moosetracker

MattR, strange the paper is calling you and not your council. I would suggest you break your question out on it's own thread. I think it is a good, sincere wish to get help, which is neither pro or con the policy change, just a question of what are some good ideas as to how to handle it with your scouts and parents.. It may be lost in the issues and politics thread..

Thanks Lodge489, this statment reduces the list of "all churches who will leave" list that the "sky is falling" group is touting down by one.. This was a group they claimed would walk, and it is opening it up for the local church to choose.. I really am not surprised. Our troop was hosted by the UMC and they were in inner turmoil about 4 or 5 years back on the issue and our charter Org was in favor of the liberal position.. So I see my old troop / Pack as being one who will welcome the change. It also proves what others have been stating on this thread.. ALL major churches who charter BSA programs have been contacted, they know who will leave and who will stay, and it sounds like this press release is giving everyone a heads up, which they really wouldn't do if it wasn't pretty clear that things most likely will stay the same.. It is starting to get exciting..

As I have said, and Scouter Terry put it in his article. The wrong turn was when BSA decided to change policy and take this decision away from the CO. Had they not done it, whether it was in the 70's, 80's or 90's I don't much care (it was not always the policy).. But had they stayed the course of leaving the decision making of ALL unit leaders up to the CO, they would have sailed through this polarized period in history without a scratch.

I dunno, Why have any of it?? It is all subject to ones own interpretation.. Strive for the best you can be at any of it. You know when you have not met your own expectations. A unit leader might also have a bar they want you to reach, but his bar may be set higher or lower then the that of the troop who welcomes all the troubled youth in the area.. Thing is no one made you king, so everyone in the BSA needs to answer to your expectations.. I am sure I fall short of your expectations, but I am perfectly happy with my own perception of what being a good person to God, country and self is all about.

I could see a non-religious unit, getting some pressure to be open to the whole community. But, I disagree that there will be pressure for a church to change (at least from outside groups).. The reason churches have changed their views in the past is from pressure from their own members, that will continue to be the case. I have yet to hear a news story about the outrage that a church will not marry a homosexual couple. I heard one recently about a church that welcomed in afro-American people as church members, but then when the couple wanted to marry, the congregation refused to allow them to use their church due to their race.. Even the minister/reverend what-ever was taken back about the churches position.. So, yeah.. Perhaps 50 years from now, when the culture changes through a few more generations, there may be pushback.. But, unless you are very young now, chances are, you wont be a Scouter and need to worry about it.

No rewrite for allowing homosexuals needed.. Morally Straight, is ones own viewpoint or that of their personal religion.. News Flash not all religions or community groups see homosexuality in the same light.

AZMike Bible thumpers are not all religious people, they are not all christians.. Bible thumpers are people who are not happy with personally living up to their religious beliefs and raising their family with their viewpoints, but loving them regardless of if they choose their parents values, or choose different values. Bible thumpers need to force their beliefs down everyone throats, with protests, and banning, trying to shame those who don't have the same views.. They will even turn their backs on their own family member if they don't follow thier religious beliefs.. So calling all Christians bible-thumpers is like calling all whites members of the Ku Klux Klan.

Will they stay in and the BSA become a contentious organization with a lot of in-fighting? Huh?? On this issue, I thought we already were a contentious organization with a lot of in-fighting.

Thanks Terry for all you do! Nice to know that our opinions are being heard, by someone in National. Whether in this forum, or elsewhere.. But, now I need to watch my P's & Q's more closely... (Yeah, Right, that will last about a week, before I'm tearing into someone about something again..)

No sthumper, sexualilty will still not be a major topic of discussion in scouting. But, homosexuals are not banned from scouting for promoting homosexuality, they are being banned for being homosexuals.. The den leader who was kicked out, to the outrage of the parents in her den.. Did nothing to promote her lifestyle to the scouts to cause it. It was just that someone knew she was and reported her. The youth that was drilled relentlessly by his adult leaders for hours to "confess" he was gay so they could kick him out.. Was not pushing the issue, his "straight" conservative leaders were.. When he refused to confess, the promised him they would ask every person he ever spoke to in town, until they found someone willing to rat him out. The man who was removed, because he was picked up from a scouting event by his significant other, had no kissy-huggy molment.. It was just someone seeing the other man pick him up, asked a fellow scouter who the driver was. Got told, and reported the man to council. The man who was removed because their was a picture of him in some gay march, was not doing the gay march in his uniform. He was just recognized as a scout leader, and thrown out. Do you see your wife sitting in the audience at a court of honor to see your son get an award as promoting your sexual lifestyle?.. If a homosexual male adult leader had his male spouse sitting in the audience to see their son get an award, would you see this as promoting their sexual lifestyle?.. Could he even say something like, "Let me ask my husband if ......" without your cringing? Would you see it a promoting your sexual lifestyle if you said "Let me ask my wife"?? The policy shift will not mean a change to how sex is promoted in the scouting unit.. It will just mean, homosexuals will not have to live the life of a monk outside of scouts, in order to be able to be a scout leader..

