FireStone

Thank you for this. Good to see the forum taking this stance.

I was really hands-on with my Den this year for PWD, with half of my den being new scouts. So I talked to every parent, new and returning, and really made sure everyone was sticking to the rules. In those conversations I found out a parent had bought a complete pre-made car, which is against our Pack rules. I let them know that they'd likely be disqualified on the day of inspection, so they went and built a new car with their scout. Problem avoided. Sometimes sending around the rules in an email isn't enough. It should be, everyone should read them. But we all know how that goes. My Pack also does inspections/weigh-ins several days before the derby. All scouts must turn in their cars on that night, and the Pack keeps all cars until race day. This drastically speeds up things on the day of the race, and also gives us more of a chance to potentially deal with any rules issues. It also gives scouts the chance to fix any issues if a car is disqualified. We don't accept late entries, except in the case of a disqualification and a scout has the opportunity to re-submit the car on race day for a one-time re-inspection (if it fails again, no racing).

The BSA did go after the BPSA a bunch of years ago over the use of the word "Scout" in the name. They had to change from "Baden-Powell Scout Association" to "Baden-Powell Service Association." But that wasn't just about selling goods, that was about a new organization forming. Still raises an interesting point, though. If the BSA successfully won that case to protect their rights to "Scout" in a name, wouldn't that mean they were determined to have such rights in the first place? Wonder if that case could in any way be brought into consideration in the GSUSA case.

I'm constantly amazed that in this day and age of having a computer with a built-in video camera in the pocket of so many Americans, complete with the ability to actually EDIT those videos immediately after they're shot, that the media takes any video immediately at face value. Even when this technology was accessible in the home, the learning curve still made it prohibitive for most average folks to use it. But on a phone? Clipping a video, cutting out what you don't want people to see if it hurts the angle you're trying to show, it's easy. Take the tech phenomenon and pair that with the mad rush to get things published, posted, and on-air one millisecond before your competing news organization, and you get the predicament we're in today. Sloppy reporting, rush to judgement, irreparable damage done to reputations based on a minute of editing in a phone. The media is so sloppy. There was a screenshot of a text message that was going around with this video that was a supposed eye-witness account to back up what the video was trying to show, with the boy as the aggressor. But the supposedly "received" text message showed in the screenshot as a "sent" message. It was faked just to further the fake story. And yet the media runs with it. They won't take 2 seconds to look at something and think about whether it even seems legit. Modern journalism is "shoot first, ask questions later, maybe."

What a mess. Sorry you're going through all of this after such efforts to resurrect a Pack. In reading through the thread, all I keep coming back to is the application and background check. Is that still not resolved? Any other point is moot. And how anyone at the district level can approve of this happening is absurd. There is failure up and down the chain here. More than one person should be removed from their position here if you ask me.

Actually there is a change: https://www.scoutshop.org/catalog/product/view/id/10182

If this sticks and the SM gets his way, make sure to remind him when it's time for a Court of Honor that the troop doesn't group things together, and he needs to be present at three different CoHs on 3 different dates/times/places. 😏

I think we, as Scouters, are generally a fairly humble bunch. We don't do it for the recognition, and when things are going well we tend to just privately be happy about things going well and try to maintain the positives in our programs. When things go badly, that's when we turn to others for help, and on an Internet forum looking for help means shining a big old spotlight on the negatives. I think we do mention the positives, but we often don't start new threads about them. I'm pretty sure I mentioned our wildly successful recruiting effort in my Pack this year, doubling the Pack size since June. Which is great, but again, I'm not going to start a thread about it. When I look at what's on my desk at the moment and I've got that stat about Pack membership alongside an ongoing issue of bullying in the Pack, you know which item I'm more likely to bring to this forum. There is a lot of good going on, and it does often get overlooked here. But not because we're a negative group, we're all doing what we can to improve our units, and that means asking for help with problems far more often than it means pointing out the good things we see happening.

Is it? If we already have evidence of atheists re-writing the Oath and Law to suit their beliefs, is it really so speculative to suggest that they'd push for broader changes if given a nod from the BSA that the organization is flexible on the religious requirement for membership? When the posted speed limit is 55 mph, people do 65. When it's 65 mph, people do 75.

