FireStone

It's astonishing how wildly out of control this kind of thing can get, over what appears to be a completely mis-heard word/phrase. Do we really need to sit our scouts down and tell them not to use the word "kill" in any way or any context, because it can be misconstrued? It's pure insanity. Next we'll probably hear about a kid kicked out of a Troop for threatening to go on a murder spree after being overheard talking to other scouts about Fortnite.

Even if that's the case and he did threaten the other boy, the severity of the response isn't justified. This is a "warning" scenario, maybe a sit-down discussion at most.

Good point. Being that I've recently been looking for a babysitter, it's been interesting to see how potential candidates advertise themselves. They're often in college, especially this time of year looking for summer work, and they make it a point to mention that they're not just in college but if they're a junior ot senior, they make darn sure that you know it. As if a college freshman or sophmore is under-qualified. 🙄 This certainly feels like a tie-in topic around the societal issue of kids not being allowed to play outside or being escorted home from the local park by police if they

Chartered Organization Rep and Committee Chair

I'm not sure what the official policy is, but personally I think it's highly unusual to expel a scout from a unit over one incident. I guess depending on the severity of the alleged threat, maybe it's justified in some cases. I've heard of cases of alleged "physical violence" that didn't result in expulsion, I think most units act on a system of warning, then action if behavior is repeated. Again, there could be circumstances where first offense is grounds for immediate expulsion. But those have to be some pretty extreme threats to warrant that. This is something you're going to hav

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to do a point-by-point reply, I think we both know where we stand on this. We disagree, and that probably won't change. My point of this thread was optimism and looking forward, which I continue to do and continue to have about the BSA. It's not a popular opinion around here, but I truly believe that the best days of the BSA are ahead of us.

I'm in favor of all of the recent changes, and I'm an Eagle Scout, Den Leader, Pack Committee member, OA Brotherhood.

I don't know if there is a date, but I imagine you could just call it the "Scouts BSA Handbook" and I think most folks will know which book you're talking about. Making an assumption based on the release of the Cub books less than a month from the official start date, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Scouts BSA books show up in January.

I've been really tempted to whip up a "Scouting Isn't Dead" t-shirt design in the style of the old "Punk's Not Dead" graphics. 😄

I really hope no one will actually leave because Boys' Life changed their name. Or because there will be pictures of girls in handbooks, as was suggested in another thread.

Fair enough, here goes... I pushed for inclusion in the BSA for many reasons. Sometimes because I thought that doing so would benefit the programs, sometimes because I felt that morally it was right, and sometimes because I felt that what the BSA was doing previously was just wrong (kicking kids out and denying advancement on the basis of sexual orientation, for example). The latter points can and have been debated here ad nauseum. On the "benefit the program" front, I think inclusion adds an additional layer of richness to the BSA. I have yet to hear about any gay scout or scouter

Speaking of clarifications, I'm still hoping you'll clarify what you meant when you falsely stated that WOSM staff could be jailed for providing condoms.

Those are not program changes. Program is the program, what kids do and learn, not what they wear or the title of the magazine they read. YPT is not program, it's YPT. What is something that kids used to do that they don't anymore because of the recent changes?

Thanks for the doom and gloom, folks. Some of us are optimistic about the future of the BSA. I was hoping for just a minute we could focus on that, or at least those of us who believe that could discuss it. But of course in this forum it's not possible without people tearing things down again. Oh well, it was worth a try.

Agreed. I'm not sure of the legalities of this kind of thing, but at the very least, spreading mesleading (or downright false) information about your competitors is entirely un-Scoutlike.

I agree. It's probably too late. I would just add that at the time I was writing some of those letters and voicing those concerns, I had very little faith that any changes would be made. I still did it, though, because it felt right to me. I think that some folks who may eventually walk away from this because of these changes might find some comfort in knowing that they at least spoke up, they did what they could to oppose what was happening, and in the end if they still have to walk away, they can do it knowing that they at least tried.

I still have yet to hear of any change in program or requirements, ranks, badges, activities, etc., so as far as I can see, things still look pretty much the same. I don't think that a girl in BSA uniform makes the BSA unrecognizable.

Well, you probably won't want to hear this, but when folks like me were arguing in favor of gay scouts, gay scouters, and girls in the BSA, we weren't just talking about it on Internet forums. We were writing letters (not emails, typed letters, hand-signed and mailed) to various members of the Executive Board. We were donating money to groups like Scouts for Equality. We were signing petitions, making phine calls, and speaking up in any way that we could. This forum is great for discussion, but it doesn't actually give any of us a voice in any debate in a way that actually sways opinion.

I've never thought that any of this was about saving the organization. This is about saving a bunch of jobs in one Texas office. The BSA can live on as a volunteer-only scouting org, like others around the world. Under 100,000 members we could keep right on scouting along. We just can't sustain the bloat of the big salaries, SBR debts, etc. The BPSA-US has, what, a couple of thousand members, maybe? They still go camping, have Camporee-type of events (Hullabalo I believe they call them), wear uniforms, give out badges, do service projects, march in parades, hold fundraisers, pay due

I have to admit I didn't know much about him and had to Google him. He seems like a cool guy, just not sure he'd be the guy the BSA would be looking for as the US equivalent to Bear. Creek seems a bit more old-school and has that mid-western-rancher-meets-navajo-medicine-man vibe about him. Might not be a modern enough image for what the BSA would probably be looking for. And he wore an Eagle Scout badge on a uniform shirt as an adult, so clearly he's out. 😉

Putting aside the doom-and-gloom ideas for a moment, let's think about what this all looks like in a few years, or maybe a decade, if all of the changes don't sink the BSA. National has to have some sort of plan (go ahead, laugh, but let's assume for a minute that they actually do have a plan), or at least some idea of what they are driving the organization towards. My guess? Look at Scouts UK. Things that Scouts UK has done differently in past decades that the BSA is now doing: Scouts UK has been co-ed for a long time. They simplified their uniforms, attempting to revamp the

It could be. It just means making the effort to change the script. The lore isn't the only thing that makes the OA what it is. Sure it's rooted in Lenape history and style, but what makes it special is the mystique about it, the secretiveness, the ceremonies (the act of carrying out the ceremonies, not necessarily the exact lore behind them), etc. Swap any cultural lore into an OA ceremony and to me I think it would be just as cool. Imagine an OA based on pacific island culture, island ceremony, dance, and regalia. I think that would easily be just as impressive. I'm not saying to just a

Doesn't sound odd at all. Teen pregnancies would skyrocket if there was a minimum age for condom purchase.

That says nothing about minors having condoms, or being given them by adults.

Can we at least be fair in how we discuss this? the BSA is not "offering these items to our scouts," and not "going to be handing out these items." Condoms are made available, upon request, probably at the health center. The way this is talked about here by some folks you would almost think there will be a guy in a condom costume flinging handfuls of rubbers into the crowd. As for the religious implications, not all religions prohibit the use of condoms, and some don't prohibit pre-marital sex. So even if you were allowed by the BSA to discuss sex with Scouts, I'm not sure it would