Prairie_Scouter

Eamonn, Why would any parent come to a forum dedicated to opinions and discussion to find out about Scouting? A search on Boy Scouts would more likely take them to the BSA sites, where they can find all about what BSA believes in and their policies. They can either accept those or not. Coming to a discussion forum really provides nothing of value for a person looking for information about Scouting, unless they are actually looking for opinions, in which case, they are likely to see a wide variety of divergent views. An intelligent person can choose which opinions to place any weight in.

I thought that the Issues and Politics forum was EXACTLY the place where discussions like this were to be held. Saying I don't agree with a BSA policy doesn't mean they are being "slammed". I see people here saying things like "BSA is out of touch"; I don't see anyone calling them names or anything disrespectful. As a matter of fact, I agree with BSA National on probably 99% of their policies. Their policies on gays implies things about that group that are largely open to debate. I don't agree with that policy; that's the sort of thing I thought we were here to discuss and banter about. Y

OGE, when I wrote my original comment, it wasn't my intent to "pull anyone's chain". I don't post that way on purpose. My comment was merely to the point that you and Bob seemed to have gotten really riled up over it. I meant it as a somewhat lighthearted remark. I apologize if you took offense at that line of my post; it wasn't meant to do so. There's a certain frustration, however, in trying to discuss issues with Bob White, who seems to relish in taking things out of context or simply misreading my statements, or extracting meanings our of my statements that aren't there. I did mak

Vicki, I agree with you that the way we do things ends up defeating the purpose of the dual signatures in the 1st place. It's just one of those things that's happened along the way. Doesn't make it right, just the way it is.

Well, Old Grey, I suppose if what I offered was the #2 outrageous thing ever said on this forum, what was #1? That all gays can be classified as a group to be poor role models? :-) I seem to have hit a nerve. Good. Makes life more interesting. My statement comes from what I suppose is personal experience. If you look at the stand on gays, for example, that has it's roots in primarily Christian religions, and my guess is that the people who originally made it an issue within BSA were from Christian religions. If you look at the vast majority of sites that support this stand, you ar

As a SM, I really just try to emphasize to the Scouts that the journey is every bit as important as the destination. It shouldn't be a race, and every Scout should know that they can advance as far, or as little, as they want and still enjoy Scouting. I'd like them all to get 1st Class, since that involves learning the basic outdoor and leadership skills, and that to me is a safety issue for our outings, but beyond that, it's really up to them.

It would be wonderful if BSA did embrace a philosophy that included all religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that's not what they seem to be doing. IMHO, I think that the current BSA National leadership would LOVE to be able to say that BSA is open to everyone who has a belief in Christ-based religions; everyone else may happily go elsewhere. Politically, they are unable to do this, but as I said, just MHO. As far as being an organization based on "traditional family values..... "Traditional" is a changing model that evolves over time. American values, over the years, have included such

Bob, I don't know for sure, but now I'm kind of interested in finding out. I've read that "the vast majority" of other countries Scouting programs have no problem with gay leaders, but I'll see if I can find some exact figures. I'll post the answer if I'm able to find it.

I agree one zillion billion per cent. Now, if we could only get BSA to agree.... :-)

Bob, What other Boy Scout organizations do in their countries is relevent because we are all a part of the worldwide Scouting movement. If BSA is out of step in a large way with what is going on in other Boy Scout organizations around the world, that should at least cause us to pause and wonder if BSA is right. Not that we necessarily have to follow in lockstep with what the rest of the Scouting movement does, but there should be a snicker test, and I have to say, whenever virtually ever other Scouting organization, and Scout-like organization, has managed to come to terms with this issue,

Semper, This is just a wonderful post, and it capture your beliefs very well. Your particular beliefs and your comments about how they should be inserted into Scouting are part of the issue that swirls around Scouting all the time in regards to God/gods. Your beliefs define a particular "God" and the way "he" should be treated within a Scouting environment. That's all well and good, but there are a lot of people who believe in a "God/god" and there are many different definitions that quantify that God for them. Who's to choose which definition and set of practices to use? I

Bob, if foto has commented to you privately that he does indeed consider all priests to be a "problem", then that isn't information I had available, and I once again stand corrected. I didn't read his post that way. Regards your other comments, I never said that allowing gays in Scouting would result in BSA getting only the "best" gays. I had commented that there seemed to be a perception that allowing gays into Scouting would result in a bunch of gay leaders coming to meetings in drag. That's no more true than saying that all gays are good, or all straights are good, etc. Each leader sh

I don't know of any formal prohibition in Safe Scouting. Especially in the context of summer camp, you have lots of other leaders around, so I don't think you'd have any problems. It's just a shame that we even have to worry about that kind of thing.

