Rick_in_CA

OK, I see they changed it from 5 to 6 feet. However, it doesn't say to the bottom of the bridge, it says "Note: Pioneering projects, such as monkey bridges, have a maximum height of 6 feet. Close supervision should be followed when Scouts are building or using pioneering projects.". Which tells me that all pioneering projects have a maximum height of 6 feet. Not a maximum height to the bottom of the bridge of 6 feet. That is why at our local Scout-O-Rama the one pioneering project on display (a monkey bridge) was only six inches off the ground in the middle. They weren't allowed to make it any taller.

RichardB is a health and safety person at national that occasionally posts here. And the reason he shouldn't see those photos are that they are all violate BSA rules (no pioneering project can be higher than five feet, not to mention scouts being more than four feet above the ground without suspension harnesses - see the GTSS).

Incorrect. The note says: Note: Pioneering projects, such as monkey bridges, have a maximum height of 5 feet. Close supervision should be followed when Scouts are building or using pioneering projects. So it referrers to any pioneering project, not just monkey bridges.

Go look at the history of official representations of boy scouts (and cub scouts) from the last 100 years in the Boy Scout Handbook, Boys Life and others. You will see scouts presented as usually wearing hats indoors, and sometimes not wearing hats. What you will almost never see, are scouts HOLDING hats. The message is clear - hats are optional, but if you have one, wear it. Whoever wrote the current hat rules at national is ignoring boy scout tradition. In my opinion it is not rude for a scout to wear his hat indoors, but it IS rude to ask him to remove it. Just go to google images and type in "Norman Rockwell Boy Scouts" and see what you get. In fact, forget about the hats - do this anyway enjoy some great art!

Why not? For over a century scout hats have been worn indoors. I really don't know where this nonsense is coming from. Just the other day, I watched an adult leader ask her scouts to remove their hats during the national anthem. The hat is (an optional) part of the uniform, you don't remove it during the national anthem or a flag ceremony (whether indoor or outdoor). What idiot at national wrote that? So lets ignore a century of scout tradition. Sigh... Another stupid rule from national to ignore.

Why not? For over a century scout hats have been worn indoors. I really don't know where this nonsense is coming from. Just the other day, I watched an adult leader ask her scouts to remove their hats during the national anthem. The hat is (an optional) part of the uniform, you don't remove it during the national anthem or a flag ceremony (whether indoor or outdoor).

I really don't like the announcement song. Why? Because it's rude, and teaches the cubs that it's OK to interrupt someone when they are speaking. We banned it in our pack for that reason.

Really? That would be news to a whole bunch of Buddhist (and a bunch of people of quite a few other faiths). Though I guess you could be one of those people that don't believe Buddhism is a real religion.

Incorrect, that is not the DRP, but an excerpt from it. The complete DRP can be found in the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America, and have been reprinted on various websites (I got this from http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa-drp.html). The DRP reads: The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law." The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of the members should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. ACTIVITIES. The activities of the members of the Boy Scouts of America shall be carried on under conditions which show respect to the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion, as required by the twelfth point of the Scout Law, reading, "Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others." FREEDOM. In no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denomination or faith be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to that organization or church. LEADERS. Only persons willing to subscribe to these declarations of principles shall be entitle to certificates of leadership in carrying out the Scouting program.

I posted the link to the discussion above. Yes, we did hash this out. What you are describing here looks iffy (though not automatically illegal). Take it too an extreme: a scout joins a troop right before popcorn. Sells a bunch of popcorn and ends up with $1,000 in his ISA. He spends it all an new camping equipment, and quits scouts the next day, walking away with his $1,000 of new equipment. This is clearly private benefit. Go re-read the old thread. All this was hashed over. And the conclusion I thought was pretty clear - ISAs are a bad idea both ethically and legally. But many units will insist an having them anyway.

Well, this is just a power point presentation, so I would expect things to be simplified. However, I think it does show that National is aware of the legal problems with ISAs.

My apologies, the complete quote is:

OK, so you are implying that all gay men are secretly hebephilialiacs or ephebophiliaiacs? I don't care what "defined homosexuality" a century ago. Heck, it wasn't that long ago in a historical sense when girls as young as 14 were married off and mothers (Juliet in Romeo and Juliet was 13, and her mother complained that she was already a mother at Juliet's age - OK, it's a play - but it speaks to societal attitudes). So does that mean that heterosexual society was all about abusing teenage girls? I'm still not sure what your point is?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that gay men are all pedophiles and it's all a white wash that we don't know this?

