skeptic

Quit focussing on the trees. The real key to me is the very strong part that says: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The Boy Scouts of America hereby adopts the following statement on sexuality and adult leaders: Matters of marriage, family, and sexuality raise profound social, moral, and theological questions. The Boy Scouts of America has always been deeply respectful of the religious and moral beliefs of its chartering organizations, including religious organizations. The Boy Scouts of America affirms that sexual relations between adults should be moral, honorable, committed, and respectful. Adult Scout leaders should reflect these values in their personal and public lives so as to be proper role models for youth. The Boy Scouts of America affirms the right of each chartering organization to reach its own religious and moral conclusions about the specific meaning and application of these values. The Boy Scouts of America further affirms the right of each chartering organization to select adult leaders who support those conclusions in word and deed and who will best inculcate the organization’s values through the Scouting program. 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. This is where the real decision is focussed. And in truth, it could just as much be something not related to the Gay issue, like a leader bragging in front of the scouts and others about some kind of affair; or telling suggestive stories; or being drunk or high.

Seems pretty clear to me: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The Boy Scouts of America hereby adopts the following statement on sexuality and adult leaders: Matters of marriage, family, and sexuality raise profound social, moral, and theological questions. The Boy Scouts of America has always been deeply respectful of the religious and moral beliefs of its chartering organizations, including religious organizations. The Boy Scouts of America affirms that sexual relations between adults should be moral, honorable, committed, and respectful. Adult Scout leaders should reflect these values in their personal and public lives so as to be proper role models for youth. The Boy Scouts of America affirms the right of each chartering organization to reach its own religious and moral conclusions about the specific meaning and application of these values. The Boy Scouts of America further affirms the right of each chartering organization to select adult leaders who support those conclusions in word and deed and who will best inculcate the organization’s values through the Scouting program. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The Boy Scouts of America will defend and indemnify to the fullest extent allowed by law any bona fide religious chartered organization against any claim or action contending that the chartered organization’s good faith refusal to select a unit leader based upon the religious principles of the chartered organization is in violation of the law.

Here is the same item in a grouping of historical compass photos. The back does not show, but I think whomever suggested it is non BSA may be right. Date is not apparent, but guessing 50's is close, as this general style of pouch was popular back then. http://compassmuseum.com/pocket/pocket_3.htm

" Particually as even the act of sharing Ineligible Files between the groups would probably be perceived as libel against the ineligble individual, crushing the groups under the weight of lawsuits." Interesting comment, as currently we have lawyers suing the BSA because "they did not share" the files.

Is it just me, or are there individuals that truly are not cognizant of Eagle paperwork? Hours ARE tabulated on the project paperwork, and are part of its completion. That is where National gets their periodically published total hours from Eagle projects and value comparisons. The project paperwork has to be approved prior to the BOR, and it is also part of the review package for those sitting on the actual board. On a rare occasion, there could be a board inquiry about hours should something stand out to one of the reviewers; but it is already approved, so generally would simply be a clarification. National has said in regard to total hours and candidate hours that there is no minimum amount. Some projects may have more personal prep hours listed, while others may have few prep, but many and broadly distributed hours for the actual work and such. Part is how the candidate interprets these stats, and part is due to a project's nature.

The OP does not ask about the BOR, simply the hours. Has nothing to do with the BOR though.

Eagle project hours are entered into the National register you put other service in in My Scouting. In our council, the office person that enters Eagle info puts it in as part of the process. So, the answer is yes.

"It seems to me and has been stated earlier, maybe not in this post, that the BSA wants all religious affiliated COs out." Where do you get this idea? After all, roughly 70% of CO's are connected to religious groups; about half of those still have strong concerns about this decision. But, by allowing each to choose their own direction within the unit, how is it an attack on those that disagree? And, how can the slight possibility of being exposed to a Gay leader in larger group interactions be any different than the chance of the same thing in many other public venues such as schools, sports teams, concerts, and so on? Seems totally irrational to have such fear. As has been noted, this whole issue has very little actual effect in most units. We do the program and keep private things private. And we follow YP rules and simple common sense. That is the direction our unit will continue to go with the continued support of the Methodist Church.