DigitalScout - BSA kicks alot of decisions like this down to the CO.. That makes sense considering they want the CO to feel it is Their program, they are just supplying the organized "How To guidebook", and other materials to support them in running a successful program. Telling a CO that they MUST, is as bad as telling a CO that they can't.. A family who wants to join scouting, then has a choice also.. If they don't care, they will join the unit closest to them. If they do care, they may choose to travel 20 or 30 minutes to the unit that is closest to their family values. If LDS is becoming more accepting to homosexuals, I would say this is the reason for the change. As many people have said before, it was their money (and fear of it's loss) that drove the issue before.. Catholics maybe feel homosexuality is a sin, but I have never heard of them barring a homosexual from their worship services.. They may be a CO, that chooses not to accept openly homosexual leaders, but I doubt the Catholics will get their panties in a bind, over what their neighboring BSA unit is or is not doing. I do foresee a notable mass exodus up front from some very conservative groups.. Maybe alot of evangelicals, maybe some of the churches having civil war inside their churchs on the issue, those fighting for the conservative side, may already be hyper-sensitive on this issue. I foresee the influx of new members and units also, but not in a mass entrance, but a slow gradual build.. I doubt there are hundreds and thousands waiting in the wing to flood into BSA if this policy is removed.. It will be simply people when given the option to join, will not say "no" due to this policy.. And a new charter will be formed, by someone slowly over time, if no CO in the area has an open door policy on the issue, and parents would like their son in the scouting program, and have strong liberal feelings on this issue. So for a few years I do expect the walk-outs will out number the walk-ins, but in about 5 years, the program will be healthier for it.

Well, Pchadbo, considering now you are excited about ending the ban on homosexuals, and have two possible candidates if it ends, you are not a bible thumper.. If you were you would have told them how unwelcomed they were, and made them feel worthless then the turd stuck to the bottom of your shoe to be a real bible thumper. Or you would gleefully hunt and sniff out the homosexuals amongst us, and taken total delight in shameing them as you kicked them out the door. That is a bible Thumper.. With the announcement of this possible new policy they will not claim excitement, or even "it won't change my unit".. The bible thumper will be crying out the doom and gloom, and threatening their church, All churches will stomp out, if their neighbor troop dares to excercise the new policy of local option and welcome a homosexual.. Again, there is a difference between disagreeing and totally baning them or treating them like dirt..

Sorry, as far as I am concerned disagreeing is not disrespecting.. Banning someone you disagree with IS disrespeciting. My child grew up around many people I disagreed with. I don't ban them. If their viewpoint or lifestyle come into conflict with my idea of values, then it is just a teachable moment to have a heart to heart discussion with my son. Start respecting those who are homosexual. Start respecting those who are atheists. After all it does not mitigate the respect they should get even if you think they are "wrong"..

Why are you surprised it's the bible thumpers, Basement?.. They're the ones who need the "We are better then you" supiority comparisons in order to claim they are they "chosen ones".. It may be homosexuals or it may be thinking their religious members are the only one blessed to access heaven, while all other people (whether of no religion, or of a different faith then theirs) are doomed to rot in hell.

Well, it sounds like they chose to remove the statement rather then discontinuing the program. But, I like their new web page replacement, to send complaints to the responsible party, and by the way, we will still continue with our program the way we always have.. We just can't post that in a statement on our website.

I could live with that.. I think these loans are only for accredited colleges. Therefore the question is, who is accrediting the questionable colleges, and more structure is needed as to what you need to be accredited, and turn down those who don't make the grade. I just did not understand the republican position that removing student loans would help the economy.. And Romneys position to just "borrow from your parents.", meaning higher education was only for the wealthy.. I would also be against our future generations giving up their dreams, so someone else could play with their guns.

