Rick_in_CA

How big is the People's Front of Judea?

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

UU?

UUA stands for the Unitarian Universalist Association .

I sincerely hope this policy reversal leads to a rapprochement between BSA and UUA. I also hope that more UU congregations will step up to sponsor units that may be in danger of loosing their original chartering partner.

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):

Our federal charter sets forth our obligation to serve boys. Neither the charter nor the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America permits the exclusion of any boy. The National Council and Executive Board have always taken the position that Scouting should be made available for all boys who meet entrance age requirements.

No mention of gays or God. Simply: all boys of the right age.

The article that Rick linked to does not accurately describe Trail Life's membership policy, which states

 

 

In terms of sexual identification and behavior, we affirm that any sexual activity outside the context of the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman is sinful before God and therefore inconsistent with the values and principles of the program. Within these limits, we grant membership to adults and youth who do not engage in or promote sexual immorality of any kind, or engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the program.    http://www.traillifeusa.com/whoweare

 

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):

What are your views on homosexuality?

• We at Trail Life USA believe that homosexuality, or any sexuality outside of the Sanctity of Marriage under God between a Man and a Woman is sin.
• We do not allow a boy that is part of or advocating for the Gay Movement to participate.
• We do not exclude a boy who confides to a leader that he has experienced some same-sex attraction and wonders what that means. Same-sex attraction is not in itself a sin, as it is rather a temptation. It is what you do with that temptation in thought and in action that is sin. We would counsel a boy that he should not allow this feeling to turn into lustful thoughts or consideration of a gay lifestyle. We would also counsel a boy that we cannot always control our thoughts on our own, but that by the power of Jesus Christ that we have the power to overcome sin in our lives. We would graciously work with such a boy to have him put these thoughts in a Biblical perspective and to seek God’s purpose in his life. We would pray with and for the boy. We believe that with our Biblical understanding we are most strongly equipped to make a difference in a young man’s life that might find himself experiencing same sex attraction, as some psychological studies report a significant percentage of boys do at some point in their teenage life. We do not believe that the BSA with its current non-discriminatory membership standards is properly positioned to make a real difference to assist such a youth in a truly positive way.

If now reads:

What is the position of Trail Life USA regarding homosexuality?

 

We believe that homosexuality is sinful and immoral, as is any sexual activity outside of the sanctity of marriage between a Man and a Woman. Consistent with this belief, we have specific policies that address membership and sin in both youth and adult members.

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:

Prior to this compromise on the Boy Scouts of America’s part, there were people, both adults and young people, with the same-sex attraction in scouting. Everybody knew who they were, but they were appropriate, they were discreet, they didn’t act out, they didn’t make a big deal about it. Under the new policy, they can be now openly gay, and in America that means flaunting, that means sexual innuendo – completely inappropriate behavior in a youth program… You look at anything that has the title gay on it, and it’s usually inappropriate, has innuendo in it, and inserts sex. It makes it the big deal of the day. And so it’s just inappropriate. Kids should not be around a campfire learning about what homosexuality is.

...

In our program, we will allow any boy of any faith. We will allow a boy that has same-sex attraction or even has gender issues. We will even allow an atheist boy, for the reason that we want to influence that young man and show him that the beauty of the creation screams that God exists and try to help him to think clearly about that issue.

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.

The Holy Trinity, in the end, is not that much of a compromise versus the gay issue. Apples and oranges.

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.

This is a particularly touchy subject for me, the DUI thing. If National doesn't care about DUI but they DO care about check fraud, I have a big problem with National's decision. To me they have it completely backward.

As for your question about where to draw the line, I don't know. I doubt that anyone else here does either. My guess (worth the paper it's written on) is that "sever all ties" means no training, no leadership. That's all.

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".

If, however, a boy joins a church-owned unit, I think he and his parents might reasonably expect to receive a polite invitation to join the religion.  The unit is a part of the church ministry.  IMO, it is the same as if they sign up for a church-owned school or Sunday school class.  Simply put, if they walk into my church, they're fair game.

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.

Check out the website trailcooking.com.  There are recipies there for one pot meals and freezer bag cooking (make your own boil and eat meals). 