The problem is that when you open the door, even with the stated goal of not changing anything or making accommodations, people make their own changes and accommodations and then call it their right to do so. People did it throughout the "girls in the BSA" debate, going rogue and putting girls in uniform. And although I fully support the new program for girls, I was always opposed to changing things without it being made part of the program officially. I'm not a fan of forcing change by going rogue. I advocated for change by talking about the issue, voicing my support for girls in the BSA, etc. I have to listen to an atheist DL in my pack make a point of omitting "God" in the oath. He can't just silently pause at the God part, he (I think very deliberately) skips right over saying "God" so that he's saying "my country" when everyone else is saying "God". So we all clearly hear him and the very noticeable skip in cadence. I wish we could just open the doors and welcome everyone, but not everyone will just go with the program. Everyone wants accommodations. We have another DL (not the guy mentioned above, actually) who opposes prayer at scouting activities. We often close campfires and other activities with a non-sectarian prayer. This DL argues that we should stop doing that, that it offends people. (Yeah, I know, I can't roll my eyes up into my head far enough either). The other 9 DLs in the Pack want the prayer to remain in the program. But again, 1 person wants accommodations made for the group because of how they personally feel. This is what I see right now, while the rule is still firmly in favor of Duty to God being very much a part of Scouting. If the BSA took an official stance that atheists would be welcome, it wouldn't be with them just signing up and not participating in the faith-based components of the program. They'd want things changed for them. They would use any shift in stance by the BSA as leverage to argue for further change. Open that door a crack and it will be flung wide open in no time and God will be out of the BSA.

I hate these planes, I really do. Too many people flying them who won't make the necessary sacrifice and endanger the public by putting them down in crowded areas. Not necessarily the case in this story, I'm just making a probably unfair generalization. A few years back a pilot crashed a similar plane on the property of my daughter's school. He was trying to make it back to the airport and wasn't going to make it, and rather than veering away from the school, he flew over it and crashed 200 feet away from the building. Had he gone left he would have had a shot at a corporate parking lot. But it was further and supposedly he knew he wouldn't make it. Go right, and he had a golf course nearby, but again, probably too far to make it. He kept it pointed towards the airport thinking that was his best chance to survive, maybe aiming for the field behind the school if he came up short, and he nearly took out the school in the process. I had this opinion of these planes and their pilots before, but that incident didn't help brighten my opinion any. Makes me cringe any time I see photos like that now. A couple years before that, a pilot made a landing on a local highway. He took out an SUV and killed a family of 4. It's all laughs and fun when it works out, like in this story about the scouts on the beach. But it often doesn't work out so well for those on the ground. Thank God no one was injured this time.

I suspect this issue won't get the same support for change as other recent ones. It certainly won't from me, and I supported the changes to allow gay scouts, transgender scouts, and girls. I know there are many in my Pack who feel the same, having supported the previous changes but not willing to budge on the faith component. Personally I don't see the issues as the same. I believe people can choose faith, but not gender or sexual orientation. And I include transgenderism in that, I don't think it's a choice, and sometimes what's between the ears and what's between the legs aren't aligned in the traditional sense. So I wouldn't kick a kid out for something that they can't choose to be differently. I also don't think the BSA religious requirements are all that much of a burden. Just believe in something bigger than yourself. That's it. Specifics don't really matter, to fulfill the requirement just believe in something. There is something deeply spiritual about Scouting, even without explicitly saying it. I had spiritual moments as a Boy Scout that were not part of any effort to be reverent. I remember being out at Resica Falls, sitting out in the woods alone quietly observing my surroundings (something to do with Envi Sci, not sure if that requirement is still in there), and there was a very real sense of something spiritual in that. I had found a comfortable boulder to perch on, lay back and stare up into the trees, listening to the sounds around me. It wasn't just nature. Maybe it was the combination of being in a Scouting environment, being a recent OA inductee, and being someone who believes in God, it all combined into something that felt like a lot more than just observing nature in the scientific sense. And it was an experience that obviously made a lasting impact on me. It was something that I think would be very different in a setting that stripped out any sense of spirituality. Not to say it couldn't happen, but I'm glad it happened the way that it did, and I'm glad that we still strive to keep spirituality in the mix. We're not just a camping club, and this is something that ensures we remain more than just a camping club.

What were they "yelling and screaming" at you about? If it was because you said that The Princess Bride is a bad movie, then they were entirely justified in yelling at you. That film is a cinematic treasure. However if it was something to do with Cub Scouts, as I suspect it likely was, then they maybe should have had more tact in dealing with whatever issue they had with you. It would be helpful to know what they were so upset about, certainly as it relates to determining whether or not they are suited to continued leadership in your Pack.

