Rick_in_CA

For clarity, here is the complete DRP from the BSA Charter and Bylaws (Article IX, Section 1):

Quote

Declaration of Religious Principle
Clause 1. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen 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 good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.
Activities
Clause 2. 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
Clause 3. In no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denominations 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
Clause 4. Only persons willing to subscribe to these declarations of principles shall be entitled to certificates of leadership in carrying out the Scouting program.
Clause 5. Other major policies are set forth in article IX of the Rules and Regulations.

As can be seen, it has a rather Judaeo-Christian slant to things (which is not surprising as James West came over from the YMCA and it was 1910). The DRP is self contradictory. You can't be "absolutely nonsectarian" and then demand that members show "recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings". Which is why I believe that line is left off of the excerpt on the membership application.

Which is another thing, you shouldn't require members to have to agree with a declaration, then basically hide it from them.

I have to mimic The Latin Scot's comments, this forum is predominantly civil and considerate. It's members manage to disagree (to a large extent) with civility and compassion. When they do fail, it's usually in minor ways and often apologies are given. Unlike so many other forums that quickly devolve into hateful shouting.

I have said this before, there are people on this forum that I sometimes strongly disagree with, but everyone of them are people that I would be honored to call friend and would gladly share their company around the campfire (with one exception that hasn't posted in a long time). Because from their many posts here, I see how they are good people that really care about scouting and the boys (and girls). We all want what is best, it's just sometime we disagree on what that is, or how to get there.

On 6/4/2018 at 5:26 PM, HashTagScouts said:

To me, this is the type of advertising that is needed and been desperately needed here in the USA for some time.  I recall as a youth in Scouts, there were some national ads. I vaguely recall sporadic TV commercials on Saturday mornings, but also radio ads.  This particular video was from the 70's, but the quality from the 80's ads weren't much better (and used that same jingle).

Yeah, that was pretty pathetic. I know it's been posted before on this forum, but I am still really impressed with this add from Scouts South Africa:

12 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Over the years, Qwazse has posted his observations of the differences between American youth and European youth. I paid attention because I was curious of why youth in Europe are more mature. We just got back from a 3 week trip in Italy and Qwazse was on the mark. The big difference we saw is that the family structure is still very strong. The community is a reflection of the family, not the other way around. My wife and I have noticed lately in our local restaurants that it's common to see each family member at a restaurant quietly focused on their cell phones. We didn't see any of that in Europe. I know that is a little think, but it sure stuck out to us. 

Ironically, I believe building a unit of scouts worth multiple religions and multiple family structures was easier before becoming a family program because the scouts didn't really care about backgrounds all that much. Now that families are more in control (parents), units might become more inclusive. I'm can't say that is a good or bad thing. Seek out a unit that fits your style. But it will have it's challenges. 

Barry

Interesting point, but I think you might have the order of things a little backward, families are weakening because of the failure of our communities (religious, neighborhood, civic, fraternal, labor, etc.). Strong communities support the family. I think there are several reasons for this (more demands on time: driving the kids everywhere, working longer hours, more scheduled activities, etc.), but we are much more fragmented then we used to be. Even the communities we belong too are more fragmented and dispersed. When was the last time you got together with most of your neighbors? Even the BSA changed this. It used to be you joined the local unit, your fellow scouts all lived in the same neighborhood, and probably went to the same school. Most of the scouts and parents already knew each other (met at the local block party or the neighborhood BBQ). There were some good reasons for this changed, but it had some negative side effects.

I share your concerns about families in units. I worry it will make boy-led much more difficult.

Sorry to see you go. This will be a lesser place without you.

3 hours ago, Gwaihir said:

No one disagrees with that.  But there is a difference between children, adolescences and adults.   The proof is in the pudding, boys are being forgotten, left behind, called toxic, they're failing out of school, they're not bothering with college, they're using drugs at a higher rate, they're shooting schools at a higher rate, they're killing themselves at a much higher rate and at a much younger age.  As we've done all this transitioning to gender neutrality, the statistics on failing boys has climbed ever higher.  Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but there are is an abundance of evidence that this is a large part of the problem.  Your kids might be good leaders, but their kids aren't going to be good leaders, they're going to be lucky to just survive.   This is something we need to address as a society... our boys' lives literally depend on it. 

You make a good point on how society is failing boys. Though I'm not sure it's just the boys. Girls are having their problems too. And I think Mike Row's comments accurately hit on some of the reasons why. I remember when I was little, my first baby sitters were 12 and 13 year old kids (both boys and girls) from the neighborhood. Now 12 and 13 year olds (and 14 and 15 years olds even) need baby sitters? I think there is something very wrong here, and it's hurting all kids, male and female. Which I think is partly Mike Row's point.

Wow, I never thought I would get down voted for simply quoting a part of the Scout Law. All I said was disagree, but do it respectfully and scout like. Sigh...

From the 1911 edition of the Scout Handbook (emphases is mine):

Quote

A scout is reverent.
He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion.

