Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John-in-KC

National Meeting: Affirmation of DRP

Recommended Posts

I read the article and comments.  I'm reminded of the immortal words of George Strait

I got some ocean front property in Arizona
From my front porch you can see the sea
I got some ocean front property in Arizona
If you'll buy that I'll throw the golden gate in free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from the BSA, this doesn't mean much. Wasn't it just a year or two before they lifted the ban on gay scouts that they also reaffirmed their commitment to that policy? 

Share this post


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

Coming from the BSA, this doesn't mean much. Wasn't it just a year or two before they lifted the ban on gay scouts that they also reaffirmed their commitment to that policy? 

True. I remember lots of things BSA has rescinded since I first joined: Women as WDLs, Women as SMs and ASMs, Women in the OA, no gay scouts, no gay Scouters, no girls in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, no pioneering projects over 6 feet in height, no powertools unless a certain age, no patrol overnite camping without adults, no patrol day activities without adults. 

Share this post


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

I read the article and comments.  I'm reminded of the immortal words of George Strait

I got some ocean front property in Arizona
From my front porch you can see the sea
I got some ocean front property in Arizona
If you'll buy that I'll throw the golden gate in free

I'm missing the connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FireStone said:

Coming from the BSA, this doesn't mean much. Wasn't it just a year or two before they lifted the ban on gay scouts that they also reaffirmed their commitment to that policy? 

What does the DRP have to do with the lifting of the ban on gay scouts?  No everyone that is religious and believes in God agreed with the policy on banning gay scouts or that the DRP justified a ban on gay scouts.

The BSA started getting in to trouble not because they had a DRP and a Scout Law that said a Scout is Reverent but because they bowed to some religions interpretation of the Bible and the DRP while ignoring other religions interpretations.  In essence, they were violating the Scout Law by letting some heavy hitters make the decision of what it meant instead of pointing out that the BSA had never before defined what God's words meant or treated some religions with more respect than others rather than equally across the board.  I remember when a major part of A Scout is Reverent meant that a Scout (and Scouters and Scouting) respected other religions - and not just Christians, Jews and Muslims respecting each other but Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Mormons, etc. respecting each other too. 

The only thing this does is close the door on allowing atheists in (for now).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I'm missing the connection.

I don't believe the executive pubahs believe their resolution.  I think it looks like a blatent sop to try to settle the unrest and minimize the spread of damage.  So for those that believe the resolution I have some ocean front property in AZ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DuctTape said:

I still don't understand why the need for a DRP. We don't have a DCP (Declaration of Citizenship Principles) and the Oath also states Duty to Country. We don't have a DHP (Declaration of Helping Principle) and the oath states we are to help other people at all times coupled with "do a good turn daily" and "be prepared". Or we could just recognize that the DRP, DCP, DHP or any others are just redundant.

I concur - I don't see the point.  Feels a lot like a hollow attempt to pander to the more devout members of the BSA.  

Share this post


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

I don't believe the executive pubahs believe their resolution.  I think it looks like a blatent sop to try to settle the unrest and minimize the spread of damage.  So for those that believe the resolution I have some ocean front property in AZ.

 

Ah. And the fact is that they did something similar at the time of at least one of the sexual-orientation decisions. But I think that while the timing probably is a “sop,” National really does believe in the “belief” requirement.  And no, I am not in the market for any oceanfront property, whether in AZ or in NJ (but for different reasons, in NJ the main reason is named Sandy.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

... But I think that while the timing probably is a “sop,” National really does believe in the “belief” requirement ...

I think they do, too, which is what scares me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a closet atheist - far from it - but I do agree with the earlier posts that Duty to God is redundant given our other values.  Moreover, singling that duty out from the others (and without providing additional training or strict limitations on how to discuss that duty), is an invitation to our more fervent scouters to infuse their beliefs into other aspects of the program.  My District has already had to remove one Eagle BOR chair for his grilling of candidates' beliefs.  With National's doubling-down on the policy I expect other Councils will find themselves wrestling similar problems.

Edited by AltadenaCraig
removed extra line

Share this post


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

If the BSA dropped the DRP, would those  of you that oppose to the DRP be open to individual COs adding one for their units?

Individual units have always had the freedom to restrict membership for both scouts and scouters. 

Share this post


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

If the BSA dropped the DRP, would those  of you that oppose to the DRP be open to individual COs adding one for their units?

I would support that 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AltadenaCraig said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a closet atheist - far from it - but I do agree with the earlier posts that Duty to God is redundant given our other values.  Moreover, singling that duty out from the others (and without providing additional training or strict limitations on how to discuss that duty), is an invitation to our more fervent scouters to infuse their beliefs into other aspects of the program.  My District has already had to remove one Eagle BOR chair for his grilling of candidates' beliefs.  With National's doubling-down on the policy I expect other Councils will find themselves wrestling similar problems.

I don’t understand, duty to god is our values. How is that redundant?

Barry

  • Upvote 2

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  

×