I'm good with differing viewpoints. But that's not what you're offering. You're mocking people of a specific political persuasion that you clearly dislike, plain and simple. What, the comment about the clinking wine coolers was supposed to be constructive commentary? Should I take that as a compliment? I read it for exactly what you intended. You were mocking liberals and some imagined celebratory response to negative news about the BSA. It's mockery wrapped in a stereotype, but you just call it "humor" and a differing viewpoint. I have a sense of humor. What I don't have is any more patience for the stereotypes and mockery I get for being a liberal. I sort of expect it where I live, in a town that has historically been largely Republican. Earlier this week in a conversation with a local resident I was told that liberals hate the military. He didn't know my political views, and did the, "well, not you, I know you don't hate the military," back-peddling when he found out. I expect it to some degree in my town, although I wish things were different. I guess I had higher expectations for fellow Scouters. Clearly, I'm wrong about that.

There are a lot of people who are politically left/liberal on this very forum and none of us want to see the BSA in bankruptcy or any other bad financial situation. You unfairly characterize this news as part of some liberal agenda or plot by liberals to destroy the BSA. In doing so you insult every liberal BSA member, volunteer, and family. For some reason the moderators tolerate it. I have no idea why.

Resica Falls, PA Camp Turrell, NY

We don't, but I would think that if such a clause was in the agreement that the school would have gone straight to that when speaking to the press about this. No reason they wouldn't mention that if they could.

Sure, but then they shouldn't open up their facilities for other organizations to use, or if they do they should make it known that they reserve the right to change/cancel any facilities reservations at any time.

I might be assuming a lot here, but my guess would be that other accommodations might not meet the needs/expectations of the event organizers. If they originally had the gym, what suitable similarly-sized room would be available at the school? If they are being asked to use smaller rooms, split the event up into smaller venues, etc., that might not even be a viable option for this event, depending on how big it really is.

I'm just about as liberal as they come on issues of marijuana, being a proponent of legalization. Full-disclosure, as part of my job I work with companies who legally make and/or distribute cannabis products or promote cannabis events. That said, I'm actually kind of torn on this one. I support legalization but with emphasis on the "legal" part of it, not just for the companies that make/sell it but for those who consume it legally. Even in places where it's legal, it's an adult product, so no scout-age kids should be getting their hands on it. Questions like Fred's come to mind... would this scout bring weed to a scouting event? He got caught with it at school, so I have to seriously wonder. Teddy, are you intending to permanently deny the SMC? Or is this just to buy some time to think about it?

I suspect your pack/troop was not the norm then. In every unit I've encountered, from my youth until now, it's always been an important part of things. And the training I see locally here suggests a renewed interest in emphasizing the faith component of the program. We've heard as much from council reps, and we did a pack prayer at the end of a recent pack meeting based on the suggestion by one of our Wood Badge leaders who was encouraged to make Duty to God a prominent part of our program. We did the same at the campfire last month on our fall overnighter. I remember similar things from my youth. Campfire prayers, singing vespers, going to faith services at camp, working on religious awards, etc.

"We didn't cancel the event, we just made it impossible for it to happen." 🙄

That's awful. The football team doesn't need to actually play a game in the gym, they need it just for game prep, probably to stage equipment. That really can't be done elsewhere? They're kicking out the scouts (who followed proper protocol to reserve the gym) just so the football team has somewhere to put the Gatorade cooler before the game. I'm not sure there is a more clear and blatant insult to scouting organizations and how the town/community/school views them as so significantly less worthy of support than the sports teams.

Religion was actually a key component of Baden-Powell's founding ideals, calling it a "fundamental factor underlying Scouting." So if we're talking "roots", religion is right there. I kind of struggle with your approach, separating from the Pack and doing your own thing. A lot of aspects of the aims and goals of scouting are group-focused, working together as a unit, sharing knowledge and ideas, and teaching other scouts how to do things. If your son is not participating in some activities, he may be missing out on some good learning experiences. The goofy stuff isn't always just about being goofy, it's connected to developing communication skills and older scouts working with younger scouts to pass on skills and confidence, and also learning to become leaders themselves. Have you looked into the troop your son may be joining? A lot of troops still do some of the same stuff, have similar campfire programs as the pack, etc. I just wonder if you're waiting it out just to get to a troop and find that some of these common elements of scouting are still there.