Jump to content

Tampa Turtle

Members
  • Content count

    3623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Posts posted by Tampa Turtle


  1. 10 hours ago, MattR said:

    I talked to a guy in town that took wb from Hillcourt. Each patrol made and led games that taught outdoor skills. That was the program - fun with a purpose. That would have been a great course.

    Sue Nunn's Scoutmaster MB course at Woodruff SR was like that. 


  2. 17 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    That is so screwed up. But saw that coming, especially with the introduction of girls. IMHO BSA is beginning to prepare for coed patrols, despite what they are saying about separate programs and "linked troops."

    Many of this saw this coming but we keep getting told that "no, no, no changes no co-ed". The meeting requirement will be a problem for some patrols...our best patrols just get together and meet in addition to Troop meetings...which is exactly what we want them to do.

    • Upvote 2

  3. Good topic. Son#2 just had his (delayed for a buddy) ECOH Sunday* and has well aged out. I am attached to few of the older boys and show up for the old pep talk and sign offs but seem to have less and less reason to be there. Mrs Turtle, understandably, is asking me after 10 years what is my next step. Someone already tapped me on the shoulder to be a DC, someone else to do EBOR duty at the District. Hits just as the nest is emptying. It is hard as I probably identify as a Scouter as much as anything else in my life. How does one stay connected but keep in balance? Feel a bit like a traitor if I plan to cut back and do something I enjoy more (like just hike for fun). I have seen enough divorced old Scouters to not ignore my better half's requests to do more things together. So yea @mashmaster it is not easy. 

    * Fantastic one BTW. Had many old timers and faces re-united. It was truly a family reunion. Many teary speeches including the boys.


  4. 14 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

    See..that's not accurate because if it was really the Methodists they would not actually have voted.  The skorts issue would have been discussed, then talked about, then discussed again, then a sub-committee of Bishops would have looked at it, then it would have been brought up at the next annual conference, then there would have been a motion to table and vote at the next General Conference if so warranted by the sub committee

    You got me there. I am holding my breath on the UMC Central Conference in Africa vote on Skorts vs. Skirts.


  5. 1 minute ago, T2Eagle said:

    To answer the question who is the NCCSA and what authority it has, it's useful to understand the hierarchy of the Church itself.  Although there is a national organization, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), that organization does not have the authority, strictly speaking,  to dictate to its member bishops, rather the bishops are responsible to the Pope and to each other. "As Christ's vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches. Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."

    Because of this structure there can be no national organization, scouting or otherwise, that dictates policy for the country.  Within each diocese, the head of the diocese, for simplicity's sake the bishop, is responsible for all things Catholic within his domain, and so "each diocesan bishop oversees arrangements with scouting organizations in his diocese."

    Having said that, it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the NCCS.  If they were providing guidance that was contrary to the teachings of the Church as understood by the USCCB they would lose any affiliation with the USCCB, and to the extent that the folks there are clergy, they could be admonished to speak differently, either by their bishop or by their order.  

     

     

    I wouldn't dismiss anybody...you don't want to attract attention as a problem. I have known different receptions at different places by different RC bishops. It mostly boiled down to if the bishop had been a scout and had fond memories of it.

    • Upvote 1

  6. 30 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

    The United Methodist is more complicated, they do no parrot National. At the most they parrot the General Methodist Convention. National is very liberal and publically supports liberal causes, which is why it is viewed a left moderate Church. But the bylaws are created by the more conservative delegates at the Methodist General Convention. The United Methodist Mens are independent and generally viewed as conservative. I'm told liability is the main reason they submitted to allowing gays in their units.

    Barry 

    Yes and the UMW is very liberal. It is quite a mixed salad of directions. At our church the men's group was always hostile to the scouts (too much dinged up furniture) while the women love us. The irony was the complaints went away when the men's groups died off and the church rolled their remaining funds to the troop.  The women support us on a regular basis and chip in now and again as the boys look smart in their uniforms and provide labor for this and that.


  7. The Catholic Church has many, many organizations, groups, and orders that are sometimes aligned with Rome and sometimes not. Surprisingly diverse. Just get a group of Priests, Nuns, and Monks together and you will find out. 

    The United Methodist Church (which is a CO of many units) has multiple Scouting oversight groups but no one in our UMC sponsored Troop ever recalls a single contact, letter, or brochure since we have been around since 1955. 

    The United Methodist Men has this: http://www.gcumm.org/scouting/  They mostly like any group.They seem to parrot whatever National says.

    • Thanks 1

  8. 16 hours ago, Cleveland Rocks said:

    Did he simply send a letter to the White House, or did he go through the White House Office of Greetings, the information for which is usually found through your Senator or Representative? The Office of Greetings is the department that actually processes requests for congratulatory letters.

    Office of greetings with a paper letter and an through the webpage that was suggested by the Senator's office.


  9. help help i'm lost down the rabbit hole....

    BSA is making decisions based on polling trends, membership numbers, money, and occasionally marketable tradition and scout nostalgia. If the overwhelming majority of boys wanted a heavily Christ centered youth camping anti-gay experience then by gum National would find away to capture them. But looking at programs like Trail Life and American Heritage Girls that is not what most youth or families seem interested in. The CO overlay is a bit of a 'fudge' to shift liability away from National to some CO's.