Go read the national presentation on the camp card program: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/financeimpact/pdf/Camp_Card_Presentation-National_Meeting.pdf where it makes it very clear that funds are intended for the Units to support their activities. It includes the following under the section "Private Benefit Considerations" Which says to me that national is very aware that while many units use ISAs, they are often legally questionable. Camp Cards are another fund raiser like popcorn sales. And should be treated the same. They are not another form of ISA.

Sentinel947, my understanding of the issue with the Catholic Adoption agencies in Illinois, was that the Catholic agencies were providing contracted services to the state, and being paid with state funds. Which gives the state the ability to set the conditions of service in those contracts. This has nothing to do with religious discrimination, it has to do with the state not allowing it's contractors to discriminate in providing the contracted services. So the Catholic Adoption agencies decided to end the contracts and stop providing the contracted services (adoption).

The legalities and ethics of Individual Scout Accounts have been discussed before. Everyone should go and read the old thread: http://www.scouter.com/forum/cub-scouts/18621-seperate-scout-accounts. I think it is pretty clear, ISAs are not legal or ethical unless you jump through a bunch of hoops, and are very careful.

Then I apologize (I'm breathing, I'm breathing...). Sometimes irony doesn't translate well on the internet (as I myself have discovered).

Khaliela, my guess is that you didn't run into an official policy from National (though I have heard stories that there are people there who are actively hostile to neo-pagens), but into a group of bigoted volunteers. You should appeal it up the chain, even if it's only to get it on record. Also, which council was this, and how long ago?

ScoutNut has it right. The UUA religious awards are valid, as it isn't the BSA's call, it's the UUA's call. Yes the BSA threw a tantrum and said "you can't wear the medal on your uniform", but you can wear the knot. The UUSO is an independent group (it isn't affiliated or recognized by the UUA the last time I checked) that has a set of UU religious awards that the BSA approves of. I would ignore the BSA on this one, earn the awards and wear the knot (and medal) with pride. This is a problem caused by a small group of idiots at national that unfortunately have a little power. They are wrong, they know it, and they don't care. They deserve to be ignored.

I had a discussion with someone from regional a few months ago, and he said that according to national, the only thing that matters is the label. If someone self identifies as an Atheist, they are not eligible. If someone with identical beliefs calls themselves something else, they are good. He says it's because so many people get hung up on the word "Atheist". So yes, it is stupid. And people do get hung up on the word. To many people, it is a very negative word and they have a strong emotional reaction to it. When they here the word "Atheist", they think of "those Atheists" that don't believe in anything, think anyone with religion is a fool or idiot, that will take any opportunity to be obnoxious about it, etc. (While I have met in passing a couple of Atheists that can be obnoxious about it, I don't think I have ever met one that fits the "doesn't believe anything" description). So they assume that anyone that self identifies as an "Atheist" is claiming all the listeners baggage too. That's why you get all the: "I don't consider those people atheists..." kind of discussions when Duty to God is discussed (see the above WOSM link).

See the lovely circular logic? All that is required is a belief in God - the BSA refuses to define what constitutes belief in God. That is for the scout and his family to decide. As for A Scout is Reverent, I believe this is the current wording: This doesn't define what God is either. So if someone belongs to a religious faith that doesn't have a god (like many forms of Buddhism) or require a belief in a god (like Unitarianism), who believe they can do their "Duty to God" as their faith defines it, the BSA appears to say they can be members. Which is the situation the OP was in. So to tell the OP: "stop whining, it's all their in black and white" is incorrect. Oh, Greenbar Bill. I didn't get the reference as I never heard him referred to just as Greenbar. It has always been Bill Hillcourt, or Greenbar Bill. When I was a young boy scout I actually got to meet him. A very nice man.

See the lovely circular logic? All that is required is a belief in God - the BSA refuses to define what constitutes belief in God. That is for the scout and his family to decide. As for A Scout is Reverent, I believe this is the current wording: This doesn't define what God is either. So if someone belongs to a religious faith that doesn't have a god (like many forms of Buddhism) or require a belief in a god (like Unitarianism), who believe they can do their "Duty to God" as their faith defines it, the BSA appears to say they can be members. Which is the situation the OP was in. So to tell the OP: "stop whining, it's all their in black and white" is incorrect. OK, call me ignorant. What or who is Greenbar?