RS.. You forgot taxing the weapon industry.. Why, tax entertainment industry (which I won't argue plays a part in it) and not the weapon industry (WHICH PLAYS A PART IN IT).. Why bring down Federally funded School loans? That makes no sense.. You can default on other loans through claiming bankruptcy, but you can not default on federally funded school loans.(Although you can put off paying them if you have yet to find a job..) Grant it, some people try to hide, to get out of a loan. About six months back I heard they tracked some school teacher down, who had skipped paying her loan.. They garnished her wages, like a deadbeat parent. She was complaining she had very little to live on... I didn't feel much pity for her.. Really these tend to be pretty safe loans.. And they do pay interest.. I was surprised the how high they now charge in interest, when I went to school, the intrest rate was very low.. You paid your loan, but it wasn't worth it to pay it off early. But, if LOAN is a dirty word to you, lets stop giving out Federally funded business loans.. Still I could find a better use for those tax dollars then hiring a person for every school in the country, to play solitare and do crossword puzzles all day as he is bored out of his skull sitting around a school all day with nothing to do..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

So basically your saying, we can do what we are now doing?.. Like maybe a good solution for you in Oklahoma would be to follow Montpelier, Ohio.. Arm your janitors!!! Great. No extra costs involved! http://rackjite.com/stephen-colbert-armed-school-janitors-ayn-rand-atlasphere-dating-and-forida-pythons/ I'm fine with that, if your local area wants to find silly solutions to arm people with guns, while not raising your taxes.. Go at it!! Just leave my local area out of your whacky schemes. Democrats may be fine with taxes if used well, like for putting people back to work with something that would be helpful to our country.. That means "NO" to Romney's proposed 2 trillion extra taxes for military, when our wars are ending, and we should be now cutting back on military spending, and right now it is bloated with wasteful spending.. Also "NO" to tax waste putting armed guards in schools, when if we taxed for more police, they would be better served in the community, then sitting in a school waiting for a 1 in a million chance there may come a time they can do something other then the daily crossword puzzle.. But, employment added for needed road building, and in educating our children better, well these make sense. Republicans are not opposed to spending money, just look at the out-of-control spend over the last Bush administration 8 years.. They just spend it on things that Democrats agree with. Democrats, don't spend on programs Republicans agree with.

Personally I am glad to see something like what is in Slide 38.. Let's hope the advancement team has the kahonas to carry through with it. Might it be used with a heavy hand by some SM.. Maybe.. But, in the past few years the Advancement team has been giving the helecopter parents too much leeway with new rules to allow them to get their kids their paper eagles without them having to get off the couch.. Nice to see something that might put some teeth into the program again, and allow a SM to put his foot down and say "NO"..

Venividi - Red states love using your taxes for military and anything weapon related.. Blue states may love taxes to pay for programs.. But, I doubt they would be for this one, as most Democrats would push for the the programs to make it hard for scary people to get the weapons.. So your taxes would be used for more weapon sales checking, perhaps gun safty courses etc... My newly blue state house is now looking to repeal the "stand your ground" law.. I knew we had the law, but I didn't know some of the extra stupidity in it until I read about the appeal.. I don't know if it is in all states with this law, but with ours, we did sort of make a person spraying bullets because he-or-she "felt threaten" protected by something similar to the "Good Sameritan" law.. Any innocent bystander killed or maimed because they happened to be in the vacinity as the idiot sprayed bullets could not sue, for loved ones who died, or if they ended up paralized or something.. Also it was "OK" to brandish a gun.. Let me tell you if my son or spouse where killed, because someone freaked out and pulled a gun on someone else, and they were simply in a the wrong place at the wrong time. I would definately want to sue (if they got any money). I also want to see them to go to prison for it. The castle law of only shoot if you can't flee (and better be a good shot and only hit the bad guy).. Is good enough..

But you guys!! your missing SR540's point.. The schools figure out how to pay for it! In other words, not his problem... Each school should just find that old money tree in the back of their school yard and pluck the $$$$$ off that old tree. No mess, no fuss with extra taxes is needed. Now don't bother him about such nonsense..