Do not see any differentiation in many comments between volunteers and paid employees in the contentions. It seems to me that if you make a choice to volunteer, and you get turned down for whatever reason, you have much room to complain. After all, there is no pay involved, and in this case, there are similar possible opportunities nearby, who very well may decide differently. But, cannot see how there could be suit made under labor laws; there is no paid labor.

No, we agreed on pie a long time back, or so I remember. Of course, that was Beaver or Bob White or other earlier member that has stepped away. Guess cake will do.

Edited by John-in-KC, for best sources: ON THE UMC WEB SITE: Churches Can Have Openly Gay Scout Leaders ON THE UNITED METHODIST MEN WEBSITE: Statement by the General Secretary of the General Commission on United Methodist Men Related to the Recent Adult Membership Policy Shift by the Boy Scouts of America

Okay, here is the answer to the most recent sniping. Moosetracker posted immediately after Pack's post at 8:11AM. The post attributed to Pack was from the first paragraph of the second post and was taken out of context. Moose was simply attempting to answer Pack's question. So, hopefully we can put this at rest soon. packsaddle Posted Today, 08:11 AM Why do they exclude LDS? Very Next Post by moostracker shown below: moosetracker Posted Today, 08:38 AM Last I knew, they would happily accept LDS youth, but LDS adults could not be leaders... They don't consider them true Christians because they don't believe in the holy trinity, there was mention of them following not only the Bible but also the "Book of Mormons" that make them not true Christians.. Trails life will take youth from all denominations but they will only accept true Christians as Adult Leaders..

As one of those volunteer leaders, almost 45 years now, I have grown very tired of the constant media circus that distracts from my just doing Scouting. If this lessens that chaos and clamor, I am all for it. As I have noted many times, this is really nothing new. It is just something no one paid much attention to before around 1990, as the "local option" was already in force with little interference beyond the local areas. The difference is the media and ability of crazies to interject panic and paranoia into the issue, as well as the political machines. Meanwhile, the general public are turtles hiding in their shells until something forces them out. IF you truly value the basic tenets of Scouting and want to make it available, then you stay and work it and simply do your best to keep the stupidity and yellow press out of it if possible.

Would you not have kept copies of ALL your forms turned into the council? While our council does a pretty good job with paper, getting it filed with the unit info fairly quickly, seldom have I had to dig through them, as most of the time I have had my own copies. The council keeps files up front for about 7 years, then stores them; but they are still available way back in most cases, especially basic charter info. Today, even if you do still do paper copies, it should be filed with on-line advancement with simply a print out. Many of the problems and issues on these threads are as much the fault of the units and volunteers as it may be the office staffs.

A "Trail Life" lawyer trying to frighten established CO's with worst case scenario's with from conjecture and personal opinion. The fact, as noted above, that he is not a Constitutional Law expert adds to this concern. By doing this, he very likely hopes to scare some to come over to "Trail Life".

"I have had so many conversations or email exchanges with students in the last few years wherein I anger them by indicating that simply saying, "This is my opinion" does not preclude a connected statement from being dead wrong. It still baffles me that some feel those four words somehow give them carte blanche to spout batshit oratory or prose. And it really scares me that some of those students think education that challenges their ideas is equivalent to an attack on their beliefs." -- Mick Cullen, Professor in the Social Science department at College of Lake County, Grayslake, IL Found the above excerpted statement more on target than I would like, especially this; And it really scares me that some of those students think education that challenges their ideas is equivalent to an attack on their beliefs." The overall comment seems very reflective of some of the issues we have debated here over the past months. The outtake in blue though struck me as particularly apropos to a lot of our group's recent dialogues.

