Rick_in_CA

If one were truly concerned about this issue they could simply change their plans and do something else with the girls.  Instead it has turned into some huge political posturing agenda with the girls being used as pawns as has been stated.

Isn't that basically what they are doing? They put out a statement that they are not approving a new travel to the US. i.e. going somewhere else.

Sure inclusiveness and diversity is important, but the Girl Guides do not make any reference to any of the girls being "left behind".  Maybe they would maybe the wouldn't, no need to make a big stink about a what may come about.  One has no case until the crime is committed.  If people were to get locked up for what MIGHT happen, we could all spend a few nights behind bars.

They are reacting to things that are happening, not just what might happen. There have been multiple reports of Canadian's suddenly having trouble at the border.

Political grandstanding with no foundation.  Kinda detracts a bit from the credibility of the group.  If one wants to run with the big dogs in the political arena, don't go in as a Chihuahua.

How is this grandstanding? They put out a notice to their members, and the media picked up on it. How else would they do something like this? And how is this without foundation?

And it's not just the Canadian' Girl Guides. Multiple organizations such as Canadian schools have canceled trips to the US for the same reason.

From: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/13/girls-guides-suspend-trips-to-us-citing-border-concerns.html

Girl Guides is not the first organization to suspend trips to the U.S.

 

Several schools and school districts across Canada debated going ahead with trips south of the border following the first executive order issued by Trump In January.

 

A Winnipeg junior high school cancelled a trip by its track team to Minnesota in January because it wasn’t certain all students would be able to cross the border.

 

The Greater Essex County School Board in southwestern Ontario decided in February to cancel a handful of trips over concerns of safety and equity, while districts in southern Vancouver Island debated whether to ban all U.S. travel or handle each trip on a case-by-case basis.

Looks like real concern, not grandstanding. As for the "so some people a blocked, so what" attitude expressed by some in this forum, the Girl Guides address that.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/girl-guides-of-canada-cancelling-u-s-trips-due-to-uncertain-entry-rules-1.3323157

Girl Guides spokeswoman Sarah Kiriliuk said the decision is a preventative measure.

 

"We just looked at our organization and realized that we do have a lot of girls travelling and this was potentially creating a situation that would either be a risk for the group or would create an uncomfortable situation in the case that somebody did get turned back at the border," she said.

 

She said policies are already in place that require a group to turn back in the event anyone on a trip is blocked at the border.

Seem a reasonable response to a valid concern to me. At least until more is known.

My concern is that nonsensical decisions like this could spread and impact the World Jamboree at Summit. Maybe Tillerson's State Dept can send a scout-friendly message to our nervous northern scouters.

 

Another $0.02,

How is this nonsensical? I think it's a reasonable precaution. I'm a natural born US citizen, but I wouldn't take a scout unit into Canada in the current environment as I'm not sure I would be able to get them all back into the US without a problem. Especially if they are or look Muslim.

Register in a valid unit and keep the integrity of the boy's advancement in tact.  That's not breaking any rules and is fair to everyone involved.

 

Just remember, the box is often bigger than what we think it is.

I agree with Stosh here. If it looks like the recharter is going to take a while, find a friendly pack with a charter, and see if they would be willing to "host" your pack's members for a while. Register everyone with that pack, and you are good to go until things get sorted out (register a few of your adults as an Assistant Cub Master or Member of Committee with the host pack so you are covered for YPT).

1953  Brit First Class Scout Test:   http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/firsttests.pdf

 

Can't find a web copy of the BSA First class requirements from , oh, say 1960's when Morse Code and signaling was still required.  Seems to my poor fevered memory there was more "campcraft" stuff required. 

 

Time required between ranks,   must be First Class to begin earning MBs,   ummmm.

Wow, now that is what BP mean when he said "first class scout"!

Of course if we tried this today, we would be sued and then arrested.

Just this requirement alone would send multiple people to jail and get CPS involved:

(b) Go on foot, alone or with another Scout, a 24-hour journey of at least 14 miles. In the course of the journey he must cook his own meals, one of which must include meat, over a wood fire in the open; find his camp site and camp for the night. He must carry out any instructions given by the Examiner as to things to be observed en route, and make a log of his journey. He must hand to the Examiner within one week of his return his completed log together with any rough notes made on the journey. A Sea Scout may do this journey partly by water and partly by land - at least 5 miles of the 14 being done on foot. This test should be taken’ last.