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

Thanks Matt and well said. I have been  here a long time and feel I have contributed a lot, as well as have a lot more to contribute. But I have also never felt less welcome to the forum than in the last couple of weeks. 

 

Barry

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.

Right. I understand that people are not honest. I don't understand the need to copy their driver's license. I don't understand how a copy of a driver's license will help you cover your butt or do anything to protect the scout you are releasing. It doesn't give you any information on custody arrangements. If a child should not have been released to a particular person, having a copy of a DL doesn't change that. It seems better to confirm the release by calling the parent who signed the consent form and medical form, if that is not the person doing the pick up. Or contact the scoutmaster who is likely to be aware of any custody issues with his scout. I say likely, because I am constantly amazed at the information parents withhold from the people to whom they entrust their children, but that is a whole other topic. Cross verify identity with the scout.

 

I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. While some may not find it a problem to hand over their DL for copying, I am reluctant as I have been through the hassle of identity theft and would strongly prefer to not have unnecessary copies around.

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.

Next year, I am Archery RO. The second day, after the safety talks of day one, the Cubs line up and have

fun hitting the targets. One Cub is very accurate and consistant. I look at the roster and his name seems

familiar. I ask the group of parent DenWalkers if his parent is among them, and sure enough, I recognize

his mother. This is the boy from the year before.

Now she has the time, she thanks me and I carefully ask if his medication has been adjusted? She smiles and says yes. Cub Scouting has been the outlet he needed, and (her words!) men like me were help to her.

 

This boy will have the most bullseyes and be one of the most polite, attentive Cubs that year.

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.

Page 3, Lines 14-16  at http://scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Religious-Organization-Protections-Memo-062915.pdf   That is, unless the web site is detecting who is logging in and providing a different document to different users...which would be overly clever and bizarrely confusing.

 

I agree with you that the text of the actual resolution is ambiguous at best. But the FAQ and the legal analysis both state that units chartered to non-religious COs may not discriminate.

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?

But then he says "On July 27, Boy Scouts of America's Executive Board can vote to make sure that never happens again, and help fix the Scouts' chronic shortage of good leaders at the same time."

 

At best his writing is unclear.

 

He's moved on from volunteer involvement, but this statement does little to convince me he won't give up until the ban is permanent across all units:

Actually the whole quote is this:

On July 27, Boy Scouts of America's Executive Board can vote to make sure that never happens again, and help fix the Scouts' chronic shortage of good leaders at the same time.

 

By simply confirming the recommendation of the Boy Scouts' president and executive committee, the board can ensure that qualified adults are never again kept from an opportunity to give of themselves.

 

And much more importantly, the board can guarantee that prejudice never again deprives boys of "good moral examples" who can Be Prepared, Do a Good Turn Daily, and teach them to fight for the right thing.

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.

Would going to a UK/international model help?

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?

I see nothing in his statements that shows he understands that the local option allows units to continue to discriminate against gays. He seems to think the local option will end the ban. He also seems to have "moved on", so if BSA thinks opening up to gay leaders is going to start in influx of new leaders (as opposed to a outflow of leaders), they haven't won this guy over.

Executive Board is on the verge of ending the national organization's ban on participation by openly gay adult leaders. (More precisely, the decision will be placed in the hands of local troops, which can continue to discriminate if they choose. Still, it represents significant progress.)

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.

The clearest statement on this is in the Effect of Changes in Adult Leadership Standards on Religious Chartered Organizations that is linked to from the initial post in this thread: http://scoutingnewsroom.org/blog/update-on-adult-leadership-standards/

 

There it says that under the proposed change, "Units not chartered by religious organizations could not exclude homosexuals who otherwise meet the BSA’s high adult leader standards and the chartered organization’s standards."

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.

This guy doesn't sound like a) he's going to come back to Scouting, despite the pending policy change, b) he's willing to forgive and forget, c) he understands that the local option being considered will STILL allow CO's that elect to, to continue to discriminate regarding gay leaders, d) he's will give up pressing BSA until even the local option is taken away.

 

If this guy is representative of the type of people that BSA is trying to ameliorate, what does the local option get them? It appears the local option is not what they want, nor is it what the conservatives want.