Being scout like requires us to show respect to those who's religious beliefs are different from ours. Respect does not require agreement. Just be careful about throwing words like "evil", "immoral" and "corrupt" around when referring to the beliefs of others.

Great story. Thanks for sharing!

2 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

It's madness that we even have to have these laws.  One must be vigilant no doubt, but the perception of the danger is worse than the actual danger

... snip ...

Moral: Your safest bet is to leave your child with a stranger.

The whole "don't talk to strangers" thing can actually be dangerous. The odds of a child being kidnapped or assaulted by a stranger is less than their needing help from one (such as getting lost). There was a story from not too long ago (I think it got discussed on this forum) about a young boy that got lost in the woods when his family was out hiking. It took days to find him because he was hiding from the searchers, because they were "strangers". There are others examples where kids failed to get help for themselves or others because it required "talking to strangers".

And don't get me started on the "don't leave kids in cars" hysteria.

On 1/31/2018 at 9:50 AM, Jameson76 said:

Hogan's Heroes was on one night and my son (maybe 9th grade at the time) watched the episode.  First we had to get beyond officers and enlisted men in the same POW camp, but then he said..so the Nazis were just fun loving guys??  I explained it was the 60's and that you had to sort of roll with it.  

Then we found Rat Patrol....

I always enjoyed Hogan's Heroes (it's still a guilty pleasure of mine). Most of the cast were WW2 veterans, and the actors playing the main German roles were Jewish (I read this was deliberate). In fact several members of the cast were holocaust survivors and lost family members in the camps. So I don't think they were trying to suggest the Nazis were just fun loving guys.

Interesting thread!

One thing that isn't clear from Bob J. Tilllerson obit, is did he complete all the requirements before leaving for the Navy like most of the examples given here? Or were some of the requirements waved on account of his ww2 service?

On 3/16/2018 at 5:10 PM, ALongWalk said:

Just stumbled across this obit:

https://amp.timesrecordnews.com/amp/383643002?__twitter_impression=true

RIP and thank you for your service to scouting and for raising a fine son who also served Scouting and our country.

Interesting bit:

Quote

At that time, the Council approved his receiving the Eagle Scout Badge because of his service in the Navy, even though he was past age 18. He was awarded his Eagle Badge along with 5 members of his troop!

It refers to his service in the Navy during WW2. I wonder how common such late Eagle Scouts were after the war? This is the first I heard of the practice.

I’d bet you could do a dozen or so jamborees for 400 million plus the cost of operating the place since it opened.

Interesting question. An article in Wikipedia says that it cost around $50 million to put on the 2010 jamboree with the military paying $8 million of that. However I can't find a reference for the $50 million number so I don't know where that number comes from and how it breaks down (for example, how much is payed for by the participants fees).

Didn’t the bsa won the law suit over using the military base for Jamboree? Didn’t they decide on their own to spend the money on Summit? Money they didn’t have?

The BSA actually wasn't a party in the lawsuit, but the court ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to file the suit, so there wasn't a ruling on the merits of the case. The case became moot when the BSA decided to build the Summit.

The case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld

Like most things, there are probably multiple reasons why the BSA made the decision it did, but I read somewhere that one of the reasons was the fear that a future lawsuit would win and reduce even more the support the BSA gets from the government.

I've always thought of the Summit as a luxury lodge for the senior execs, much like the exclusive retreat for generals in The Dirty Dozen.

I thought one of the drivers for the Summit was that the US Army decided it couldn't "host" (i.e. pay for) the BSA Jamborees anymore. So the BSA needed a place to hold the Jamborees going forward. None of the existing BSA properties are even close too having the capacity to host 50,000 plus scouts at once. I suppose they could have chosen an existing site to upgrade, but how many properties does National actually own? Are any of them large enough? Or would it have made sense for National to drop a huge investment into a council owned property somewhere?

I suppose they could have done what the US Army did - base the whole thing around temporary infrastructure that they install and remove for every jambo. But, that would probably be a more expensive choice in the long run?

Loosing the "special relationship" with the US Government really cost the BSA a lot.

From the Congressional Charter, 

 

The purposes of the corporation [bSA] are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

Don't read anything about "youth"

Didn't the BSA argue that the congressional charter was meaningless during the Dale case? Or one of the related cases at the time? I remember something about since the charter implied that the BSA was a public accommodation, the BSA argued that the charter was a meaningless historical artifact or something like that.

I do not have a duty to God, I respect God, I put my head down during a quick benediction after each meeting, but I simply don't practice a religion. But, I was born as as a Christian.

I remember a conversation I had with a minister some years ago about the phrase "duty to God" (it was not in a scouting context). A Duty is a "commitment or obligation to someone or something". This minister explained that he didn't owe any obligation or commitment to God, just one to himself and his fellow man. God gives us a moral direction, but the obligation to follow that moral direction is to ourselves and our fellow man, not to him.

Now not every minister or faith would agree with him, but it is one way of looking at things. And how does that relate to the line "To do my duty to God and my country"? Well if you really believe that you do not owe a "duty" to your God, then there isn't anything you need to do to fulfill that duty.