It's only a matter of time before the lifesaving merit badge replaces actual rescue techniques with "demonstrate how to summon help" and "discuss the dangers of trying to rescue a drowning person".

Second, nobody here or at BSA has said "no god".  The BSA has always stressed faith.  Point of fact, they stress faith so much that atheists are barred, regardless of what the CO wants, and they haven't discussed budging a millimeter on that.   What they have said is that the BSA's position on faith is 100% non-denominational.

Actually they do allow some atheists, as long as they don't call themselves atheists. Also the BSA is 100% non-sectarian, not simply non-denominational.

Policy for a national volunteer organization with the size and visibility of the BSA isn't made with a magic 8-ball.  At least, we hope not.

Well, that would explain a few things wouldn't it?

The first point will be, if this girl is a "boy" why does it take both male and female leaders at events where "he" is at.  Hypocrisy is a really tough subject to defend.

Where does the BSA say this?

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? BSA *thinks* they know how to fix the problem. Yet they've been tinkering with the program for decades and nothing has stopped the slow and steady drop, drop, drop of membership. It's the Chinese water torture of membership loss...no cultural appropriation intended.

 

I'm not sure BSA knows what's trendy. We are talking about a company that uses 1990s technology. Do we really want them trying to figure out what's trendy? Does BSA have a good track record of developing successful changes to their core program? Even their spin offs are floundering. I feel they have too many failing brands. Perhaps they should focus on just 1-2 key brands and 86 the rest.

 

I think I am more like those who feel that maybe we should just keep the outdoor program focus we have now and let membership hit equilibrium. Find the niche and stay there. Quit trying to appeal to everyone. Go for your core group and be the best you can.

I have to agree with Col. Flagg here. I think the core outdoor program (patrol method, etc.) is what makes the BSA unique, and it should be the center piece of what the BSA does. Not that they shouldn't try new things, but it should always come back and tie into the core program.

As for numbers, the reality is that a large part of the drop in BSA membership over the years has nothing to do with the BSA, but with changes in society at large. More activity choices, societal fear and competition, changes in technology, etc. all contribute to dropping numbers. As flag points out, the question now is where is the equilibrium point, and how does the BSA maximize that number?

Um, no, they can't. It is a reference whose origin is lost in the primitive cultures of northern Europe.

Missionaries and practitioners imbued it with particular meaning because that was the closest available word for the construct in vulgar speech. Christians and Jews do not accept it, neither do they own it.

No one gets baptized into any church or synagogue with even the slightest orthodoxy by saying "I believe in God. Full stop." It's simply an inadequate specification of the creed of Abrahamic faiths.

 

There are many theists who vociferously argue God is not a person. Their use of the word in such context is correct. Christians may argue that such folks are mistaken. But they can't say that folks have no business capitalizing it in a non-Christian context.

I was referring to the issue that in modern English grammar, most treat the word "God" as a proper name when it referrers to monotheistic deities and not in other cases. That is what it said in my grammar book when I was in school (actually it explicitly said only capitalize the Judaeo-Christian God), and in the AP Style Guide and many other sources. So you get examples like: "I prayed to God", "The Greeks once widely worshiped the god Zeus", and "This is a prayer to the Hindu god Vishnu.".

It is this "rule" of capitalization that I have seen used to argue that when the DRP (and other writings) capitalize "God", that means the authors are excluding any non-monotheistic or non-Judaeo-Christian religions. This is not something I agree with, especially in the context of the DRP.

I once watched a scouter use this capitalization "rule" to explain why a Hindu scout couldn't do his duty to God.

Their acknowledgement of the DRP is all that is required by the BSA.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The BSA requires that leaders agree with the DRP, but asks them to do so without having really seen it. What is on the application is a paraphrase of the DRP.

From the application:

Excerpt From Declaration of Religious Principle

 

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, 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 organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership.

The actual DRP from the bylaws:

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.

There are some key differences. I have met more than one scouter (including an ordained protestant minister) that had no problem with the "short" DRP on the application but couldn't accept the full version in the bylaws (though I admit in the case of the protestant minister, I couldn't understand the basis of his objection - it had something to do with the "grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings" bit. Huh?).