Surely do not see where these comments about not being welcome are coming from in relation to Terry's post. The real world intruded on our lives along while back, and learning to adapt was another skill B.P. encouraged. If we are truly to be a brotherhood, then we need to accept that others may have different feelings or reactions to things and simply allow them to do so without taking personal affront. We can do this without letting our guard down for the rare stepping over the line we may encounter.

In today's litigious culture, it is likely some of these decisions are simply CYA related. While we may not agree, from the National perspective, there could be enough concern to err on the side of caution. Of course, we are generally not privy to details in these situations, as should be the case.

Previously, we could choose to block posts from some. I cannot find this option anymore. Is it here someplace? Thanks.

"The Ineligible Volunteer files were established in the 1920s, with "Perversion" being one of the main categories. You all refer to a switch in the 80s without ever linking to anything (yet you in particular love to pointedly ask for citations) indicating a new turn to ban homosexuals. One of the few ways to get in that card catalogue was simply being gay, which is one reason BSA never made those files public. If BSA allowed gay leaders before the 1980s, why did they begin filing homosexuals as "Ineligible Volunteers - Perversion" 60 years prior?" The truth is that few leaders if homosexual would let that information become general knowledge clear up to the early seventies, when the Gay lobby began to push and politicize their agenda. But, if one did become known, it would have been dealt with locally, and they likely ended up in the files. The files themselves were an anomaly, even today. "Don't talk about it, sweep it under the carpet, look the other way", was the normal response into the seventies; and now that almost universal public and private response is being used to bludgeon BSA due to the fact they actually tried to do "something". What is now being called "local option" was the general rule almost from the beginning; and going back to it will certainly be better than what we have now.

Once again, we have the few that seem to feel that somehow allowing "COR" to make the leadership decision will trespass on their unit that may not agree with the other's choices. Makes no sense at all. YP, adhered to, should continue to eliminate most any district or council interactions that might be of concern. Basically, it just means going back to what was the status quo prior to the wave making that began in the late 80's. As noted, there are those that will never accept any decision that does not cater to THEM. Little can be done for those few, as they will always be unhappy. I for one will welcome hopefully a lot less having to fend off idiots with political or overtly religious opinions about the organization. I do hope that the militant agitators for the LGBT will have far less support from the general public for not accepting logical and fair rules, as no longer will they not have the opportunity within the broader BSA. Even in the church supported units, there are half or more that will have no issue at all as long as the prospective leader is otherwise eligible. And if the agitators choose to challenge the decision by trying to join a unit that does not allow them, then they should be stopped by the legal system as having no standing, since they can apply elsewhere, either in an non religious sponsor or one of the other groups that sponsor. Those on here that have already screamed we will leave; I wish you well, though I cannot help but question your decision a bit.

Wow. Talk about idiocy.

Thanks; I actually reviewed that report for this. What I hope to do is set up an auto message to remind me or another unit member "x" days ahead. Sometimes get lax on reviews on my own; old age you know.

Just had one of my current leaders show up on my training report as expired on YP. Just happened 2 days ago. I am going to look into making our own aging report to warn us a couple months out, though would be great if we got a message from National or local councils. Not holding my breath on that; just glad I was able to see it at all. Turning it over to my computer gurus.

Numbers of other updates, additions, and clarifications. Six total nights of camping for FC; sheetbend is now required for FC; actually demonstrating using clove hitch and timber hitches for each lashing, and making the device as well; using a GPS as well as compass; choking added to tenderfoot FA; specifying discussion of 4 laws for each rank, but must be different each time, so cover all of them; Star reviews the parent guide again that is needed to join; FC adds boat descriptions and their oars or paddles; Life service to include minimum 3 hours of conservation; other minor changes; and additional specific detail added to most of the requirements so can be far less conjecture. They also have officially made Scout a rank, and it has double the original joining requirements, many of which were in Tenderfoot before. Time will tell, but to me, they seem to be tacitly making advancement at the lower end far more challenging, which is a good thing.