Vicki, having worked in banking for 30, I've come to believe that the General Ledger is the root of all evil in the universe :-) but I digress............ MajBob, Just one more troops way of doing things...... We have a dual signature account, but the reality of it is, the treasurer usually asks one of the other signers to sign a few checks each time we meet to avoid logistical problems, Granted, opens a fraud hole, but we've all known each other for years and years, and it's not like emptying our account is going to let someone start a new life in New Zealand or something :-) We d

Bob, I read foto's comments, and then read your response, and then read his comment again, because you seem to have read something completely different. Foto was clearly speaking in very broad strokes, and this was clearly indicated by the comments at the end of his post. The point, I think, was not about what percentage of those groups might be "bad" or whether as a group they are "dangerous", only that you can't universally categorize people, as BSA has done with gays by stereotyping them as bad role models. You yourself indicated the problem with making broad statements about any g

Bob, We're getting too far afield from my original comment, which was simply that if, say, in the case of a child abuse problem in a unit, BSA could be sued, and the local unit could be sued as well, even tho the BSA insurance is supposed to provide a "shield" of sorts. That was all. Regards the "deep pockets" and BSA, my comment about popcorn and such was not a criticism of BSA, just a response to your comment about BSA having the biggest pockets because of the number of employees they have. I stand corrected on who gets the popcorn money, but that's really unrelated to my original

Read my post again, please, Bob. I didn't say that someone might sue a CO with deepER pockets, I just said deep pockets, and by that I meant that a lawyer could choose to go after a reasonably wealthy CO if they thought they'd have better success in court than against BSA. Besides, the number of employees and members BSA has has nothing to do with with what assets they might have that could be acquired in a court settlement. If BSA is as well as off as you seem to think, they shouldn't be taking a cut of our popcorn money and sending out FOS agents every year.

So, when you say "BSA", Bob, is that "BSA" representing all of us, or some small group of decision makers in support of their own, possibly politically motivated, agenda? Since the stance on gays in U.S. Scouting is contrary to the philosophy of the majority of the members of Scouting Worldwide, I have to wonder if something else is going on.

As Trevorum said, since sexuality has no place in Scouting, whether the leaders are gay or not is irrelevent. So, I'd go with the trained leaders. As an aside, I think that there's this perception that gay leaders would all be running around in drag or something. I wouldn't want to be in a troop with gay leaders openly expressing their sexuality anymore than I'd want to be in a troop with hetero leaders who stand around fondling each other during meetings. Neither provides an appropriate role model image for the Scouts.

Bob, I didn't say anything about who provided insurance to BSA; makes no difference if they are self-insured or not. My point was that if someone decided to sue in regards to some BSA action, they might not only go after BSA, they could choose to go after the CO as well, if that organization had deep pockets. We do follow the rules in regards to Safe Scouting to the letter, to the best of our ability. That doesn't guarantee protection from litigation, regardless of what BSA says. They can try their best to shield the local units, but they may or may not work. Regards red giants

OldGrey, In the America of today, people are going to sue no matter what you do. The BSA National insurance covers you to a point, but the CO can still get sued if someone thinks that they have deeper pockets. Hasn't BSA National pushed responsibility for the background checks on the CO's anyway? Seems like the leader apps indicate that. And they could still provide whatever background checks they do even if they changed their policy on gay membership.

What an excellent question, Semper! I, for one, would continue on in Scouting, and encourage my sons to do so as well. I think the vast majority would continue as well. As you say, and as I've said on several occasions, the overall program, especially at the local level, is excellent. The gay issue gets a lot of ink (or electrons, or whatever) because it is a social hotpoint. From Scoutings point of view, you'd think that the Guide to Safe Scouting should cover what we need to know to provide a safe program. The members who would leave are probably those who see Scouting as a re

Some in this thread haven't distinguished between the "uniform" and the "pants", and I think it makes sense to separate them for this discussion. In our troop and pack, we require the Scouts to wear the uniform shirt, and neat pants or jeans; no sweats or windpants, etc. Just a point of reference. To our mind, the shirt carries all the symbolism important to Scouting. The pants have nothing of value from a uniform standpoint. They're just pants. Beyond that, you get into issues of cost, wearability and growth of the Scouts. Besides, I've yet to see anyone who actually looks

You're right, Bob White. You probably won't see an "official" representative of BSA say something publicly against UW; they've gotten too politically savvy for that. I've seen many petitions passed around at Roundtables trying to get UW to change their policies in favor of BSA, however. I didn't say that the BSA said their gay policy is based on religious beliefs; I said that the members commenting here said that. BSA policy seems to be based on some interpretation of "morally straight", which in itself would seem to be open to all sorts of interpretation. >>Follow the rules u

Like Packsaddle, I've been going to Yellowstone for a long time. Since 1970, I've probably been there 15 times at least. I actually prefer Grant Teton Nat Park, which is just to the south of Yellowstone, because it is usually less crowded, but Yellowstone will certainly be a highlight for anyone who loves the outdoors. In contrast to some other posters, I'd say don't avoid the tourist areas. This will probably be the 1st trip out there for many of your Scouts. You can always go into the backcountry, but Yellowstone has things that no one else has. See them, even if they are "touristy".