    For some boys the wishy washy BSA higher power requirement is a deal breaker.

    But.....BSA is a voluntary organization....if any of us have an moral issue with a national policy we must examine our own conscience and act accordingly. Some BSA leaders with daughters are not comfortable with GSUSA, some are. 

     


  10. 4 minutes ago, David CO said:

    This discussion is taking place in the context of the LDS pulling out of scouting. LegacyLost just told us that a major Evangelical minister has advised that others pull out as well. I didn't know that. I think this information is relevant to our discussion.

     

    To walk back the discussion...while I doubt BSA is going to un-ring the bell Mr Graham's comments may apply enough pressure on National to resist dropping the final 'G' for a while. I think it is pretty important (I have organized and led a few Scout's own at camp and events) but does not seemed to be shared by many in the membership. I do know a local very large Catholic church strongly considered dropping their GSUSA and BSa charters in lieu of a new creation but backed off when they discovered it was too hard to recruit enough parent leaders. So they will keep the status quo for now.

    I over heard a few parents mumble about the Mormon's pulling out at a meeting last night. No way to spin 400k leaving as a positive.


  11. 4 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

    I do as well.  I know a number of people with strong, deeply held beliefs like this.  I appreciate for some people their beliefs are so strong, that they feel it's morally wrong to compromise their beliefs.  I'll admit the strength of his convictions drew me into the debate.

    While I appreciate that people feel this strongly, I do think that in the interest of the youth and the movement, you have to temper your beliefs in a Scouting context.

     

    Yes you have to accept the limitations of the youth movement and your Troop or leave if your conscience dictates you to do so. I have members of my immediate family that feel the same way. We have an ecumenical Troop and it is a fine line to walk. When we do it right our members feel comfortable expressing their religious beliefs respectfully. 


  12. 9 minutes ago, FaithfulScouter said:

    Should the Committee invite the Scout to speak to them about the situation and explain his actions?  Keep in mind, not only did he lie, he also jeopardized other people's safety.  Does the Committee decide on any potential consequences?  Should the SM or Committee Members reconconvene with the parents and the Scout to discuss consequences?  Can the Troop bar the Scout's confrontational parent from attending Troop functions?  What should happen to the money that was already raised for the initial project?

    You have to decide was the intent malicious and self-serving or just scout-stupid with unintended (safety) consequences? Scouts do stupid all the time. He has to do a re-start anyway. 

    Separate the boy's project from the parents issue. 

    This is pretty speculative advice.

    Was this a dock or walkway or deck or structure? Who did he lie about meeting with? The SM, the beneficiary, or some engineer? Did the parent encourage him? Has he poisoned his relationship with the beneficiary?

    Re-starting a project, redoing the paperwork approval process, or even starting a completely new project is not that unusual. It is an important, and frustrating part of the educational process. 

    • Upvote 1

  13. 2 minutes ago, FaithfulScouter said:

    Our Troop Committee recently learned that one of our Scouts lied to the Committee while presenting an update on his Eagle Scout project.  The Scout was asked if a specific person had reviewed the proposal and photos and the Scout said he had, and that he had discussed other aspects of the project with him too.  The project has now been suspended and the Scout will have to start over with another one.  Time is not a concern because he is a young teenager.  District Advancement and Council has been involved, although it would seem not to the CC or AC's satisfaction.  Further complicating the issue is that one of the Scout's parents has escalated the issue with near physical confrontations with the SM and members of the Committee.

    As a Troop Committee, how should we move forward?

     

    Sorry about having a mess.

    IMHO It seems a re-start was appropriate and good risk management--you are doing the lad a favor. Cutting corners in requirements and lying about it has potentially bigger consequences later in life. Better now then when the project is completed. Why did he do it? Seems like some "Scout Spirit" talk with the SM should be in order. The parents should back off-no scouter is getting paid to do this stuff and no boy is entitled to an eagle. If they REALLY have an issue transfer to a new troop and finish up there. Good luck with that.

    I do not think it is enough to stop the process, at most a pause. I have seen Scouts 'paused' for some serious character issues (drug use, stealing from the CO) that managed to re-group and move forward later.

    A little more info would help.


  14. 15 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

    Franklin Graham also said:

    We are under attack by Muslims at home and abroad. We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled. Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized—and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad. During World War 2, we didn’t allow Japanese to immigrate to America, nor did we allow Germans. Why are we allowing Muslims now?

     

    Not really a voice that would in any way represent BSA's openness to people of all faiths and races.

    He is not his father. One of his father's favorite verses: He must become greater; I must become less” (John 3:30). And he was very humble and accepting of all people while standing his ground. 

    @LegacyLost it is still a free country. You are allowed to take your marbles, and children, elsewhere--good luck and good bless. Some of us will continue the good fight from where we stand. I do not understand why you even came on this forum? Join Trail Life or come up with something better.

    • Upvote 1

  15. 15 hours ago, qwazse said:

    Not cheeky enough. He should have sent a check (from your tax-cut) to the treasury to cover the cost of the staffers' time to do the paperwork. :p

    Military types seem to be the best about sending a note--I think a lot of ex-scouts.

×