You are miss-characterizing what "This guy" is saying. For example:

One of the questions that hosts and reporters asked most frequently was, if the Boy Scouts changed its policy excluding gays, would I go back to my troop.

 

In 1981, the answer was, "Of course, I would. In an instant." I was 19. Then I was 29; then I was 39. Now that I'm 53, the Boy Scouts of America's Executive Board is on the verge of ending the national organization's ban on participation by openly gay adult leaders. (More precisely, the decision will be placed in the hands of local troops, which can continue to discriminate if they choose. Still, it represents significant progress.)

 

But I'm a middle-aged, partnered, childless gay journalist living in Manhattan. My life is radically different from what it was like when the Boy Scouts kicked me out. Troop 37 doesn't even exist anymore. It would be very hard to wend my way back into Scouting, even if I were welcomed with open arms.

 

I may try anyway. But if I do, nothing can change the fact that the Boy Scouts' exclusionary policy deprived me — along with perhaps hundreds of other gay men who would have stayed in Scouting and the thousands of boys we might have guided as adult leaders — of 35 years of opportunity. Opportunity to teach and be taught. Opportunity to lead and learn leadership.

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".

On July 27, Boy Scouts of America's Executive Board can vote to make sure that never happens again, and help fix the Scouts' chronic shortage of good leaders at the same time.

 

By simply confirming the recommendation of the Boy Scouts' president and executive committee, the board can ensure that qualified adults are never again kept from an opportunity to give of themselves.

 

And much more importantly, the board can guarantee that prejudice never again deprives boys of "good moral examples" who can Be Prepared, Do a Good Turn Daily, and teach them to fight for the right thing.

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."

And tell him that if he is good at it, he will be in demand for ceremonies at camp, at official Scout things, and he can even earn some money at it.  It is  entre to many events....

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!

Anyone ever here of the Duke of Edinburgh (DofE) (SP) award?  Wish we could do it here in the US as part of BSA. Alas, alot of what they do is against G2SS.

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.

I bring it back to membership because that is what drives the organization. There are two camps here. The first is the traditional BSA camp that believes that they can continue to prohibit gay leaders from joining and still maintain a decent membership size with roughly the same year on year drop in numbers (~3%) we have historically seen. Then there's the other camp that believe that gays should be allowed and that there's some pent up demand among those like-minded folks that will either a) offset those who will leave or b) will actually grow BSA because they feel there are more folks who support allowing gay leaders than there are folks who would leave for allowing gay leaders.

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:

The standards for selecting adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America are as follows:

 

Adult leadership positions in the Boy Scouts of America are open to adults who meet the requirements set forth in the Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations, and the policies of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Adult leaders in the programs of the Boy Scouts of America must (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and © demonstrate at all times behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and that is consistent with Scouting’s values and codes of conduct.

 

No adult applicant for registration as an employee or non-unit-serving volunteer, who otherwise meets the requirements of the Boy Scouts of America, may be denied registration on the basis of sexual orientation.

and

The Boy Scouts of America rejects any interference with or condemnation of the diverse beliefs of chartering organizations on matters of marriage, family, and sexuality. The message of Scouting is one of toleration and respect for different religious and moral conclusions in this matter, acknowledging that reasonable minds may honorably differ. Any effort to exclude or penalize chartering organizations based on their beliefs or policies regarding marriage, family, or sexuality is contrary to the Boy Scouts of America’s commitment to religious freedom and respect for the beliefs and convictions of its chartered organizations.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

 

No local council may refuse to process or approve a charter application or in any way limit the participation of a Scouting unit based upon the chartered organization’s exercise of its right to select adult leaders as provided in this resolution.

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?

I have no doubt you see it that way. If you resigned to stand up for your convictions I suspect there might be a few narrow-minded people who saw you in the same light. I would at least respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I wish you thought enough of others to be equally as tolerant rather than demonstrating your disdain for those who oppose your viewpoint. Sad.

 

 

I don't know, nor do I really care, how the press will handle this. I suspect the left will call them bigots, much like our poster above. I suspect the right will applaud them for leaving and sticking to their beliefs.

 

What will be interesting is 1) how many leave and 2) how many join as a result of this decision.

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.