onehouraweekmy

As a CC who had to clean up a messy, disfunctional Troop by removing a SM and his wife, the treasurer, against their will (not a pleasant scene), I can tell you the CC in this situation should be the one to inform the "Advancement chair" that she's welcome to serve on the committee, but advancement responsibilities will now be handled by Mr or Mrs X... and if she doesn't like it, she can be left off the recharter next time around. Seriously, it's a disservice to every kid in the program to allow adults to "do their own thing" to the detriment of the program. I'm only sad it took me a

It has nothing to do with "ethics." These rules are guidelines in reality. The BSA could, but does not, enforce these "rules" by revoking charters, the only enforcement tool they have. I can tell you, it will not happen. When my little troop dipped under 5 boys one year, the "rule" is that the troop should have gone out of existence. Did the Council raise a fuss? No. Did National do anything? No. The BSA wants to keep units chartered, and has de facto allowed for tremendous flexibility in applying the "rules" in individual units. To me, the beauty of scouting is that there

Amen to all the above, with the possible exception of a monthly meeting... we get along fine with a quarterly one, but our troop is quite small. It can be a difficult job. I was recruited for it in our troop by the founding SM and had no idea what the job entailed. After a year of figuring it out and getting fully trained, it came about that I realized I would have to replace the SM who had recruited me. Very touchy situation, but fortunately I had the CO and most of the parents supporting the move, and a very good SM to take his place. But the bad feelings are there to this day.

The CC should pull him aside and get to the bottom of it. It's not a personal issue if folks are going to leave the troop because of the scandalous activity. Last I looked, a scout is supposed to be trustworty, loyal, and morally straight. If this adult leader is sending an opposing message, because he can't manage to keep his "affairs" private, then removing him is an appropriate (though not mandatory) option. If it were my troop, and there was anything to it, he'd be gone.

Excuse the religious belief comparison. I was not trying to suggest you would want to change me, I was clumsily trying to point out that simply believing someone is in error and trying to persuade them to change their belief and conduct is not "hateful." It may in fact be the most unselfish form of love to wish to bring someone out of a way of life that one considers to be self-destructive. Nevertheless, my position is not predicated upon emotion, since I have no emotional reaction to homosexuality at all, except for maybe sadness that some people want to engage in activity that is in my

Yeah, I understand that you don't like the fact that lots of folks don't approve of homosexuality. But you can't conclude from that observation that folks hate you. I don't hate you; I don't even know you. I don't condone your acting on your homosexual impulses. But don't feel alone-- I don't condone kids acting on their heterosexual impulses by having premarital sex; I don't condone married people acting on their impulse to have sex with someone other than their spouse. By the same token, you might disapprove of my being of (for example)the Zoroastrian faith. The fact that you dis

There is no "hate" involved in opposing open, active homosexuality, anymore than there is hate involved in opposing adultery or premarital sex. For those who accept the argument that the natural law (i.e., the statements about what is best for human flourishing based upon the nature and ends of mankind) or religious directives convincingly show that homosexual activity is contrary to man's good, opposing those acts is a principled, rational, stand. It is in no way to be taken as an excuse for hateful acts towards homosexual persons. In fact, those who hold the traditional view for either ph

"GW makes an important concession and I respect him for it. As much as many people would like to believe that human morality is timeless and inflexible, the fact of the matter is that definitions of morality are constantly shifting, evolving to reflect changes in culture." Sure, and by that relativistic view of morality, there are literally no standards that cannot be just cast aside. Think it's wrong to steal? Hell, that's just a culturally-conditioned belief. In my view, stealing shows that I value the possession of the goods more highly than my "victim;" it's a more efficient w

There's a noticeable difference between trying to change some low-order rule like scouts can't sponsor a hunting trip and trying to get BSA to formally admit open and active homosexuals and professed atheists. The problem with some of the agitators is that they refuse to be content with the reasonable modus vivendi pursued by BSA--essentially don't ask don't tell on homosexuality and atheism-- and want BSA to profess the wonderfulness of atheism and homosexuality. There's a big difference between BSA tolerating atheists and homosexuals who don't ring a bell about it or try to recruit boy

well, lots of folks have accused BSA of that, my comments were not restricted to just those on these boards, but as for those, how bout: "I would actually prefer all of the BSA units that refuse to follow the BSA's discriminatory policies inform the BSA of that decision, but I'm sure they're all afraid of losing their charter, and it's easier to just lie to the BSA. I don't consider lying to the BSA under such circumstances to be very unethical, and I consider following the BSA's policies to be more unethical, so it's more a choice of doing what is less unethical." --Mervyn (followin

should be "they're trying to IMPOSE..."

