Rick_in_CA

Not as big as the Judean Peoples Front! [hey, where's my rim-shot emoticon???]

UUA stands for the Unitarian Universalist Association .

I hope so too. But the BSA's Religious Relationship Committee would have to rescind it's ban on the UUA religious emblems. And would probably have to reinstate the original agreement and allow a UUA representative on the Committee. The BSA is finally going the right direction. I'm looking forward to the day the BSA will go back to it's older policy on membership (from the BSAs internal booklet BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, A REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERSHIP, 1973): No mention of gays or God. Simply: all boys of the right age.

It looks like Trail Life is taking a page out of the BSA handbook and being deliberately vague. It also looks like their policy might have evolved. For example, and older version of the FAQ on their website used to read (have to love the wayback machine): If now reads: The first version clearly doesn't allow youth that are "part of or advocating for the Gay Movement to participate" (I guess that means no rainbow flags), but a youth that has "experienced some same-sex attraction" is OK as long as he doesn't act on it. The second version just mentions that there are "specific policies" without going into what they are. As for the original story being incorrect, here is one from earlier today. This is an interview with John Stemberger, Chairman of Trail Life USA. In the interview he says: So it looks like Trail Life will allow gay youth as long as they are appropriate and discrete. He appears to reserve the word "gay" for "out and loud" people, and uses "people with same-sex attraction" to refer to the rest.

Your kidding right? The whole point of Trail Life USA was to keep the organization religiously pure. That is why their stance on gays was similar to the new BSA one they were supposedly protesting: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/faith-based-group-starting-alternative-boy-scouts-will-allow-gay-v19378560 It wasn't really about gays, it was about religion.

Not that it is a surprise, but the National Executive Board voted to pass the resolution. So it's done.

For me it's all about context. A single DUI from 20 years ago is not a big deal for me. A string of recent ones? That is a huge deal. I remember in college, a classmate of mine got a DUI for sitting on a bicycle in his own driveway while a bit dunk. A couple of of his "buddies" had a real mouths on them, so the cops (he later told me they were there for a noise complaint - weekend party) decided to arrest basically everyone they could come up with an excuse for. I watched the incident from across the street (I was walking by, recognized my classmates and was about the cross the street to say hello when the police pulled up). I watched them pull him off the stationary bicycle and start to give him a sobriety test. That was when the police told me (and several other onlookers) to leave, so I did. The next week in class he told me they gave him a DUI. The real moral of the story? "Don't party with stupid people" and "be polite to the police".

That depends on the unit. My cub pack is has a Catholic CO (it's a Catholic school), but the CO is very clear that anyone of any faith is welcome. If suddenly one of our scouters started to use the pack as an opportunity to proselytize, I think we would have several upset people (I would be one of them). Why? Because when we do recruiting, we set the expectation that we won't be proselytizing. We have Hindu and Muslim members as well as Christians. We even have a few Catholics . I think it's all about what upfront expectations are set. If your unit is clear that when you join, expect some proselytizing, then I see no problem with it. If the expectation is not set upfront, then I don't think it's appropriate.

Boiling in freezer bags are a bad idea, only use boil safe bags.

I'm sorry you feel unwelcome. You contribute much to this forum, and it would be a lesser place without you. I have learned so much from everyone on this forum (and hopefully will continue to do so). On thing that has always been clear to me, is that we all love scouting and are passionate about it. And because of that, we often bring lots of passion to our discussions. I agree that we need to try and stay scout-like in our debates, even when the topic is something that stirs strong emotion in us. We can disagree passionately, but can remain civil. That is something I have always tried to do (with mixed success). I often find our I&P debates very useful. When my opinions are challenged, it forces me to clarify them and to think more deeply about them. These discussions exposed me to new ideas or points of view that I might not have considered before. It makes me a better, more thoughtful person and scouter (and I hope that my meager contributions help others). And while there are frequent posters here that I disagree with on some topics (and some that I very strongly disagree with), there isn't a single one that hasn't impressed me with their dedication and love for scouting. Who isn't striving to do the best he or she can for their scouts and scouting. I can't think of a single one of you that I wouldn't want to meet at a real campfire, so I would be able to shake your hand and say "thank you friend".

I agree this is primarily between the applicant and the BSA. One thing to remember though, mistakes are made on background checks. A coworker once had a background check for a job come back with multiple felonies that were committed by someone else with the same name, in a different state. Luckily the company followed the law and told him what the background check said (unfortunately many don't and you have no idea a bad background check is why they didn't call you back after that great interview). He was able to challenge the findings and clear his name (and even got the job). Most background checks are done by the lowest bidder, and you often get what you paid for. If the parent in question doesn't know, he needs to follow up and find out what the background check says.

I agree with you that we have a lot of useless hoop jumping going on today in the name of security theater. However, in this case I think the idea is to document who is actually doing the pickup. If someone shows up and says I'm here to pickup Jimmy, I'm his Uncle Fred, he could be lying. With the DL copy, at least there is a record of who did the pickup if a problem occurs.

