GernBlansten

Depends on the SeaBase adventure you go on. There's SCUBA, sea kayaking and sailing. Sailing IS a vacation. No physical training or conditioning was required to do the sailing. A little sailing, a little snorkling, a little beach combing. Just be able to pass the swimcheck. I've also done Philmont and NTiers. Both required some conditioning. Philmont required much more training and conditioning than NTiers, but NTiers was so much more unique than what we normally backpack that I think it was the better. A troop who canoes all the time probably thinks Philmont is better because it is more unique to them.

Its my understanding that you can't get the patch until you have the card back from national, so by default, he cannot wear the patch until national certifies the application.

Just think how long our DE would be in his position if he went to our CO and told the IH they needed to step up to the plate and take active ownership of the unit or he was going to help the scouts find another unit. After I got the call from the DE that he was going to help me find another unit, I guess I would have an overwhelming feeling that someone stole our unit from us and I was talking to the perp on the phone.

Ed, those of us who take the reins of the beast and try to make a difference are just a band of theives, slinking through the shadows, taking what does not belong to us. How can we look at ourselves in the mirror?

Response to insult deleted by Hops_Scout (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Am I to understand that if the unit my son chose to cross-over to, which has a good program but an inactive CO, we should leave that unit and find a unit with an active CO? If by joining a unit with an inactive CO and working on making that unit functional and flourish without the help of the CO, we are stealing it from them and hijacking something from them something that they really don't care about? Now I'm really confused. I'm a scoundrel if I don't get involved, I'm a thief if I do.

BW, I think the relationship that our units have with our CO are the norm, not the exception I.E. hijacked by the volunteers. In your mind, what percentage of units have been hijacked vs those actively managed by the COs?

Wow BW, strong words for a dedicated volunteer who like many here are just trying to provide our sons a scouting experience. If we didn't take ownership (I think your word was hijack) of the unit, the unit would dissolve at the next re-charter. Why do you associate us dedicated volunteers with terrorists? Our CO doesn't want to be bothered with owning and running a scout unit. They don't mind us being there (most of the time). If we suddenly disappeared, it would take them a very long time to realize it, if at all.

Interesting comparison Gonzo. BSA vs YMCA. Which one has a religion in its name, which one doesn't have a DRP to join? Trick question. The Young Mens Christian Association does not require a faith to join. Ain't that bizzare?

BW, I think our units are holding up our side of the relationship. Its the CO that is not. We attempted to be closer aligned with their organization but they didn't reciprocate. So as a result, our committees have taken ownership of the units, doing what the CO should be doing, purely out of survival of the units. But its working out for us. We are doing well and have been chartered for 50 years.

Our CO charters a pack, troop and crew. Our SM, CM, and CA met with the church board recently to discuss our relationship. Lets just say we should have let sleeping dogs lie. They were shocked that they had any more role than providing us a meeting space. They had no idea that they owned our units. The meeting really jeopordized our relationship. As crew advisor, I really wanted the church to integrate the crew with its youth program and promote it with the girls. Not interested. They saw it as a dilution of the youth group, not an enhancement. My advice to others in the same boat, go very carefully. Chances are your CO doesn't have the slightest idea of its real role in your units and probably doesn't want that role.

Gonzo, I doubt your membership to American Athiests would be rejected. And even if it were, its not a civil rights violation. Just like the rejection of athiests in BSA is not a civil rights violation. But it is one if the chartering organization is the government and they use creed as a limiter to provide service. Merlyn isn't saying its a civil rights violation for BSA to reject atheists. Historically it has been, but that has been corrected. He is just making sure they don't cross the line again where it does become one.

I have always enjoyed my freedom fries.

Our CO (Methodist Church) really is just a paper one for us too. They grant us a meeting space and closet to put stuff in. And a wall for a pin up board. But other than that, they consider us just like the AA group that meets at the same time. Just another group who uses there facility for free. We have tried to be more involved IE scout Sunday, church cleanup weekends, eagle projects, etc. But they still look at us as just another group using the basement for free. The troop really belongs to our committee and SM, they keep it functional and running. The CO has no interest in us. The Catholic church down the street is more interested in supporting us than our CO. I jokingly mentioned at a meeting we should switch to them and was immediately shushed. Seems we have been chartered with this church for 50 years and we certainly wouldn't want to jeopardize that! If the idea of COs were dropped and the SM issued a warrant to run the troop, the only thing that would change for us is probably the meeting place.

OGE, are you stating that allowing gays or athiests into the BSA opens the organization up to legal liability? Why would those two groups create a greater legal risk than any other adult or youth already allowed under the DRP?

But you would pass the kid on advancement when he didn't meet his duty to self. Why not treat the God thing equally?

Gonzo, they can meet the Duty to God the same way scouts meet the Duty to Self. They do their best. We don't kick fat kids or adults out. But we try to get them to do their duty to self. Maybe they don't advance, but why not let them in the program to try. Can fat kids advance who don't do their best to their duty to self? To keep themselves physically strong and mentally awake? Let the kids decide how they are going to meet their duties. I think you would be surprised at how well they might do.

Excluding 3% of the population (actually I think its much higher) based on a requirement that has no prominence in the program seems like BSA has their priorities askew. Of that 3%, how many would actually join? For all the problems the DRP causes the BSA, is it really worth it? Drop the DRP. Public funds can now trickle back into scouting. Public schools can charter once again. The US Military can support the Jamboree without challenge. The BSA can get sweet heart deals for office space and use of public lands. Allow the benefits of the BSA to reach all boys. Or retain the DRP and build a wall to exclude those very few who would have no problem with completing every requirement in the program. Can you say hard headed?

George HW Bush never like broccoli. Never considered him a racist, perhaps a vegist. Don't really know if that was inherited by his veggie brained son.

Mark me down as a yes too. I don't associate homosexuality with pedophilia. I also don't associate atheism with morally twisted. Either would be fine with me.

The charter organizations have the voting power in BSA from the volunteer side. The LDS is geographically divided into wards. Each ward is a charter organization in BSA. There are thousands of wards. The LDS automatically enrolls all male children in their ward into their BSA units. So the net result is although LDS is a small minority religion in the US, they have a very large percentage of COs in BSA (compared to the number scouts in the units). They swing a pretty big stick in regards to setting BSA policy.

Yet the LDS make up about 1.8% of the population and have the majority of power in how the BSA operates.

Gonzo, would you have a problem if a Grand Canyon ranger told you that the canyon was created in the receding waters from the great flood of Noah?

Gosh Gonzo, I didn't even bring up the gay thing, but I understand getting blurred in the all posts. What I am saying is that since the BSA has so little regard for making religion a requirement beyond the DRP, and the DRP might just be at the crux for the downward spiral in membership and the negative effect with the courts, public opinion and non-religious chartering organizations, that they should revisit it. To me it sounds like a bit of foolish stubbornness to retain it. Oh and one more pet peeve. If the DRP is so central in keeping the BSA purity in check, why only include an excerpt from it on the membership application? Why not include the entire DRP?

Gotta give a vote for the metric system. Spent all day working on the vintage Beetle. How nice is it to know that if I have a 9MM wrench and it just doesn't fit, that probably a 10MM will. A simple call out to the boy for the appropriate size is fool proof. In the idiotic world of SAE, I might have a 9/16 wrench and maybe need 5/8 or a possibly a 17/32 but I first must compute the least common denominator and multiply the numerator appropriately. All this while on my back on a creeper with greasy dirt dropping down my nose.(This message has been edited by gernblansten)