Rick_in_CA

It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and a Christian socialist.

@@Stosh gave an excellent answer, so I won't repeat what he said. I will just say the simplest way of describing the Civil War is this: The war was fought over secession (the north to prevent it, the south to secure it), but secession was all about preserving slavery. How do we know? Because that is what the south said it was about.

I just came across a reference to this video. It's an academic view of the Civil War and slavery by Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at West Point. It's only five and a half minutes. Yes, it was all about slavery.

As a software engineer I would never even consider doing a coding project (even a solo one) without source control (source control is a system that tracks changes to software so you can see how things change, and recover any earlier version). There are good and easy to use source control tools available for free. It is a widely accepted that not using source control comes under the category of "stupid". So I am completely flummoxed when I or my software engineer friends run into software projects that don't use it. Even at large companies like Boeing. And managers that say things like "I d

Really? From the congressional charter: So the "to train them in scoutcraft" part, and the "teach self-reliance" bit imply that one of the original purposes at least was for the scouts to retain the core scouting skills like swimming and hiking skills. That is why they are called "core skills". The congressional charter also agrees with the early BSA writings. From the 1911 edition of the Boy Scout Handbook, Chapter 1: So Scoutcraft is the method, but the aim is "to promote the ability in boys to do things for themselves and others". Which tells me that the skills were part of the

I'm confused on the costs. This is what the BSA website says about the World Scout Jamboree fees: Where do the $2,800 and $17,000 costs come from?

The WHEREAS clauses layout the background for the resolution, but aren't part of the resolution. For the actual resolution, you start at the "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:" line. In the actual resolution, the only direct reference to religious COs is in the indemnify clause, like I said.

I have to agree with Stosh on this one. While @@fred johnson is correct that Eagle is a valuable "brand", I think focusing on it too much is part of the reason we have so many Eagle and MB mills in the BSA. Success is defined as "getting the rank" or "getting the badge". And that is resulting in a weakened BSA program. Putting an even greater emphases on Eagle, will just make the problems worse.

Interesting. So the claim is that only religious chartered organizations can use religious beliefs as criteria for selecting adult leaders. I don't see any language in the text of the resolution that would back that up. They also don't explicitly say that non-religious COs can't exclude gay leaders, just that they can't use religious beliefs to do so (which might end up being the same thing though). With the exception of the indemnify clause, the text of the resolution clearly applies to all COs. What am I missing? As usual, the BSA is clear as mud.

@@SeattlePioneer I think you are absolutely right on this one. It isn't about "getting stuff" but about the doing.

But they do say so. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

From http://grammarist.com: and Hence you get: "The Abrahamic god God". "I believe in God". "The temple is dedicated to the god Zeus". "Buddha is not considered a god".

The fact that Trail Life started with a policy on sexual matters that was almost identical too the new one that the BSA chose when they split is interesting. The primary difference is that Trail Life limits it's leaders to Christians only (and only the "right kind"). My personal opinion is that shows the disagreement wasn't really about gays, but about religious pluralism. The gay fight was actually a proxy fight over whether the BSA would favor one group of religions (conservative Christians) over all others. The result of the vote showed that they were beginning to fail in their efforts

That seems to run contrary to BSA membership policies on atheists. So you don't seem to be following BSA policy as required by your charter. Actually, that pretty much follows the BSA policy on belief in God. From the Guide to Advancement (Section 5.0.5.0): As it was explained to me by someone from National: as long as someone doesn't call themselves an Atheist, they are acceptable. It doesn't matter what they believe. It's the label that is the problem.

I had no intention of offending anyone when I made that post, nor did I try and imply that anyone here would agree with it (I actually though here was something we all could agree on - that guy is a complete wacko). However, obviously I blew it and it wasn't taken that way. For that, I apologize. While some of us strongly disagree on this issue, I have no doubt that everyone involved with this discussion here are scouters of good character. It's just that we are passionate about this because we all really care.

OK, so maybe I shouldn't have. The idea was to show that there are people on both sides of the issue being unreasonable. And trotting out a link to one and saying "see! No one will be satisfied!" doesn't help.

So here is one way to save the BSA: Why would you post this? - Sentinel947

OK, but apparently one can't be in favor of what the BSA did and still believe all US citizens should be equally protected under the law. Now I understand.

I have to agree with @@David CO on this one. Things swing back and forth. Just look at politics, in some ways the "liberal" Bill Clinton was more conservative than the "conservative" Ronald Reagan.

Ah, OK. Just like some of those that are against the BSA policy change, and are againt gay rights as a whole, are being intolerant of religious progressives (or simply anyone who is using their religious beliefs as a basis for supporting gay rights) in the exercising of their Constitutional right to apply their religious beliefs to who can/can't join their unit. Right?

I agree completely.

Unfair??? What the #$%$# is unfair about it? The previous policy was unfair as it didn't respect the religious beliefs of more accepting COs. Oh right, they don't deserve respect. Who cares what the Boy Scout Law says.

I think you are right. Unfortunately, this is not just a BSA problem, but a society problem. Let your kids walk outside (let along camp overnight) without an adult? Get arrested (or at least get into a big mess with social services). That has to be fixed.

You might be right. But why bring up the GSUSA since the letter is about the BSA? He is saying that the changes in the BSA make it now unacceptable to the Bishop, and here are some alternatives. By also listing the girl scouting alternatives, it implies that the BSA change also effects the GSUSA. Which is why I was wondering if he understood the difference. It is also why said it wasn't clear.

If you think the left's management of this issue with regard to the right's exercise of their religious beliefs is tolerant then I can't help you. Religious protection is expressly called out in the constitution. Need I say more? In the various threads on this topic, you appear to be saying that those of us that support the change in the BSA rules, are being intolerant of religious conservatives. That asking the BSA to show the same respect to "liberal" COs as they do to conservative COs is inherently intolerant of the conservative COs. Basically that we are being intolerant simply by