Wow. It's stuff like this that makes all the hoop jumping, paperwork, and aggravating adult drama worth it! Thank you for sharing it!

I also wish to thank the moderators and Terry for all that they do here.

Thanks. I'm not sure how I missed that. One thing I am wondering, maybe National was originally thinking of only giving local control to religious COs and then changed their mind? So the final language of the resolution reflects that change? Or maybe national just can't write?

Actually the whole quote is this: bold emphases is mine. Which I read as being in favor of the current proposal. But you are right in that it can be read differently, and isn't crystal clear. And even if he isn't one of them, I am sure that there are people out there that will be unsatisfied by this change (just as there were scouters that were unhappy that the BSA allowed Muslims). You can't please everyone.

I think it's an interesting idea. What you are describing is splitting a cub pack into two units under a single committee. One of the challenges with doing pack level events, is designing activities that are age appropriate for both a 6 year old and a 10 year old. Not always easy. I also think splitting boy scouts into scouts (10.4-14) and venturers (14-17) might help some of the boredom issues that older scouts have. Didn't the UK used to have a model much more like what the US uses not that long ago? And they switched to the current system? How did the transition go?

He clearly does understand: So you first presented this guy as someone that "local control" won't satisfy and that will continue to harass the BSA until even local control is taken away. Now he is simply someone that has "moved on"? OK.

I couldn't find your quoted statement in either of your linked sources. However, while the first appears to be saying that the BSA doubts any legal challenge to a religious charter org's anti-gay policy will most likely fail (and they couldn't find any examples of such a lawsuit that didn't fail), they imply that the same cannot be said for non-religious charter orgs. So maybe that is the basis of the not allowing non religious charter orgs local control on this? But I still haven't found a clear statement from the BSA that local control won't be given to non religious charter orgs. To me at least, the language of the proposed change appears to grant local control to ALL charter orgs.

You are miss-characterizing what "This guy" is saying. For example: So, maybe he will return to scouting, but probably not. Not quite as unwilling as you implied. Though I will grant you he isn't willing to "forgive and forget". So, he appears to be in favor of the local option. I don't see any evidence that he is unwilling to "give up pressing BSA until even the local option is taken away."

Plus if he learns to play taps well, he can volunteer with Bugles Across America. Talk about a great way to be of service to your community!

There is a version of the Duke of Edinburgh award that can be done in the US. However, my understanding is that the Adventurous Journey requirement has been changed from the rest of the world's "must be done WITHOUT adult supervision" too "must be done WITH adult supervision". So very sad.

My "nephew" just came back from his first boy scout summer camp. He had a great time, and earned four merit badges: Swimming, First Aid, Geology and Archery. Now his troop prides itself and not being an Eagle mill, and the summer camp they attended (Wente Scout Reservation) prides itself on not being a merit badge mill (but they offer 53 merit badges?). So I asked him which merit badge he had the most fun with and he said Archery. I asked him what he did to earn the badge, and he talked about making an arrow (which he showed me), the target shooting he did, and then he said "they even showed us how to make a bow string." "Huh? You didn't make one yourself?" "No, that just showed us how to do it." Now (according to meritbadge.org), requirement 3c says: "Make a bowstring using appropriate materials." So I wonder, what other requirements were skipped? I'm hoping this was an isolated incident, but I think I'm going to be disappointed.

You might be right that for National, this is all about numbers and money. But for me, this fight is, and has always been, about respecting the values of boy scouting that I grew to love as a young man. Requiring COs who's religious convictions say it's wrong to discriminate against gays to do so is a violation of the Scout Law and other BSA values. Local control on this issue is the only way to fix this. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that only religious COs will be given local control (though I still think the language of the proposed rule change appears to give all COs local control*). Especially when one has to decide who is and isn't a religious CO? * What I think are the relevant bits: and Bold emphases above is mine. See, it doesn't say "religious chartered" organizations, and the don't discriminate clause only appears to apply to BSA employees and non-unit volunteers. In other words, only the district, council and above are prevented from denying membership on the basis of sexual orientation. The full resolution is in the key 3 memo on the issue. A link to it was posted somewhere above. Can anyone find a clear and unambiguous statement from the BSA on this?

Unfortunately, I think most of us can agree on how the press will handle it - badly. As for how many leave or join, I believe we are going to see more scouts and scouters leave than new ones join. Especially in the short term. What you are describing is a CO that has made a decision that most of the unit leadership very strongly disagree with (enough to resign over). It doesn't matter who this CO is, nor what that decision was about. We have seen this before (it's been pretty rare though) and will see it again. In the past, sometimes the unit finds another CO, or the members find another unit (or start a new one themselves). I hope the scouts and scouters involved in this instance find a way to stay in scouting, but I know that might not happen.