I think the reason the BSA replaces the DRP with a paraphrase is because the full version is so obviously written from a Judaeo-Christian perspective (my understanding is that the full DRP is almost identical to one written by James West - which he brought over from the YMCA, an explicitly Christian group). Which doesn't go with "absolutely nonsectarian".

So the "hiding" of the full DRP brings up the question: "what is the BSA really asking when they say accept the DRP?" Are they asking that scouters accept the "spirit" of the DRP (whatever that is), or accept it to the letter? I suspect that many Buddhists would have a problem with the full DRP (the whole "ruling and leading power" bit) but the BSA has been on record for years saying Buddhists are welcome. I know I have a problem with the "fundamental need of good citizenship" bit because I don't accept the idea that Buddhists and others that don't believe in a creator god somehow can't be good citizens. And if we take it literally, we can argue that only Jews and Christians can accept it because a capitalized "God" is a proper name and therefor referring to (and only referring too) the Judaeo-Christian god, God. Which is clearly not the BSA's current intent.

So what does it really mean?

I agree that it is not more clear than before, but I expect that the primary driver of the change was to remove the "no alcohol on Scout property" restriction, so that Summit would be able to rent itself out to other groups that did permit alcohol.

 

Local councils probably would also benefit by being able to host fundraisers (like at their nearby camp or a rented facility) more in-line with common business practices.

Which makes some sense. But they could have just replaced it with something that clearly said "no alcohol around the scouts". Instead we get "check the rules" without a listing of the rules.

It's pretty easy to promise to do one's duty to God when one doesn't believe in one.  Unfortunately it kinda takes the wind out of the sails at the same time.

Yah. Too bad about all those Buddhists though.

...

IV. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Drugs: The entire chapter was updated and renamed. (simplified, reference Scouter Code of Conduct)

... 

RichardB

@@RichardB I find the new section on Alcohol less clear.

The old GTSS clearly stated:

Alcohol

The following statement was approved by the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America:

It is the policy of the Boy Scouts of America that the use of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances is not permitted at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members.

i.e. not allowed around scouts or on BSA property.

The new one says:

As outlined in the Scouter Code of Conduct, Scouting activities are not a place to possess, distribute, transport, consume, or use any of the following items prohibited by law or in violation of any Scouting rules, regulations, and policies: alcoholic beverages or controlled substances, including marijuana.

Which says alcohol is prohibited only when it's illegal or in violation of "any Scouting rules, regulations, and policies". But it doesn't say what the rules, regulations or policies about alcohol are. The Scouter Code of Conduct says basically the same thing.

I find this new GTSS section significantly more ambiguous than the old one.

How is the new one better than the old "no alcoholic beverages" statement?

So this brings me to a question for anyone who can answer;  something I have been wondering about.

 

I believe that the Unitarian church recently has reaffirmed their relationship with the BSA after a period of self-imposed exile.  Since the Unitarians accept atheists in their ranks, does being a Unitarian satisfy the religious affirmation requirement?  Even if that Unitarian is an atheist?

 

Jim

Yes it does. This is how it was explained to me by someone from National: "If the person doesn't have a belief in a god, it's fine as long as they don't use the word "atheist" to describe themselves. If they call themselves a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Taoist, a Pantheist, a Unitarian, or a ... then they are OK. It's the label that is the problem, not the belief. The BSA is not in the business of judging anyone's faith." - or words to that effect, it was quite a few years ago.

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people don't know what the word "atheist" really means. They think an atheist is someone that thinks anyone that believes in God is stupid (there are some atheists that do think that, but that is not inherent to being an atheist), which is incorrect. An atheist is simply a non-theist. There are priests out there that are atheists, there are entire religions that are atheistic in nature. But many people still think an atheist is someone that will automatically insult their faith, instead of just being someone with a different faith. Hence the "atheist are bad" idea.

I have even met atheists that claim they don't believe in any sort of god, or a soul, or an afterlife, or anything "spiritual", but insist they aren't atheists because atheists are "bad" and they aren't that. It's a very misunderstood word.

Of course part of the definition problem is in order to properly define "atheist", you need to define "theist". And to understand that you need to first come of with a definition of "god" or "deity", and to do that ... (and down the rabbit hole we go...).

Not sure why this is such a huge issue, when it seems to work in almost every other country that has a Scouting program.

