Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BDPT00

  1. I'm very much against using part of a retired flag as a decoration/trophy (notwithstanding the ridiculous notion that grommets are not 'part' of a flag). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that wearing it on a uniform is a desecration to both the flag and the uniform.

  2. I see no problem whatsoever with segregated (oh, there's that dirty word) groups. The Red Hat Society fills a need. I doubt our society will try to integrate that, even though it looks like fun. There are men's leagues, women's leagues, and mixed leagues for bowling. Is that a bad thing, even if a woman wants to bowl with the men (or vise versa)? If the sign says 'Men Only,' there's a lawsuit. Girl Scouts is for girls. Boy Scouts is for boys. They both have age restrictions. Are these things bad? Why do we need to constantly try to change things? Maybe, just maybe, some things are good just the way they are.

  3. The all-male model is pretty much what Trail Life is now offering.  Their gender identity is very much like BSA was prior to 1990ish when women could fill leadership roles other than Den Mother.  I hope they're successful in their mission, because they're certainly filling a need.  BSA also fills a need, and I'm one who likes things as they are/were.  To me, it's a matter of trying to please all of the people all of the time.  We need to realize that that isn't a good way to do things.  The line in the sand will continually move.  We do need to figure out who we are and where we are, and that's pretty foggy to a lot of folks.  We're never all going to agree on everything (unless committed to the same values that Trail Life is).  If we're willing to change to keep up with society, we'll always have an identity crisis. 

    In response to the original stated question; I don't see it as going back to what it used to be.  I see it as not changing as many might wish in the future.  Stosh, can you clarify the question?  Are you talking about not changing, or are you talking about eliminating Venturing females?  All females?  I don't think that's what you meant.  I think this means that we need to decide (hypothetically, of course) where we go in the future, starting where we are right now.

  4. The last few comments have been pretty good, but I would still hesitate if the purpose of doing whatever we do is to be like some other country.  Scouting is a part of the culture, and how it works elsewhere is a product of that culture.  I don't want to be Australian, and I don t want to be Canadian.  I'm an American, and I'm a member of the Boy Scouts of America. 

  5. Eagledad,

    Your point is well taken.  The emphasis is how it would benefit girls, and I think it most likely would.  Fact is that an exceptional girl will smoke an average boy any day, and I honestly think that's who people are presenting as likely candidates who would get a lot out of Boy Scouts.  I would submit, as well, that an exceptional boy would crush the average girl (at the expense of being called a bully).  The argument falls apart (in my mind) when we mix the average boys and girls in certain environments.  Young boys and girls are squirrelly, and I take the pessimistic viewpoint.  It's tough enough working with just squirrely boys.  Why throw gas on the fire?  We're here to provide a program where young boys can gain confidence and self-reliance.  They can learn new skills, and practice leadership.  Putting girls in that setting could damage those opportunities, because the behaviors would change.  Several people have said that different ages present different issues.  I think that Venturing (as it is now) is the setting where these issues can be handled with a little more maturity.  Girls seem to dominate in the leadership category, and I think a lot of that has to do with the mentality of the players.  The girls are new to the program, and are excited to be there.  They take on the challenge of leadership, and aren't afraid of failure.  They don't mind competing with the boys (what do they have to lose?).  The boys are complacent, and allow the girls to lead.  That's great for those girls, and I think it's exciting.  Good for them!  Giving the boys a chance to remain in a troop until they're 18 allows the opportunity to develop their skills, leadership, and character.  It's worked for 100 years.  Put girls in that troop, and the dynamic changes.  Is that good for the boys?  I'm thinking not.  Let them take care of their own cooking, cleaning, hygiene, roughhousing, succeeding, and failing, without the ingrained need to impress a girl.  They can let their guard down, and just be a boy.  They don't have to worry about their little sister tattling on them, or their older sister telling them what to do.  They don't have to compete, and take a chance of losing to a girl!  Heaven forbid.  Boys are clumsy and dirty, and need the space to grow.  Give them a chance.  If this means allowing them an uneven playing field, so they can catch up to the maturity and grace of the girls, what's wrong with that?  If it ain't broke . . .

  6. I hear the arguments, and I'm not agreeing with this whole notion.  Here we are talking about girls beating the boys.  Great.  This at the same time educators praise the idea of having all-female science and math classes, because the girls will perform better that way.  OK.  Good.  Is this all some sort of equal opportunity game we're playing?  If so, then let's give the boys a chance to catch up in the leadership and confidence game we call Scouting.  Co-ed is good in some situations.  Not so good in others.  Do we think that's true?  Are we trying to fix that?  Is it possible?  I don't think so.  We have parents who jump on the idea of boys playing with dolls, and girls playing with trucks, because somebody thinks that a warm, fuzzy way to level the field.  Is that what this is all about?  Are we claiming that it's our solemn duty to 'catch up' with the rest of the world?  Is the whole world more advanced than the United States?  Our society/government keeps messing with business, education, and health care, and what's the payoff?  We take what isn't broken, and try fix.  If it ain't broke . . .

