Rick_in_CA

See, you demonstrated my point. Instead of addressing the idea that not allowing the purple liking people violates the values of the All Colors Club (i.e. explain why it doesn't, or why it's OK to violate it), you ignore the whole point and instead ask basically "why don't you join a purple club instead"?

So what does the BSA say about respecting other religions? In the Bylaws of the BSA we get this: ARTICLE IX. POLICIES AND DEFINITIONS, Clause 1 (the DRP) contains this: Clause 2 says this: Now the Guide to Advancement contains this in Section 5.0.5.0 Religious Principles contains this: And of course the Scout Law contains this bit: All the bold emphases in the quotes above are mine. Note, nowhere does it say "respect the beliefs of others as long as you agree with them". Now I ask you @@David CO, since you so strongly disagree with what is a fundamental BSA value (respecting the beliefs of others), why are you in the BSA?

But what if I join the "All Colors Club" which states that "showing respect for people who like any and or all colors is a fundamental value of the ACC", and the ACC teaches it's members that "it's important to show respect to everyone no matter what color they prefer". But after I have joined, I discover that a subset of the members of the ACC say "if you like purple we don't like you and don't want you here". Wouldn't it be appropriate for me to point out that just because I like purple doesn't mean I should be unwelcome? And in fact not allowing people who like purple is going against a stated fundamental value of the ACC? Of course that point will be completely ignored and the anti-purple people will reply: "why don't you just go away and join a purple club instead?".

Admitting that people from more accepting religious faiths deserve equal respect as those from less accepting ones. You know, that offensive behavior?

This really bothers me. If we are reduced to pretending because we will never be allowed to actually help in the real world, I think the requirement should simply be dumped. Then we can spend our time on things that actually matter. What message does this send the scouts (I'm not sure)? I really wish the BSA would actively push back against the "children can't do that" and "no risk is allowed" trends in our society instead of kowtowing to them (no pioneering project can be higher than five feet, must be 14 years old to use a wagon, etc.). The BSA should be backing the whole Free Range Children movement. I realize this comes across as criticizing your activity. I think what you did sounds great! I'm criticizing the need to do a pretend (something that would never happen in the "real world") activity.

I agree. There are studies that show giving rewards to people for certain activities will actually reduce the activity. I remember reading about one study where they put a bunch of adults in a room, told them to wait for an hour. The room was full of puzzles and other games. The adults then spent the hour working the puzzles and games, talking to each other and having a good time. They then put another group into the same room, and told them they would be paid (something like $5) if they completed a puzzle. The adults each completed one puzzle, then sat like lumps for the rest of the hour. More puzzles and games were completed by the first group then in the second.

Sounds like a great adventure. I hope they have a great time and learn a lot!

A bunch of great points. I so no reason why with proper preparation and training most Scout Troops couldn't be a useful resource in an emergency. The problem is that in a society where 13 year olds instead of being babysitters need babysitters, where parents can get arrested for allowing their 12 year old to ride his bike to the park, where even 16 year olds walking in broad daylight can generate a call to the police (eek! Unaccompanied minor!), how can a troop of children be allowed to help?

I love how this discredited idea keeps getting dragged out. First there are lots of long time scouters that started in the BSA before this "policy" was in place. Second, as it wasn't mentioned in any of the handbooks, or in any official publication outside of press releases or court statements until very recently, there were plenty of people that joined without having a clue about this policy (in my cub pack there were many parents and leaders that didn't know about this policy until it hit the press before the big vote). My local council had multiple COs that were unaware of the policy when it hit the press (and if I remember right, including two COs that informed the council that the existing policy was incompatible with their own non-discrimination policies, and if it wasn't changed they would be required to drop their units - I believe that after the vote, we still lost one of those two units as the vote didn't go far enough). So clearly, many people and even COs didn't know. And how was everyone supposed to know? The signs say "Be a Scout" not "Be a Scout unless you are Gay". It wasn't on the national web site (or my council web site), it's not on the application or in any of the handbooks. It's not in the recharter documents (as I was CC of may pack, I had to read all of them and don't remember a single mention), so how is everyone supposed to magically KNOW??? As far as I can tell, the BSA had a policy of not mentioning the anti-gay rule unless it was directly challenged or violated (in fact, when it was first created, wasn't it only found in a secret memo?). True, there also were scouters and COs that were aware. I was aware of the policy for years because I have been following the issue since the BSA basically kicked the Unitarians units out (that was a few years after I aged out of Explorers). And I am sure there are lots of scouters that were aware of the policy because they remembered earlier press reports. Or because they can across it for some other way and remembered. And I am sure there were at least a few COs that were aware of the policy and actively informed perspective members of it. But for the majority of people involved with the BSA, I just don't think it was on their radar. As for watching people change something I hold dear, that is exactly what happened to the BSA! When I was a youth, the BSA was primarily an American patriotic organization, and then a bunch of culture warriors came in and tried (and basically succeeded) to turn it into a conservative religious one. You want to talk about heart break?! Imagine the faces of a bunch of scouts and scouters that loved the BSA, when they are suddenly officially told by the BSA that their religious faith is "incompatible with boy scout values", and they can no longer wear their hard earned religious emblems on their uniforms. When a council official literally screams at a twelve year old boy scout too "take that fag-loving filth" off his uniform at that scout's older brother's eagle ceremony??? That heart break??? I'm am so very sorry that you can not longer impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. But like America, the BSA is bigger than any one creed or religion. And it's about time that the BSA remembered that!