I think part of the reason (and only part) it's such a big issue is that the USA still has a strong puritanical streak. Look at all the fuss about sleeping arrangements whenever this topic comes up. I understand that with our European counterparts, coed sleeping arrangements are not uncommon (in international scout camps like Kandersteg, I understand that single sex sleeping quarters are only by special request). They look at us and don't understand the fuss. It's right up there with beer for the older scouts at camp outs (at least in Germany).

Compared to a lot of cultures, we are incredibly uptight. Which means that we need a lot more rules and procedures (and a lot more CYA type behaviors) to handle coed units than a German unit would. Not to mention that in our sue happy and semi-hysterical society, our legal risks are also probably greater.

For me, I know the day that the BSA goes coed is the day that I buy umbrella liability insurance.

Basically I fear that coed scouting will simply be harder to do here than in many other countries.

It is true that the change in policy on transgendered males took a lot less time.  As I have said before, I think the main reason for that was that the National leadership looked at the 35 years of fighting (internally and externally) on the gay issue, including the lawsuits, the internal dissension, the loss in public support in some parts of the country, etc. etc., and they wisely decided, Let's not do that again.

Actually what I think happened is that the BSA didn't have a policy on TG youth (one way or another) at all until someone told the recent kid "no". It's not clear (to me at least) at what level the "no"decision was made (council, regional or national) and by whom. My guess is that the "no" had been issued without a lot of discussion at the national level.

So suddenly the folks at the top realized that had a policy now, and not one they had put much (if any) thought into. So they had a choice, stick with and defend this new policy and all the baggage that came with it, or come up with the policy that they actually want (and all the baggage that comes with that - at least they get to pick their baggage). Going back to having no policy on the question was no longer an option. And they had to do it pretty quick. That is why it appeared to largely come out of the blue.

I think we would still be here even if the parents of that kid hadn't sued. It was the "no" that was the trigger, not the suit.

pfffft...polls also said Hillary was going to win by a landslide.

 

Statistics and polls can be bent and cherry-picked any way you want. From that same page:

• 50.5 percent of councils recommend no change.
• 38.5 percent of councils recommend a change.
• 11 percent take a neutral position.

That looks like less than substantial support.

You don't consider 38 percent substantial? I do. What it isn't is a tiny minority.

How did you discover this?  Was there a vote?  Who voted?  Opinion Pole?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Just look at the BSA's own polling on the issue:

http://web.archive.org/web/20160415130812/http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Summary.aspx

It includes data like:

• A majority of Boy Scouts and Venturers oppose allowing chartered organizations to follow their own beliefs if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next.
• According to a majority of current Boy Scouts and Venturers, the current policy does not represent a core value of Scouting.

and for scout parents:

• The research finds a significant shift in attitudes regarding the BSA policy on homosexuality.
• Three years ago, parents supported the current BSA policy by a wide margin—58 percent to 29 percent. Today, parents oppose the policy by a 45 percent to 42 percent margin.
• Three years ago, 57 percent of parents of current Scouts supported the policy. Today, only 48 percent of parents of current Scouts support the policy.

and for adult scouters:

• Respondents support the current policy by a 61 percent to 34 percent margin.
• Support for the current policy is higher at different program and volunteer levels in the organization:
  • 50 percent of Cub Scout parents support it; 45 percent of Cub Scout parents oppose.
  • 61 percent of Boy Scout parents support it.
  • 62 percent of unit leaders support it.
  • 64 percent of council and district volunteers support it.
  • 72 percent of chartered organizations support it.

All of which adds up to "substantial support" for both sides.

Oh, OK, so this and other similar decisions aren't contributing towards the decline in membership and particiation. Got it.

Whether it is or isn't effecting membership numbers is separate from the idea that it was a change that didn't have significant support within the BSA. It did have significant support. Whether it was a good idea or not is a different argument.

By definition, that's exactly what they are. And this article points out what many of us have been saying: by ceding to the demands of an admittedy very small population that has very little, if any, overlap with the main demographic of its base, the BSA has alienated many more current and future members than those it will gain through this change.

I getting really tired of this type of argument. I heard the same thing on the gays issue. It's based on the idea that the only people who wanted the change in the membership rules around gay scouts and scouters were themselves gay or were a "tiny group of outsiders". That is very wrong. There were a lot of scouts and scouters that were in favor of the change, not because they themselves were gay, but because it was the right thing too do.