Yeah, after watching Gov. Christie, I thought this was a republican that might might have a chance to win the presidency. That is if he didn't insult too many reporters and others with his remarks. But, at least you know he is not spewing alot of BS with a much different hidden agenda. Problem is, I think he has been to critical of Republicans to win the primary, at least for the 2016 election.. Perhaps if Republicans can someday move more center right one day, he could run then. If not, perhaps over time he can be like former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and turn Democrat with a similar statement of "I didn't leave my party, my party left me." After all they both have committed the same sin of working well with the President, in a bi-partisan way. The NRA ad of Pres. Obama's children, and the children behind Pres. Obama as he signed the bill are entirely different cases.. The children behind Obama were invited to be at the event. The children wanted to be their and had their parents permission. For everyone involved it was a special, proud and momentous occasion. Those who equated it to Hitler with kids, or Stalin with kids, had nothing to do with the event at all, but of their view of the president. Hitler or Stalin with children wouldn't be an eerie site either, if they were just someones average Uncle Charlie, who was a never broke any law more serious then a traffic ticket. Those of us who see the president favorably, have no such view of comparing Obama to Hitler. I am sure the parents who equate Obama to Hitler, declined the invitation and stayed home. The ad using President Obama's children, did not have the children's or the Presidents consent. Perhaps our personal view of the NRA makes us see the whole tone and demeanor of the ad as sick, degrading and hinting at placing a target on their backs.. But, the main thing is that the people the ad depicted, where used in a way they saw as sick and degrading, and did not have a choice on if they wanted to be in the ad or depicted that way. With Politicians and movie stars, you rarely see or hear about their children except for a picture of them attending some event with their parents, or a very friendly family shoot with the permission of the Parents and the children. When the children choose to also take up politics or acting, and become a public figure in their own rights, then they are fodder for the media, but not until.. This is an unwritten rule that even the paparazzi of the Tabloids seem to follow. edited for clarity (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Well, newspaper stories might cause someone to freak out and murder another or perhaps incite a riot.. Perhaps.. But, if so, the newspaper that printed the story may face someone legal action against them over it, even if truthful, if it can be proved the story incited a riot or something. Some silly nonsense about "with rights come responsibility".. But, if newspapers do start causing similar deaths as guns did, and the recommendation was that in order to uphold the freedom of speech regardless of the countless riots and murders it produced, the answer was to triple the countries S.W.A.T. force, and put a private armed guard with anyone who the paper does a questionable story on.. Yeah, I could see taxing the newspapers to pay for thier decision to constantly use free speech in irresponsible ways..

I think what RR & the DE did is the right course.. If you don't know how to handle the situation you move it up the chain. The higher up you go, the more often they will have had the experince and training on what is the right course. If the Council Professionals see it as a problem to be dealt with by the unit level, they will push it back down with some possible solutions they could consider. If they think it is sever enough, they will consider getting law enforcement involved (personnal I also would think over the top, if no one was cut.) or they could make the decision to remove the scout with the knife from scouting which at the council level would mean banning him from even going to another unit.. I know of one incident where a scout used a knife to poke holes in a the canvas wall tents they use at boy scout tents. He was banned permenantly from scouts.. Now you might say to the council their personal property is of utmost importance.. Still to me, I would of seen the response being something like working at the camp for a time to work the cost of the tent off.. RR it was not our council, it was a council in MA, so how our council will treat the situation may not be the same as that council.. I am just saying that it is questionable at what level the council will consider this incident. Let the professionals label it, and call it.. The DE will learn with this experience and will have better knowledge of how to handle it for next time.. Hopefully RR with less units to oversee wont get a similar situation, but she to will learn from the recommendations the council makes on how to call it.

Why is the host of a party held responsible if they hold a party and allow a drunk guest to drive home, and he kills someone? Why is the home owner held responsible if he doesn't safeguard their pool, and the neighborhood kid, gets in and drowns.. Why could you be in trouble if an under aged drinking party takes place in your home by your son, while you are not home? Why can you be sued if a delivery guy comes to your house and slips and falls on the ice? It is called personal responsibility. In order to own something or do something you take the responsibility for the privilege. It does not keep you from owning said item. It just forces you to be responsible for said item.. If you took the legal precautions and the actions happen anyway, then you will not be legally responsible.. Like if you safe guard your pool as required and a kid still finds a way to get in.. then you would not be liable.. Same with the guns.. If you you safeguard your guns, and someone breaks the safeguards, your would be fine.. In other words take the extra 5 minutes and spend the extra $50 bucks.. Be responsible. Quit the whining.