Huzzar

Bye

Ha ha ha ... and thanks for indicating, once again, your dissociation from the real world.

I wouldn't sign off Scout Spirit for these boys until I saw a real change in behavior and attitude. Then it goes back to Council and possibly National for an EBoR under disputed circumstances. You'll be asked to state why you won't sign and they'll have to decide if your actions were "correct." As an aside, I never would have agreed to step up as SM under the conditions that you have. I would have advocated dropping the boys from the charter and telling them to come back in a year or find some other patsy to sign their forms. Had the SM and CC insisted that drug leaders be allowed to continue I would take my son to a different troop.

It's a none issue in America too. You can't join as an adult leader.

You're being silly.

If he's a Humanist that believes that there is no supreme being then he is not allowed to be a member. Nothing's changed. If he wants to lie about it then it's between him and his ...whatever...

>> Unit throws out a boy for saying he's "gay oriented" (I interpret as SSA), Unit is in trouble. << I don't think this is correct. The membership change applied to BSA, not unit. If they wanted to force units to accept gay youth they would have worded it that way.

AHG membership had increased to 30,000 last year so it's not "rapidly dying on the vine." It's not a big group but being so specific in their religious requirements that's hardly surprising. It's a shame for the girls in the OP's unit that it's turned upside down but they can either recharter with a church that meets AHG's requirements or move on. Sounds like they chose option two.

What's the back story? It sounds like the Scout doesn't want to ask his old SM for a signature.

It sounds like you need a HA patrol of Scouts not a separate Crew.

The core of this messy case is the Democrats in her county did not want a Republican governor appointing her replacement.

Still don't really know how the Alaska incident went down. Sounds like one of those deals where you ask 5 people what happened and you get 5 different versions. I guess now it's in the news we have to identify the "liar" when there may not be one. Anyway...I recently came back from England via Gatwick airport. Thanks to making the mistake of putting a bottle of mead in my hand luggage I had to hang around in security with my kids. For a goof I started taking a "selfie" of the three of us sitting on a bench. A woman in uniform came over and asked if I had taken any pictures as it was forbidden inside the security area. I replied no and she asked me to show the last picture on the camera. I complied and she was fine when it was a pic of me on a beach. She reminded me that pictures weren't allowed and moved on. No camera confiscation and no big drama. Maybe the Rutherford guy doesn't like the confiscation part of the story.

Couple of things to point out though. 1) The UK Scout Association did not unilaterally decide to allow gay adults to be leaders. Tony Blair's left wing government passed legislation forcing them to comply. 2) If you make any statements about homosexuality being immoral in the UK you risk a visit from Plod investigating a hate crime. Carry on...

So what if the SE of the Council involved thinks the policy should be changed? That gives this pip squeak local politician the right to drag a Troop over the coals so he can get his name in the paper? There are plenty of SEs that think BSA shouldn't have changed the policy for youth. That's also irrelevant to how the Troop in question should react to being used as a pawn. They did the right thing walking away.

How did the Klan get in here? Let me emphasize something AZMike said, the pictures he posted are as tame as you get in that parade. Why on earth would a Scout leader think participating in that kind of event would persuade anyone that the BSA is wrong to bar homosexual men from membership.