Jameson76 wrote:  "Remember what they said in All the Presidents Man...Follow the money "

 

I absolutely believe that's true, but it's an incomplete insight.  BSA has a large structure of camps, staff and other resources.  If membership drops continue, we need to sell / divest many prized resources that make scouting scouting.  We see it all the time.  I think about my own counsel.  I'm amazed they have not been forced to sell a camp yet even though membership is way down compared to 1999, pre BSA-v-Dale.  

 

To stabilize or increase membership, BSA needs to keep relevant to the times.  An organization for boys only looks like a relic from the past.  Out of date and out of touch.  T

 

his is a chance for renewal.  Yes, it's absolutely about money.  But it's about way more than that too.

I agree with this. My personal opinion is that this is all part of a process to get rid of the three Gs and get the BSA out of the culture wars. If you look at the pre-Dale BSA, who were the largest group of charter orgs? Public schools and the US military. Both of those are gone because of the fallout around the Dale case.

If the BSA can put the three Gs too rest, then they can get back into the public schools and the military. I think National is willing to trade short term losses in order to position itself for long term gains. The problem (in my opinion) is that National knows where it wants to get, but doesn't really know how to get there. Which partly explains why National is handling the switch to coed so poorly.

Strong. Proud. Capable. Action oriented. Standing tall. Not complaining, whining or gossiping. Not prone to tears when someone challenges them. Not automatically depending on help in hard situations.

and

To protect the weak, stand for your beliefs, respect women, seek adventure, be self-sufficient, and take charge when needed. Respect and civility toward the other. Showing leadership when it is needed. Doing the right thing even if it is the tough thing. Knowing enough self-sufficient skills so you can help your self and others in an emergency. Being adaptable. Learning to work in a band of brothers.

What I find interesting is that these are some of the very same traits we want for our girls as they grow up to become women (and nothing @@fred johnson or @@Tampa Turtle have posted implies that they would disagree with this).

So when many people talk about "turning boys into men" what they really mean is "helping male children grow up to be adults of good character".

Here is an good story about two UK cub scouts that used their first aid training to save their grandmother's life. A good reminder that it's not really about the earning the patch.

http://scouts.org.uk/news/2017/10/blog-cubs-save-grandmothers-life/

If you run co-ed dens and the program specifies separate dens, then you're not running a BSA Cub Scout program. That's in addition to not being trustworthy or obedient.

 

Some may consider that harsh, but if you're going to skirt around a rule, it leads people to ask what else are you not doing correctly? YPT? Advancement?

What a load of garbage. Look, in our pack we had a year where we had only one wolf. So his spent most of his time with the bear den so he wouldn't be lonely, but did the wolf requirements (technically he was in a den of one, with his dad as the wolf den leader, and he did do some of the activities on his own). So, were we not being trustworthy or obedient? Of course not, we were dealing with the issue the best we could. And it worked out, he and the bears had lots of fun. The next year we had three new bears, so he was with them in their own den (again with his father as den leader).

I don't think anyone would condemn having the lone wolf attend bear den meetings, but if it's a girl? Suddenly we are morally bankrupt?

There are lots of legitimate concerns with going coed, but throwing moral aspersions like this is not helpful, nor scout like.

Just to be clear, this is NOT a decision to allow girls into Boy Scout troops.  I understand that some here believe that will be the result, or the "second step", or whatever, but the fact remains that the BSA is setting up a separate, parallel program for Boy Scout-age girls, in which they can earn Eagle.

I'm not sure you are correct about a separate program. The relevant sentence is (emphases is mine):

Today, the Boy Scouts of America Board of Directors unanimously approved to welcome girls into its iconic Cub Scout program and to deliver a Scouting program for older girls that will enable them to advance and earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout.

So that could mean a separate program, but I it could also be read that the BSA "will do something" for older girls, to be determined later. I think it's the latter, and this means that National is still deciding (arguing?) about how to handle the older girls and so are kicking the can down the road.

I think it IS on their web site, or at least the application is on their web site and the application includes the non-discrimination statement.

You are correct, but I would call that "buried". In my opinion, the question of membership standards should be clearly spelled out prominently on the website, perhaps in the FAQ. That fact that it isn't, I don't believe is an oversight, but an attempt to avoid the issue. Which doesn't serve anyone well.

I have seen a CO application but not a member application where the DRP usually appears.

 

https://stemscouts.org/lib/file/manager/STEM_New_Unit_Application.pdf

Ah, so in the CO application is the non-discrimination statement:

Policy of Nondiscrimination.

Membership in STEM Scouts is open to all who meet the joining requirements. Color, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, disability, economic status or citizenship is not criteria for participation by youth or adults.

Now why isn't this on the STEM Scouts website? Maybe it's that for years, the BSA has said that allowing the membership of non believers is incompatible with the Oath and Law, but suddenly for STEM Scouts it isn't? And if it's fine for STEM Scouts, it brings up the question, why isn't it OK for boy scouts?