The funny thing about some of the belly-aching about the BSA being "intolerant" for excluding atheists in principle is that the reality, as reflected by the comments on this thread, is that the BSA is an extremely flexible, locally-adaptable organization. If a unit chartered by Fred's Garage wants to focus only minimally on religion, that can very practically happen: the only express reference will be recitation of the oath and law. Even these, it is clear, invoke only the most ambiguous and undefined "deity." On the other hand, a unit chartered by a church or synagogue or mosque ca

Well, if you feel strongly enough about homosexuality and atheism, you should indeed be true to your principles and leave Scouts for one of these alternatives. After all, when GSUSA went radical and became all cozy with radical Feminism, Lesbianism, and atheism, what did the traditional values folks do? Stay there and try to subvert the institution? No, they went out and formed their very own scout-like group, American Heritage Scouts (I think that's the correct name), so they could exercize their right to have their children participate in a group that does not offend their value

Yeah, I'm making a new "unofficial" knot, the "Prevaricator's Knot" for those who support tolerance towards not telling the truth, since after all, who's to say what truth is, my truth and your truth are two different and utterly contradictory things. It's my way to fight against the power and show that I'm for diversity. I want all scouts I encounter to feel free to discuss with me their confusion about telling the truth always, so I can affirm them in their search for their own truth. After all, who's to say that "honest" really means telling the exact truth all the time, anyway. T

Sure, troops can have women leaders along camping. I wouldn't recommend it, since I believe it's flirting with many problems and perceptions to place adults sexually attracted to males in the close contact that (especially backwoods) camping brings them. Nevertheless, the elephant in the living room is that the problem is not at all about Scout moms molesting boys. The problem is that there is a significant portion of the homosexual community that is involved with such molestation. The experience of the Catholic church and other denominations shows that when young boys are molested

MerVyn says: "That's one of the problems of using subjective criteria like that. The BSA is on record in court as says gays aren't "clean" and "morally straight", and that atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens. I'd say that qualifies as promoting hate." tjhammer tells us in effect "I'm homosexual, but I won't be open about that to the parents of the boys I am in contact with as an adult leader." Scary stuff. BSA is now a hate group because it won't bend to the PC winds blowing and admit that homosexuality is great and hey, no problem, camp in close quarters with lots of you

I'm amused by the use of the word "discrimination" as a weapon that's supposed to shut down debate, e.g., "Why should someone support a policy that discriminates against homosexuals/atheists?" It's really an abuse of language. We all discriminate; the only question is whether the discrimination is well-founded or not. For instance, society generally agrees that discriminating against someone solely because of their skin color is wrong. We feel strongly enough about that as a society that we have made such discrimination illegal in many contexts. Other types of discrimination, how

Yet again, if Philly, instead of supporting the BSA's mission as it has for many years, wants to attack it under the guise of non-discrimination, it's a democracy and the people of Philly can pass on the wisdom of that judgment at the next City council election. The local council will survive this attack. My only point is that it is obvious that Philly is politically attacking BSA because of BSA's long-held policy, and in the process, separating itself from all the good the BSA does, which is why the city supported them in the first place. I'm delighted that so many Scouters are willing

Again, the City may have correctly jumped through whatever legalities it needed to hit the BSA... the point is that yet again, an attack on the BSA has been launched because the BSA refuses to rescind its position that homosexuality is incompatible with the aims of the organization. It's as simple as that, and no, I see no Republican or socially conservative groups attacking the BSA... only the ACLU and some hostile local governments with agendas to push and radical constituents to placate. I'm just suprised that so many good Scouters on this forum seem to be so indifferent about def

How about freedom of association, which the city is impinging. That's a constitutional right that trumps any local ordinance prohibiting so-called discrimination against homosexuals. The Scouts have rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and certainly a due process right not to be punished after the city has condoned BSA practices for years.

The moderators absolutely have the right to squelch any content they chose. Point is, we should wonder, "why?" since my comment simply pointed out that certain advocacy groups have a vested interest in attacking the BSA for excluding homosexuals. To exclude fair comment on who is attacking the BSA and why seems more like taking a position in the argument than merely policing the board. Simple as that. And yes, I suppose Philly is following the "law" they made; I don't know, I hope BSA has lawyers loooking at it. But the point here is not whether the law is being followed, but w

I am our CC, and have planned and executed two summer camps so I have some experience... ours is a small, cohesive troop (6-8 boys) and the first camp was great, everyone earned the canoeing merit badge courtesy of my 18 year old son/ ASM/ MB counselor. They all learned cooking skills; had lots of fun swimming and being able to run (can't do that at lots of BSA camps). Second year this last summer was also canoeing MB for a new crop of 11 and 12 year olds, and LOTS of TF, 2d, and 1st class advancement activities. Two older boys were a little bored, but also excited at getting to help

The moderators don't like it being pointed out who it is or what groups are interested in forcing the BSA to change its no-homosexuals policy. The push is really on to get the BSA to change... even the moderators of the board are jumping on the bandwagon squelching folk's speech in the process.

Post's contents deleted. Because you feel the Scouts are being "attacked" does not give you the right to come on here and attack other groups with beliefs different than yours. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

But I think despite your lack of adherence to the value system that has bequeathed us the very freedom in which we can even have this discussion, you nevertheless surely would NOT favor some kinds of diversity. For example, I imagine you do not favor the diversity that would allow convicted sex-offenders to serve as adult scout leaders; or that would allow unrelated opposite-sex adults to share a tent with youth, or homosexuals to share a tent with same-sex youth. It seems you are simply defining the things you like as "diversity" (good) and the things you don't like (such as Judeo-Chri