ParkMan

1 minute ago, David CO said:

I am told that people share about 95% percent of their DNA with lower life forms. A 5% difference may not seem like so much, mathematically, but 5% can make all the difference in the world.

I'm just trying to figure out how to build a bridge here.

27 minutes ago, David CO said:

It would appear that the NCCS has a Bishop Liaison who is appointed by the NCCS to act as its go-between with the USCCB . The Bishop does not appear to have any oversight of the NCCB. When a Bishop has oversight authority, he is usually appointed be Rome, not by the people he is supposed to oversee.

As I said, I have no knowledge of these people, as I have never had contact with them before. But since you quoted them, as an authoritative source of Catholic policy, I thought that you might have some more information about them.

 

As a Catholic, I knew of the group and had certainly heard of it before, but have not dealt with them.   In doing my research on the topic, I looked them up and checked their position.  I'm comfortable with them as a voice who has looked over the issues at hand from a Catholic perspective.

But my CO is Presbyterian - so there's no way I'd have dealt with them anyways.

2 minutes ago, Chisos said:

It's not that being safe is a problem.  The problem is that, any program that promises adventure is going to have have some associated risk.  And, given the current state of risk management is now devolved into complete risk avoidance, you wind up with the "watered down" program that is not as popular/marketable/whatever you want to call it.  So, rather then building independence, you wind up promoting hand-holding.  BSA's not there yet, but I can see how the public perception is that we're headed in that direction.

This is more in line with what I have seen too.  The Scouting program is not providing the sense of adventure, challenge, and fun that it did generations ago.  So, many boys are simply losing interest in it.

Whether it's because we've become safer, because boys have raised their expectations, or something else - I'm not sure.  It feels plausible that it's because the current crop of Scout leaders have been driven to be less adventurous and more risk adverse - but again, I don't really know.

Yep - I think that's a pretty spot on analysis of the situation.  Not sure that I agree that being safe is the core problem, but it's an idea and props to him for thinking up a solution.

My sense is that groups like this exist to allow a faith (or really any group) to have a more co-ordinated voice on issues in Scouting that impact the faith.  if you had 5,000 churches in a faith each saying their own thing, it would be hard for that faith to have much influence.  So groups like this exist to provide that singular voice.  I figured as it was overseen by a bishop that someone must have decided it makes sense.

I'd welcome us to focus on the 95% we have in common.  I think that would be wonderful.  

38 minutes ago, Peregrinator said:

Directors of non-profit corporations making nothing is normal.

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/can-board-members-be-paid

Just noting that these folks are volunteers like you or I.  It's just that instead of being a unit committee member, they are on the national board.

1 hour ago, Oldscout448 said:

Sorry if that came off sounding a bit snarky,  I just think you are showcasing a loophole that will barely exist.

The point is that it's the Chartered Organization's choice - not the BSA's.  The BSA says - religious CO, you establish your membership standards as it makes sense for your beliefs.  That's up to you.  No gays - that's the CO's call.  No girls - that's the CO's call.  The BSA isn't forcing the CO to do anything with respect to gay, transgender, or female members.  The CO is free to implement the program that is consistent with it's beliefs.  That passage from the Catholic church is merely confirming that.  They are saying - yes, we agree that it's our choice and the BSA is leaving it up to us.

If the Bishops come along and say "nope, you can't exclude gay members", that's the church's choice - not the BSA's.

I'm Catholic and did a little searching for information on my church's take on this topic.  I found a very illustrative statement at:
http://www.nccs-bsa.org/pdf/letters/NCCS.20170208.Press.Release.pdf

Here they write:
The BSA has stipulated that religious partners will continue to have the right to make decisions for their units based on their religious beliefs. Scouting’s chartered organizations have the right to uphold their own moral standards within the units they charter. The teachings of the Catholic Church are upheld! Thus this change by the BSA has no impact on the operation and program delivery of scouting program in Catholic Chartered units.

Further down:
A Catholic parish can establish a membership guideline that follows Catholic teaching.

I never said set aside your personal beliefs.

What I said was should not feel slighted that the BSA has a membership policy that doesn't agree with your moral beliefs.  It's not that BSA judging your beliefs.  It's not the BSA telling you how to live your life or what morals you should impart to your kids.

From the BSA website:
We work to ensure every youth and adult member has the opportunity to join a local unit that aligns with his or her beliefs and with the experience he or she wants within the Scouting community. 

You seem to be pushing a narrative that because the BSA is allowing gay members that it is devaluing your beliefs and morals.  I continue to find no evidence of that at all.  Further, I see no evidence at all that the inclusion of gay members in the larger BSA program in any way impeeds the ability of your youth to fully follow your morals while upholding the Scout law and oath to it's fullest.

Welcome @hardrockscout!  I'm glad you decided to join us here.

Welcome @CedarsEagle!  Congrats on becoming Cubmaster too - a wonderful job in Scouting.

21 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

[Rmeints, my sarcasm below isn't directed at you, but at the status quo of the BSA today....]

So those grand gents, including BP himself, grilled Arthur for several hours.  And--gasp--they RETESTED his scout skills!   The horror, the horror.... Didn't Arthur already have a card or a piece of paper showing that he was signed off on those skills, thus exempting him from any future retest should a bunch of old mean guys demand it?  What about his feelings?  What about his stress level?  Surely they provided him regular breaks and a compassion puppy.  Perhaps a cry room?   Did his mother intervene and threaten legal action?  So the board didn't just look at his documentation the day before, shrug their collective shoulders, and say "well, he's technically meet all of the requirements, I guess we have to pass him."