Here is the English version of the jamboree website. Plus the English twitter feed for the Jamboree. Another news story with a few more details. Such as: Based on the twitter photos, I think the auditorium is close to the Jamboree grounds as the Jamboree was using it for events. Still, darn impressive planning and execution.

Fantastic!

Hmm... Maybe theater is more accurate. See this photo from twitter

Most of the western world agrees with you. If check the policies of most of the international scout camps in Europe, you will see that single gender sleeping accommodations are by "special request only". The default assumption is that boys and girls will share sleeping facilities. Also in the BSA, the rules are often ignored in large group settings. Our cub pack will sleep everyone (parents, cubs, siblings, male and female) together when we do things like museum overnights (the USS Hornet Museum for example, they do scout nights with 800 boy and girls scouts at one event - everyone sleeps in large unsegregated bunk rooms). This is technically a YP violation, but no one appears to care.

I just came across this: 15,000 scouts evacuated in France as storm hits camp. I wonder how the Bechtel Reservation would do with 30 minutes warning? Here is a french twitter feed with a bunch of photos of the jamboree. Including a couple of the arena where they spent the night. The article I quoted said it was a theatre, but others say it was an indoor sports arena. All I can say is wow! Evacuating 15,000 people with 30 minutes warning! Talk about Be Prepared! Here is the BBC story on it.

The problem is you are assuming that all gay pride parades are the same, they are not. It's like saying all Mardi Gras parades are the same (some are family friendly, some are not so much). You continue to cherry pick the most extreme parts of the culture, and then say that defines gay culture, it doesn't. You can find family-friendly gay pride events in many cities. Here is an article about one that is in my area: Oakland takes pride in family-friendly gay parade. True, there is the issue that different people and different cultures have different ideas of what is "family friendly". The fact that the Japanese consider the various Shinto phallic festivals as good family fun illustrates this.

Actually I disagree. See:

OK, now I'm confused (thanks walk in the woods for finding that pdf). After reading the actual resolution, I'm not seeing the religious vs non-religious difference. The specific section is (bold emphases is mine): This is appearing to give local control to all COs, not just religious ones? Reading the rest of the resolution, the only place that appears to specifically identify religious COs is the indemnify clause: The rest of the resolution doesn't. So I'm not sure what the "No" in faq question 12 is actually referring too? Even the media statement later in the pdf implies this: It doesn't say "religious chartered organizations".

You are correct, they are not the same thing. Hence I wrote "evil and predatory". If I am understanding Scouter99's concerns correctly, his main concern with allowing gay leaders into scouting is that they will be seeking to have sex with the youth (i.e. predatory). And that this predatory nature is somehow inherent in "homosexual culture".

You have to understand that Scouter99 has been writing stuff like this for years on this forum. You can see it in multiple threads. Because he can document (and yes he can) that in the first half of the 20th century, several groups of male homosexuals saw teenage boys as desirable (and acceptable) sexual targets (and basically bragged about it in writing), he believes that this shows that ALL homosexual males desire sex with teenage boys. In fact, he appears to believe that desiring sex with teenage boys is a fundamental element of male homosexual identity. Any male homosexual that claims to not want sex with young boys is either lying, or is denying their own identity. The fact that in the same time period (and even today) you can document male heterosexuals that saw teenage girls as desirable and acceptable sexual targets (and also wrote about it) is irrelevant. As for the photos, you can see the heterosexual equivalent by typing carnival into Google Images. And yes, you can find scouts attending Mardi Gras and Carnival parades in many countries (including this one). Not to mention the Shinto HÅnen Matsuri festival in Japan which is considered good (heterosexual) family fun. The fact that it can be shown that there is nothing unique about the stuff that he is documenting gets ignored. I think it's because that challenges the idea that such things are somehow a unique evil of the “homosexual cultureâ€. I don’t believe anything we can write will change his opinion as it’s all about validating the idea that “homosexuality is evil and predatoryâ€.

