evmori

It might be typical liberal stuff, but she does have a point about the behavior she witnessed. The SPL or ASPL or adult leadership should have reigned these boys in. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

If the BSA is a "religious organization" what religion are they?

Excellent post, jd! The only thing I don;t agree with is the statement "but they wouldn't be involved in Scouting at all unless they wanted to do some good for the boys." Most adults (I'm in this group) are in this for the boys, but there are some adults out there that are in this for themselves, not the boys. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

Those socks Dennis is wearing don't look like official Cub Scout socks!

Why are we here? Read Genesis. God created us because it pleased Him to do so. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

Once again, point missed! Bob, If the BSA NOT the CO's owned the units, the discrimination sword the ACLU is slashing the BSA with would be taken out of their hands. If the BSA owned the units & CO's sponsored them, the ACLU would have no claim of discrimination. I would agree the ACLU is out to destroy the BSA or change it's values. But if the legal sword is removed from their hands, they lose their power. Pretty simple and a change I think the BSA should make. NJ, Am I on the right track here? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

Best thing - the boy is alive & safe.

Class A & Class B might not be official BSA lingo, but there are tons of leaders out there that use & understand what those terms mean. But since it isn't official BSA lingo, we who use it should probably be taken out back & shot! I agree with Backpacker. Sure we all take pot shots at each other from time to time. Event some of the current moderators join in. And I think a moderator posted If we don't debate about stuff that nobody will ever agree on, we may as well shut down these forums. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

You in accepting the role of a BSA Commissioner have accepted the responsibility to represent the programs, policies, and procedures of the BSA and yet more often than not you support the opinions of these poster who constantly attack the BSA. Just how do you rationalize that behavior with your job in scouting? I don't consider them attacks. These are people asking questions because they either don't understand something or they want an explanation. I have never professed to have all the answers & there are some questions that have been asked that I, too, would like the answers to. Just because someone is questioning something doesn't mean they are attacking it! The BSA isn't infallible even though some posters think it is. It seems the attacks are coming from those posters who think the BSA does no wrong. That good enough for ya, dan? Bob, Still waiting on an answer to "I would be very disappointed if the BSA backed down & changed to allow atheists & homosexuals to join, wouldn't you, Bob?" Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

Glad we cleared that up!

Some of us are still waiting on an answer to "Where in the Congressional Charter does it state the BSA can't own units?" Ed, It's abundantly clear you are not interested in an answer and the purpose of your post is to antagonize. Give it a rest. FScouter moderator (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

jkhny is it even possible that you know less about the internet than you do about scouting??? Now there's a Scout-like comment! Courteous & friendly! Bob, I suggest you re-read jkhny's post slowly. Remember comprehension is important. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

I meant no disrespect to anyone in law enforcement by my use of cop. And I'm sure Bob, you are the only one who felt I used the term in a derogatory fashion. Wrong again! Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

Bob, (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Ed If the BSA did not discriminate the ACLU would not care who owned the unit. Well Bob, according to the ACLU the BSA does discriminate. Legally but they do. So unless the BSA changes & let's atheists & homosexuals join, one solution would be for the BSA to take ownership of the units & let public schools & the government sponsor them. I would be very disappointed if the BSA backed down & changed to allow atheists & homosexuals to join, wouldn't you, Bob? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

Aaron, I really see nothing wrong with wearing the Official Boy Scout (Class A) uniform to troop meetings. This might not be the best choice if the meeting plan was to help a neighbor clear brush or you were painting nesting boxes, etc. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Excellent Semper excellent!

Ed, I don't know where to begin with your post other than recommend you return to basic training and get caught up to where scouting is today, which by the way in the case of charters is pretty much exactly how it was done in 1916. Why it has taken 89 years for you to hear about it is a mystery. The charter states: "The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." I'll bet things that were in common use have changed since then. And I'm not 89 years old, Bob. Whether the BSA owns the units or the COs it would have no effect on what the ACLU complained about, only WHO they complained about. There's where you're wrong, Bob. Part of the issue is the ownership of the unit. According to the ACLU (I don't agree with this) a public school can't own a BSA unit because the BSA discriminates based on religion & sexual preference. The key word being own. They can, however, sponsor a BSA unit because they must give equal access to all groups. Key word sponsor. If the BSA owned the units & the public schools sponsored them, the ACLU would not be able to do anything about it! Once again, comprehension is required. Try to keep up. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

The Scout Promise is: On My Honour, I promise that I will do my best To do my duty to God and to the Queen, To help other people And to keep the Scout Law The Scout Oath is: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. Similar yet different. In the BSA we don't do duty to the Queen. And we are talking about the BSA, correct? K , Bob. And nowhere in the Congressional Carter does it state the BSA can't own units. It might be in the BSA bylaws, but it isn't in the Congressional Charter. Delivering the program through community organizations doesn't prevent the BSA from owning units. Hunt is correct! This has noting to do with training, it's all about reading comprehension AKA understanding of the written word. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

So Bob, Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Back to semantics! I thought it was the Congressional Charter not the National or Federal Charter! Let's get it right! The wording "work through local community organizations" means the BSA can't own units? I don't read it that way. The BSA could still own units & work through local community organizations. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

OK enough with the semantics. So I guess we need to know how the BSA was run in 1916 to figure out if there really is a reason the BSA couldn't go the franchise route. It would seem to make more sense & isn't really a whole lot different than the way things are done now. If the BSA owned the units, then the ACLU couldn't complain about public schools & the government sponsoring them. That would get rid of one problem. And the BSA could demand manditory training for all leaders! Sounds like a win all around. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10

Certainly as a trained, experienced scouter, and commissioner, you realize that the CO does no OWN a charter as you stated. The charter is the proof of ownership held by the CO that shows it has entered into the "shared responsibilities" agreement with the BSA council. I'm gonna guess "does no" should be "does not". Couple questions. 1) If the CO doesn't own the charter, why the big stink with the ACLU over the CO owning the charter? 2) If the CO doesn't own the charter, why does the CO hold the charter as proof of ownership? And lastly from http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-507.html To support approximately 124,000 Scouting units owned and operated by chartered organizations Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 (This message has been edited by evmori)

I have the same question Semper does cause when I read the Congressional Charter, I got the same impression. And facts, not opinion, to verify, please. And no, Bob, I don't want the BSA to do my job as commissioner. I do my job as commissioner just fine. But thanks for offering the assistance. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10