It wasn't just in the interests of a few "gay potential scouts and scouters", but in the interests of all those scouts, scouters and COs that thought the policy was wrong. I'm one of those that spent years writing letters to national arguing that the ban on gay scouts and scouters was against the BSA values of non-sectarianism (as it's says in the bylaws and the scout law), that it discriminated against more progressive COs by denying them right to pick the leaders they wanted, that..., etc.

Please understand that the BSA is not "owned" by the conservatives. That it has to make room for all. In my local council, we have more COs now than before the gay ban. We lost a few over the change, but we gained several more that were waiting for the ban to be lifted (including two synagogues that had sponsored units for decades - they left shortly after the Dale decision, and now are back).

I admit the TG issue is not as clear as the gay issue was for the simple reason it wasn't really on most people's radar (I admit it wasn't on mine) and that national had not made any statements or given any direction on the issue until the recent case.

And I think that was the trigger for all this. By telling this particular youth "no" on membership, National had suddenly created a de-facto policy on TG youth. And National responded by having an actual, thought out (well one hopes it was thought out - but this is National) policy instead of an accidental one. Which I think was the right thing to do.

A scout is a friend to all, and a brother to every other scout. That is what we are losing.

And this is something I just can't understand. How are we loosing this? If a troop over there has a trans scout in their unit, you can't be their friend anymore? Is that what you are saying?

I think BSA has made a terrible mistake.  I think it has turned left, just as the country has turned right.  I think it is BSA that is seeking to isolate itself by rejecting the values of half the country.

But you want it to reject the values of the other half of the country right? I believe the BSA is trying to move away from rejecting either half. The BSA should not be a conservative or liberal organization, Christian or non-Christian. No one group "owns" it.

That was the big mistake of the Dale decision. The BSA decided to pick a side and that hurt it (and betrayed all of the scouts and scouters that weren't "on" that side). Now the BSA is trying to fix that mistake. This is why Trail Life exists. It's explicitly conservative and Christian (and only the right kind of Christian at that).

Get real! When I was a scout and a Scoutmaster, patrols could camp without adults. They can't anymore. That is huge!

 

Watching the Canadian Scouts go through their changes and listening and participating in discussions on scouting forums the past years, I am convinced that liberals view scouting as nothing more than a "camping club".  The mission and vision statement are just noble words of distant dreams. Liberals believe in equality over personal ambition through the path of mediocrity. 

 

Changing the program so that boys can no longer have the independence to experiment with their decisions takes away the advantage that Boy Scouting has over all other youth programs. I kind of saw it when I joined as a scouter in the early 90s. New Scout Patrols (NSP) and First Class in the First Year (FCFY) forces scouts through a process of growth controlled outside of the their patrol. I can't think National did it intentionally (maybe they did, mediocrity), but they turned the growth process 180 degrees. Instead pushing scouts to act out toward their ambitions using the tools of leadership, patrol method, adventure and advancement, they are now expected to react to the tasks given them. The process of growing by making decisions was taken away. The more National makes little changes that force boys out of the arena of making personal decisions, the more the process of growth is reduced.

 

As a result, after school camping clubs.

 

My passion for the program is guiding boys to become citizens of character and leaders of integrity. Those aren't just words to me, I live it. I'll not waste my time just teaching kids how to set up a tent. 

 

Barry

Other than disagreeing with the anti-liberal dig (this is a society wide issue, not a liberal or conservative issue) - Amen Barry!

There is an interesting study on why this whole "leaving kids unsupervised is dangerous" thing has grown. The perceived risk is exaggerated in order to justify the feeling that leaving kids alone is immoral. It's tied to helicopter parenting.
 
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-are-we-so-afraid-leave-children-alone <= this article about the study has a link to the actual paper.
 

If one were to read some of the early literature of the BSA one would conclude that the role of SM is significantly less than it is today.  The boys would head out for summer camp (which would last most of the summer) and the SM would come out on the weekends to check on how they were doing.

 

It is remarkable how much we have "progressed" over the years.

And it's getting worse. Now people are getting arrested and being hassled by social services for letting their kids walk to school or play in the park. Or the "he/she is too young to stay home without adult supervision, he is only 13". Huh? My first babysitters were 12 and 13 years old when I was little. Now 13 year-olds need babysitters?