No.  The board put him through the wringer, and Arthur passed with flying colors.

How the world has changed.

Yeah - wouldn't be such a bad thing if we challenged scouts more today.  Perhaps a day will come that we'll once again recognize the value of challenge for the Scouts.  

1 minute ago, rmeints said:

Becoming the first Eagle Scout was absolutely a big deal. When Arthur Eldred was announced as the first official Eagle Scout there were letters of protest from at least two other scouts (who ended up being the second and third official Eagles). It made national news. Arthur's Eagle Board of Review was conducted by James E. West, Dan Beard, Ernest Seton Thompson, and Lord Baden-Powell himself, who just happened to be in New York as part of a nationwide speaking tour. Arthur passed with flying colors, but he was put through his paces for several hours, including having to start a fire with a bow and two pieces of wood.

Wow - interesting history.  I'm surprised a new organization became that visible so quickly.

7 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I strongly do not recomend under 13. We had one 12 year old in my patrol on a waiver, and he caused more problems than he was worth. Once he was no longer with the patrol, we finally started gelling as a patrol and getting things done.

Hah - that was me.  I took JLT as a 12 (11 maybe) year old.  Didn't work so well.

2 hours ago, JoeBob said:

There is a good number of non-LDS members here that would like to come with you.  That our core beliefs have been devalued frustrates us.  This topic has been a useful vent.  Thanks.

I think there are two different views of what the BSA represents.  To me, the BSA provides a program that I can leverage to help my kids be better adults and have a good time along the way.  Whether the specific policies of the BSA match my beliefs is less important. 

If you and I were in the same troop I'd tell you to not sweat this change and how it reflects on your personal beliefs.

It's pretty clear from my postings that I support the inclusion of gay scouts and adults.  Until a few years ago the BSA did not.  I didn't feel slighted by the BSA during this time.  I would encourage others to do the same.

9 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

A flexible moral code?  That's not a code.  That's a wish-list for being undisciplined.

I didn't say flexible moral code.

Show me thus rigid moral code you speak of.

5 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

Revisionist musings will, and should, always take a back seat to facts. Anything ascribed to B-P with a leading, "I think" is meaningless.

That's silly.  There is a ton of things that were different in 1907 and not used in the BSA.  We use them all the time now.

To follow a strict interpretation of only what was done then doesn't make sense.

19 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

Taurus Excretus.  BSA had a moral code to be envied; until '"acting like a Boy Scout" became a pejorative. 

And some used that latitude to the extreme.  "My moral code is to have no morals, but since that's my moral code; I can be an Eagle scout!"  And BSA allowed it.

The basic strength of a good morale code is that it doesn't change.  Through good times and bad, whether popular or unpopular, these are my morals.  Some things I will always do.  Some things I will never do.  You get strength and affirmation from others who have the same code that you do.   BSA hasn't changed their fundamentals?  You're right; BSA completely abandoned their fundamentals.  

I said it does not have a rigid moral code.  It has a very good moral code based in living to your best potential.

It talks about being reverant - but doesn't say you have to be an altar boy.  It talks about being physicslly strong, but doesn't say you have to run 3 miles a day.

1 minute ago, Peregrinator said:

No, actually, what B-P actually did do matters much much more than what you or I or anyone else thinks he might do today.

Everyone's actions are influenced by the norms and culture of the day.  BP is no different.  What's important is to understand the aims he had and to interpret them correctly so we can implement his program correctly. 

5 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

What's the difference between criticism and insult? The element of personal perception. You saw it one way, I saw it another. 

You can express your dissatisfaction with his behavior, yet you would restrict the manner in which he expresses his? Honestly, it only ratcheted up once he began to get flak for his stance. The escalation was not entirely upon him.

How do those that require objective compliance reconcile that with their own subjective behavior?

The difference is in how you refer to people and the institution.

You can explain in lots of ways why the BSA decision is wrong without rooting for it's demise or calling it's leaders morally corrupt.

2 minutes ago, David CO said:

No, it isn't. BSA is requiring that units accept gay youth. That is no latitude at all.

 

How does a unit accepting gay youth cause any scout to violate the Scout law or oath?

23 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

Agreed. I NEVER assumed that any of his posts were directed at any specific person. Despite that, he was basically tarred and feathered for having an opinion. And the response he received here is likely the reason others that may feel similarly don't say anything. And then silence is equated with acceptance. And so the false assumption that there is a majority or  consensus is then entered as fact. 

There's definitely a danger to the "shout your opponent down" tactic. You get surprises like the Nov 2016 election. Instead of honest discourse, you create your own ambush.

It's not just that he insulted forum members - it's the blatant attacks on the BSA, it's leadership, and by inference those that support it.  Calling the BSA and its leaders immoral and wishing it's demise is a problem.

There are many more ways to make your point without having to revert to that.

9 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I do not know why BSA would be immune to the splitting of society that is taking elsewhere at shared institutions. This is part of that process.

We're not immune, but the oath and law should guide us to handling it better.  

22 minutes ago, David CO said:

If you feel this way, then you should be arguing the case that BSA should have no moral code. You should not be imposing your moral code on us by insisting that we respect something that we feel is the very definition of immoral. You shouldn't be asking that we keep quiet about it either.

 

Not at all.

The BSA doesn't have a rigidly defined moral code.  It's about challenging yourself to be the best person you can be.  

A scout is: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. 

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout law, to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

The BSA gives scouts and families wide latitude in how to interpret this. 

All the BSA changed was who can try to apply these.  They in no way changed the fundamentals behind it.