified to be leaders. Specifically- in context- will the CO permit homosexual leaders or not. I suspect this would lead to more problems than it would fix.

Personally, I find value in having a national standard. When I go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac, I *know* what I am going to get. I don't have someone who decided the burger would be better served with mustard instead of the special sauce. If you allow CO's do set their own criteria for leaders, you have made it incumbent on those outside the organization to ask the right questions to know if this specific unit aligns with their personal belief system or not.

Additionally, people will take the lowest standard and apply it to the entire organization. For example, my wife got sick eating after eating at an Arbys (I still think it was coincidence), but even now 12 years later, she will not eat at ANY Arby's.

This started as a private message, but as I typed more, I felt compelled to post my reply publicly in the hopes that even one person would find something of value.

Nugent:

So on the point of choice, we may probably just agree to disagree- and I'm ok to do that. I can tell you that a God wouldn't be fair, just and loving if he condemned a man for being born a red head... nor would he be fair, just and loving if he condemned a person for any other biological trait they were born with. That forces me then to the idea then that to be gay is not a condition by birth but rather a choice that we make (don't shut down yet, i'll come back to this in a minute with a worthwhile story.) Similarly, the Bible says in different places that God calls people to repent, it says that he has given men over to depraved minds that they may commit unnatural acts, he even calls homosexuality an abomination. My point is that God's judgment wouldn't be righteous if man didn't have a choice in the matter.

I promised to come back to the choice thing... one of the most powerful moments I have ever seen on television was years ago when the whole homosexual marriage thing first became an issue in California. (I can already tell you I am not going to do justice to the moment.) They had a gay man who was the first man in line to get married speaking with John MacArthur (google him if you don't know who he is). In tears, the gay man asked John something like this "You say that I had a choice in my sexuality. Then tell me why would I choose something so rejected by society? Why would I choose something so biologically unnatural? Why would I choose something that caused me to be laughed at all through my years in school? Why would I choose something that has caused my friends to reject and mock me? Why would I choose something that caused my own parents to disown me and say they wish I had died rather than live gay? Why would I choose that?! WHY?!?!?!"

John with unfeigned sincerity said something like this... "Your pain is real and you are hurting badly. I can tell you first, there is a God that loves you and has a plan for your life. A plan that calls you to be all that He created you to be. A plan that wants you to experience the fullness and wonder of everything He created in you and turn it into worship and praise of Him. No person wakes up one day and says 'Today, I think I am going to get drunk, have an affair on my wife and divorce her, get fired from my job, and abuse and lose custody of my kids.' An alcoholic arrives at that point in their life by a series of micro-decisions, at each point he had a choice to turn away from the behavior that is destroying him or a choice to continue. If the alcoholic continues to choose the behavior that destroys, the behavior eventually takes control so he no longer has a choice. Then one day, he finds himself living an unpleasant pain-filled life where choices are made for them. It is not that the chance to choose never existed, but that he chose wrongly, or even just simply ignored the choice while it existed. But we have a wonderful God that is more powerful than our choices and he calls us to turn to Him. He calls us to turn away from sinful choices in our life- in whatever manifestation they reveal (and they are different for different people)- and turn to Him... and He promises then to comfort us in our pain and help us in our weakness. The choice is yours to make. I will find people that can help you if you want to make that choice."

For anyone that has read this far, thank you. Everything I've said makes one HUGE assumption- that we would agree the Bible is true in what it declares. I realize that there are MANY people that would STRONGLY refute my assumption, and probably do it with great eloquence. I'm not going to try and defend it, argue it or even change anyone's mind. I'm simply trying to share the content the Bible in a way that allows others to see the application (so many people today fail to connect the Bible to any purposeful or meaningful application in our lives.)

God bless!

I'll take a stab at it...

Nugent's argument looks solid on the surface but misses the point. The idea of substituting black for gay is not a valid substitution.

"On my honor I will do my best to keep myself physically fit, mentally awake AND MORALLY STRAIGHT"

The issue at hand is if the person appointed as the leader has kept themselves MORALLY STRAIGHT and what is the yardstick you use to measure that.

I will humbly admit that while I have my own beliefs, they are established upon a standard that is not universally accepted and would not be agreed on by every person participating in this thread, much less in the world wide membership of scouting... And in the case of the BSA, I'm not advocating they should be.

So until that time, on whatever basis national has used as their yardstick, Irving has determined that open homosexuality violates the tent of remaining morally straight. There are people that would agree with that determination and there are people that disagree.

I showed them that exact same line. Their retort was that it was an opinion on the disservice. They claim that the relationship is built between the boys by starting earlier. And the one that killed me is when they said "Guide to Safe Scouting is just a guide. It's not literal mandates."

To which I replied: "So if it is just a suggestion, let's take the kids riding 4-wheelers or shooting shotguns."

They called me nuts and said that wasn't safe for a 9 year old boy... and when I told them neither is climbing a 14K mountain.. and they told me that was my opinion... and the dog chases it's tail around and around and around.

I decided for my own sanity that I can only control my own son and the POLICY of my own pack. I can not control the individuals in other units, district, council, or what occurs at activities that are not run by myself or my approved leaders. To a certain extent, I can't even control what happened at events that are run by my own leaders but I can remove them if they operate contrary to a pack policy- hence the reason we had a special called business meeting to define with clarity what is a pack event.

Eagle92 & Blancmage: It sounds like we all agree. The request to cite a reference was rather rhetorical. This committee is twisting words to enforce their own agenda which I can only speculate on.

My district has a problem that is 180 degree polar opposite of Basement's issue. I use the term 'problem' loosely because the only people that seem to take issue with it are the oober-conservative leaders like myself.

Our district chairman is also the committee chair for a local troop. This last summer, this leader took a group of boys on a 6 day trip to the top of Mt. Elbert (a 14K mountain in Colorado). The majority of the boys in this unit were under the age of 14- the minimum age to be allowed to attend a National BSA high adventure base. Furthermore, they took a Webelo scout and his father with them as well. Read the full article here: http://www.forneypostnews.com/Story.aspx?ArticleID=1572&HL=Forney-Boy-Scouts-Climb-Mt.-Elbert-in-Colorado-

Anyway, our district has identified two 'loopholes' (my term, not theirs) to justify why this is acceptable. First, the adult that took the Webelo scout has dual roles. He is on the troop committee and also the asst webelo leader. However, as a father attending the troop outing, he is allowed to bring his son. They even took it a step further by clarifying at roundtable that family camping is allowed at every level of scouting. If a member of a unit is participating in the event through allowed channels of participating, families are also allowed to be at the event.

Second, when we discussed this at our own unit committee meeting, we were told that parents with their sons operating in a 1:1 ratio, are allowed to visit and participate in troop activities to see if it is a good fit for their family to join when the boy crosses over. They said this parent was operating in that capacity.

Despite whatever justifications they use to say their actions were within guidelines, I get stuck at the idea that they left a 9 year old webelo and his dad at 13,400 and the troop went the rest of the way to the top. I've purposed in my own mind not to have my son participate in their activities and leave it to the discretion of other parents what choice they make for their own sons. In the meantime, we've clarified within our own pack policy what is and is not a sanctioned pack outing so that if/when the day does come that someone gets hurt doing something like this, I can show that they were operating outside the boundaries of what we allow as a unit.

(This message has been edited by once_eagle-always_eagle)