I agree with Fred on this. Part of the ability of a CO to pick the leaders that reflect their values can include actions and behaviors outside of a scouting context. If a tenet of a church CO's faith is that adult men should have beards, it would be appropriate to only pick male leaders with beards. And to ask an ASM that shaved his off to leave until it grew back. Same thing if a church CO's faith didn't allow divorce, they could ask a newly divorced ASM to leave, even if that ASM was of a different faith.

Actually, yes it does. The line "but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training" means the BSA doesn't pick and choose among religions. So calling religions that you don't agree with as not bona fide or simply a "splinter group" and therefor not legitimate is isn't belittling them??? And who gets to pick which faiths are, or are not bona fide enough? You? Denying the legitimacy of other faiths is a very strange way of showing people who hold those faiths "dignity and respect". Unfortunately I am no longer surprised when religious conservatives dismiss more accepting faiths as illegitimate and therefor ignorable. Dismissing people of faith that don't condemn homosexuality as "not real people of faith" is common, and un-scout like. Person A: "My faith says that homosexuality is a sin, so the BSA shouldn't allow those people". Person B: "But I'm Unitarian, and my faith says homosexuality isn't a sin, so why can't we pick leaders based on that belief?" Person A: "Because your faith is crap and isn't a real religion so it doesn't matter what the Unitarians think!" (this last line was actually spoken to my face by a scouter before the big vote)

I agree, I'm not sure what is so stressful about summer camp. When I was a scout, summer camp was simply fun! Take a merit badge class or two, wander over to the rifle range or archery range when we feel like it. Drop by the swimming hole for a dip. Meet up with some friends and go for a hike. Take a nap if you are tired. If you want some quite time, climb up the hill, sit on a log or stump and read a book for a bit. If you loose track of time and miss lunch, so be it. Dinner is in a few hours. Where is the stress? If camp is stressful, something is going wrong.

How about because this is the best way the BSA can follow it's own values? You do know that there are a lot of religious faiths that don't consider being homosexual a sin? There is a church (Episcopalian) not to far from where I live that has a gay minister. Is it fair for the BSA to tell a church like them that the man they chose as their minister is unfit to be a leader in their boy scout troop? That they can't follow their own religious teachings when picking their leaders? Yeah, great way to show "respect for other faiths" (a stated fundamental BSA value). The BSA is explicitly not a conservative Christians only group (or even a Christians only group - see Trail Life USA for that), but unfortunately, many (yes - not all) conservative Christians scouters don't understand that (or they do, but don't care - "Respect your faith? Not if you disagree with mine.").

The four states that issued Declarations of Secession are South Carolina, Mississippi, George and Texas. These are the statements by the state legislators on why they are seceding. They are among the primary documents written by the very people leading secession. What is interesting about these declarations, is that they (especially South Carolina's) are not just declarations of their own reasons for secession, but they are arguments directed at the other slave states as to why they too should secede. The whole "the war wasn't about slavery" is complete revisionist nonsense that is contradicted by the facts. Go read the transcripts of the debates the southern states had trying to decide if they should secede. You will see that slavery is the overriding issue. Here is one example from the debates in Virginia (original in this link): The bold emphases is mine.

The war was fought over secession (the south to preserve it, the north to prevent it), but secession was all about preserving slavery. So is it fair to say the war was actually about slavery? And wasn't black slavery inherently based on racism? Therefor the war was fought because of racism? Actually, you make a good point that the war wasn't fought directly over the question of slavery. If you asked a typical northern or southern soldier why he was fighting, secession would have been the answer, not slavery. But you can't divorce the secession of the southern states from the issue of slavery. The south saw the writing on the wall. Slavery as an institution in the United States was an endangered one. It wasn't going away overnight, but the tide of opinion was turning. There was plenty of racism in the north (of all kinds). Just because someone was an abolitionist didn't mean they wanted a black family to move in next door. But the abolitionist tide was growing. When Lincoln was able to get elected president (from what the south perceived as an anti-slavery party) without carrying a single slave state, well that was the last straw.