Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
69RoadRunner

Condom Distribution at World Jamboree

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, John-in-KC said:

DOD, in the midst of OEF & OIF, was no longer interested in the troop bill IT had to pay to support a jamboree on Defense properties. That's part of why the search for the Summit began...

Well, that and they were sued by the ACLU and others because of their support for the BSA Jamboree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ianwilkins said:

I believe the UK has about 100 "units" going, of 36 youth plus adults, Surrey, my county, have Units 64, 65, and 66. Not sure which county has the next number, or the next,....or....the one after that...

I know the three Surrey units have made fundraising patches, all units will I guess. I've bought the Unit 66 one (so far). Not nearly Route 66 enough for my liking....

No automatic alt text available.

Here's 64's

s-l1600.jpg

Can't find 65s.

Hadn't appreciated you were Surrey Ian! I was the out of county member of the selection panel for Surrey Heath district. Don't know if that involved any of your lot. It was a tough decision to make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Well, that and they were sued by the ACLU and others because of their support for the BSA Jamboree.

I am not sure whether there was an actual lawsuit or not, and whether it actually reached a conclusion.  I think that when directly confronted with the issue (however that was accomplished), both the government and the BSA realized that the government was not going to win in court with the argument that the government can provide significant free services to an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion (i.e exclusion of atheists.)  The BSA is legally able to exclude atheists from receiving its services.  The government is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

Do you have a link to anything about that appeal?  The District Court decision (the initial decision) sounds right to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JoeBob said:

If you are equating dispensing condoms to a minor to having sex with a minor, I think we have identified the problem right there.

If you walk into any drug store in New Jersey, the condoms are on a rack right out there in the open, unlike "restricted products" such as cigarettes, which are behind the counter, unless it is one of the chains that have stopped selling tobacco products anyway.  And unlike cold medicines with pseudoephedrine (a.k.a the kind the actually work), which are not only behind the pharmacy counter, but you have to sign your name on the credit card machine so that if it turns out that you are buying the maximum number of boxes at every drug store in the area, the police can come knocking down the door of your house looking for the meth lab.

Edited by NJCubScouter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

apparently it's all Trail Life's fault now,

Well, that was readily apparent from day 1 as it was the Chairman of the Board for Trail Life that was trying to advance this false narrative. I am rather disappointed that this organization that portrays itself as more Christian than BSA would be so intentionally dishonest and misleading.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Well, that was readily apparent from day 1 as it was the Chairman of the Board for Trail Life that was trying to advance this false narrative. I am rather disappointed that this organization that portrays itself as more Christian than BSA would be so intentionally dishonest and misleading.

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. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FireStone said:

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. 

And further credit to how BSA responded. I know I would have personally called out the Chairman of the Board of Trail Life for his falsehoods and BSA instead took the high road.The damage to BSA is done and a press release clarifying the truth does not undo the misleading narrative.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

I know I would have personally called out the Chairman of the Board of Trail Life for his falsehoods

Taurus Excretus.

What falsehoods?  Be specific.  Shades of meaning and innuendo (like in the Snopes article) don't count.

Trail Life did not write the WOSM rules for WSJ.  Exposing those rules to light is not telling a lie.  Look at how many active scouters on this board had no idea that condoms were to be distributed and advertised: "Heads of contingent must be informed in advance and made aware of their responsibility in communicating this policy to their participants, unit leaders, and IST in an appropriate way."

For a well written conservative point of view:

https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20180522/bsa-scouts

"What kind of fire are the Boy Scouts teaching kids to start?  ...

But, as most people who've caved to the Left's demands will tell you, accommodation is a slippery slope. Now, a half-decade into this new social experiment, the Boy Scouts have lost members. They've lost money. They've lost their moral compass. And they've lost most people's respect...

Of course, if it's a wilderness experience the Boy Scouts are looking for, their dwindling numbers have given them plenty. Down 1.7 million members from its high-water mark, the Scouts don't seem to have gotten the message that sexualizing kids is the best way to lose support. After barely surviving their clash with parents over same-sex scouting, the century-old group now seems intent on traveling the path to complete irrelevance. As if putting out the welcome mat for kids who identify as homosexual wasn't unpopular enough, the organization knuckled under and let openly gay scout leaders serve too. Boys who identify as girls were next -- until it threw out gender altogether and, this month, invited girls to join. Earlier this month, the organization even announced it was dropping "boy" from its name.

Now, the program is in a national nosedive -- and leaders think the best way to revive it is to throw a two-week sex party?"

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

From the press release, alcohol will not be offered at Jamboree - bravo! However, I think most of the furor is centered on condoms at Jamboree. I see no direct mention of that hot potato by BSA or WOSM. They were clear about no alcohol, so why not be clear about the most volatile topic (condoms). Maybe I missed something in a veiled reference like "adhere to the existing health requirements developed to address the needs of international health norms in a manner more aligned with local practices"? Is it beyond their ability to just say what they mean?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeBob said:

Now, the program is in a national nosedive -- and leaders think the best way to revive it is to throw a two-week sex party?"

I have passion about these issues, and I share the disappointment felt by many.

But ...

I think the Family Research Council does themselves a disservice by characterizing the situation with such statements. These kinds of descriptions do not advance their cause, and only make themselves look less credible. The facts themselves are strong enough arguments without resorting to ridiculous language.

Edited by gblotter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, gblotter said:

From the press release, alcohol will not be offered at Jamboree

A clarification brought about after the fact by bad publicity. However alcohol was allowed (for leaders?) in prior WSJs on foreign soil. 

Not a falsehood on the part of Trail Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×