    • Upvote 1
  7. Schools have done studies regarding all boy and all girl classrooms.  Both performed better.  When youngsters are in mixed-gender classrooms, they behave differently.  That can be good or bad.  They get squirrely.  Happens already in NYLT.  Behavior changes. 

    Is it our desire to be like other countries?  Some of those countries have pretty unacceptable (to us) sexual, drinking, smoking, and drug behavior.  That's not because of mixed gender activities, but our society isn't the same as others.  This isn't an apples and apples situation.  There are many things to consider before rocking the boat. 

    Might there be benefits?  Sure there would, but I think boys need a chance to be boys, and girls need a chance to be girls.  Same with adults.  That's why we have boys' night out and girls' night out.  We're together most of the time, but it's nice to get away once in a while (like camping in the woods for a few days with just the guys ... same is true for the girls).  I think the issue is far more complex than some make out (speaking of make out ... there's a whole new subject for hormonally charged kids out in the woods for a few days). 

    • Upvote 1
  8. I disagree.  The issue became an issue because of the LGBT movement.  The problem we'll continue to face is that the movement will keep pushing.  They will never be satisfied, and will continue prodding the sheep.  I give them credit.  It takes a lot to move the BSA and the LDS, but they're persistent, and they're not done yet.     

  9. Agreed.  If your son is the troop guide, the patrol should have their own patrol leader.  That being the case, your son is still a member of his original patrol, and should be wearing that patch.  If he's the new patrol's patrol leader, then the Scouts are being treated more like a den.  If he's holding the patrol leader for only six months, my recommendation would be that the Scoutmaster read his Handbook.  Good luck with that one.   

  10. I lean heavily toward those here saying that participating is more than just being in an audience where a flag is presented. I've observed many flag raising and lowering ceremonies. The handling of the flag is pathetic. It's clear that they've never done it before. There are plenty of very simple things to consider when raising, lowering, and folding a flag. If you don't actually practice it once or twice it becomes very awkward, and it loses the reverence. Those saluting become annoyed (visibly), and I think it lacks the proper respect. It's just common sense, but overlooked if never tried. It's a very easy thing to do if practiced. Clumsy if not. I'm not just talking Cubs here. It's very obvious when Boy Scouts at NYLT and adults at Wood Badge have never worked with a flag pole before. To me, practice = participate.

  11. Stosh,

    There are so many details wrong with this photo, and we're on the same page.  Aside from the disrespect to the U.S. flag, what I don't like is Scouts carrying a rainbow flag, and a Cub wearing a rainbow neckerchief.  This whole picture is predictable and disgraceful . . . the tip on the iceberg.

  12. BSA has tried all sorts of things to try to be more diverse.  I see it as simply a family/community thing.  My kids were in Scouts because their dad was in Scouts, and it just seemed like the natural thing to do.  'Other cultures' don't have that same hand-me-down background (yet).  I always assumed my kids would be in Scouts, and so they were.  That same assumption doesn't exist in all families, so the buy-in from the parents takes a lot of selling, and if the kids don't think it's cool, it's a tough sell.

    • Upvote 1
  13. @@BDPT00 better watch where you put your cursor when you type or you might get banned. :)


    Hard to tell what is yours and what you are quoting.

    Thanks, Bad Wolf.  Read you loud and clear.  I tried to quote a portion of the text, and couldn't get myself out of the quote box.  Hence the ' *** ' above.

    I've replied to a personal message regarding the LDS thread, but your post offers an opportunity to apologize publicly.  I messed up, and I hope the damage is understood and repairable.  Very sorry.



    ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

    LCMS - Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (about half the size of ELCA)

    WELS - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (about 5 time smaller than LCMS)

    LCMC - Lutheran Congregation in Mission for Christ

    AFLC - Association of Free Lutheran Congregations

    ELS - Evangelical Lutheran Synod (not related to ELCA)

    CLBA - Curch of the Lutheran Brethren of America



    *** I was looking for Lutheran Church sizes based upon number of chartered units.

  15. And exactly how big is the LCMS, as compared to the ELCA, in the number of chartered units?  The BSA groups them (and the Wisconsin Synod) all under "Lutheran". 


    I find the LCMS to be an odd duck to start with.  They are the group that reprimanded a pastor for participating in an interfaith vigil after the Sandy Hook Massacre.

    You'll have a hard time finding a Wisconsin Synod charter partner.  Referring to the LCMS as an 'odd duck' is a bit below Scouting standards.

  • Create New...