NJCubScouter

I suspect there are a number of others here who remember it. All you have to do is be of the right, um, vintage, and involved in Scouting as a youth.

As you spend more time in this forum you will see that threads often go in "interesting" directions, sometimes 10-15 different directions simultaneously in a single thread. Quite often all it takes is one phrase that really has nothing to do with the actual topic, and we're off to the races. I did not know that. Can you give some examples, not necessarily names that we on the other side of the pond probably would not recognize, but the kinds of fields they are in or something else to give us an idea of what kind of people these are. Now see, right there is an example of where I could say something in response that would send this thread ricocheting off into parts unknown. But as George H.W. Bush may or may not have ever actually said, "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."

"Follow the Rugged Road", anyone?

I think this resolution leaves out some things that are important to a correct understanding of what the BSA's religion policy actually is, "on the ground." What I am about to say is "old hat" to most of those who read this forum, but unfortunately the vast majority of unit Scouters do not read this forum or any other Internet Scouting forum, to say nothing of Scouts and their non-leader parents, and perhaps more importantly, prospective Scouts and their non-leader parents. Examples: 1, It mentions "Duty to God" a lot, but it doesn't mention that the BSA does not define "Duty to God." The BSA does say that in other places, but not here. The BSA allows the member to define "Duty to God." It would have been a good idea to mention that. 2, To me, the section quoted from the DRP seems to imply that one must be a member of an organized religion in order to do one's Duty to God. That is not the case, and the DRP specifically says it is not the case, but they did not quote that part. They do say that the BSA is "absolutely nonsectarian in its view of religious training," but I don't think that covers it. The fact that you can be a non-member of any organized religion also implies that there may not be any "religious training," at least not outside the home. 3, If I did not know better, I might also get the impression that the BSA requires that you believe in the deity commonly known as "God," the monotheistic, anthropomorphic deity described in various versions of the Bible. That is not the case either. In practice, based on less "official" statements from the BSA over the years, the BSA requires one that one believe in a "higher power," and it does not define what that is. It is clear that it does include beliefs in multiple deities (i.e. Hinduism, Wicca and, I believe, some Native American faiths), and it also includes beliefs in amorphous, non-anthropomorphic deities that may have done little more than create the Universe and observe the results (i.e. deism.) I am not even going to get into Buddhism (see any one of a few dozen discussions in this forum over 15+ years about whether Buddhism fits into the BSA's "belief" requirement), and I also am not going to get into a BSA spokesman's long-ago comment about rocks and trees in the backyard, partly because I do not want to cause an unhealthy spike in Barry's blood pressure. 4, Again, if I did not know any better, I might think the "Duty to God" necessarily includes worship. The part quoted from the DRP about "grateful acknowledgement of His favors and blessings" implies just that. I think the bit quoted about "religious training" does as well. For most people, their religious belief does involve worship, but that is not required by the BSA. If you believe in a "higher power" that does not require worship, that's ok with the BSA - meaning that, at the very least, they are not going to kick you out. I do want to acknowledge one thing that I think is good in the resolution, which is the quotation from the definition of "Reverent" about respect for the beliefs of others. However, I don't think that makes up for the incorrect impressions that might be left by the rest of the resolution. To me, it sets a "tone" that is less "inclusive," belief-in-a-higher-power-wise, than the BSA actually is.

Well, I have never heard of Chris Pratt. I take it that I am in a minority in this regard, but the fact is that I am woefully (but mostly intentionally) deficient in my knowledge of celebrities in general, especially a lot of people who have become movie or tv stars in the last 30 or 40 years. I take it he has been in one or more of the recent "superhero" movies. The only one of those that I have ever seen (not counting older incarnations of Superman and Batman) is Iron Man, and I didn't see any of the sequels, if there were any. There have been a few times in the past few years when the first time I heard of a celebrity, who everybody else seemed to know all about, is when they passed away. I'm mostly talking about people who did not die of old age.

A lot of people on that list are deceased. And some are, perhaps, how shall I put this delicately, especially since I am not all that far behind them, perhaps a little TOO "experienced at life" to be a really effective public image for the BSA. On the other hand, how about "Bill Gates, Chief Scout"? I hear he's got some free time on his hands these days. But I can already hear the complaining from some quarters, and I am not actually serious. And I still don't think its a good idea in general, but going through the names is still interesting. I didn't know Jay Leno was a Scout. But not the Chief Scout.

I think being a leader does have a positive effect on most people. Most people can always improve their abilities to deal with other people, to assess situations and respond, to deal with difficult situations and difficult people, etc. Work and professional life provides some experience in doing so, but volunteering and working with kids provides a different kind of experience. Additionally, most of us here are not trained as teachers, so we learn how to pass along our knowledge and experience to young people only through practice in doing so. I also agree with what someone, I think it was EagleDad, said earlier: I think being a Scout leader has made me a better parent as well. It is not so much a matter of "character" and "Scout skills" as some of the less tangible things that I mention above.

I don't think the answer (to what question, I am not sure) lies in recruiting someone to be the "face" of the BSA. For one thing, look at Bear Grylls and the UK. What I have learned in this thread is that a significant number of people seem to think he's a fraud. (I have never really paid attention to Bear Grylls, and the only episode of his show I have ever seen was the one with President Obama, which I doubt was representative of his shows as a whole.) So if he is viewed as a fraud by a significant number of people, how does that help the image of Scouts UK? I also doubt that the answer lies in recruiting even a "real adventurer" if 99.9 % of people have never heard of him. Mike Rowe usually gets mentioned in these conversations, but based on the article he wrote recently, he seems (at best) skeptical of the direction the BSA is going in, so he is probably not what National is looking for. As for anyone else, well, you have to be careful these days. You're talking about taking an established organization and putting its public image in the hands of one person. Presumably that person would have a squeaky-clean image when he (and I am assuming it would be a he) is selected. Then the next week, the ex-secretary, the ex-wife, the ex-girlfriend-on-the-side, whoever, come forward telling stories that make the man's image not so squeaky-clean anymore. It's a real risk these days, and it wouldn't help the BSA any.

Oh. You're right. See, this is what happens when you only look at what shows up on a Google search results page and don't look at the actual page. I did go to Ten Mile River for summer camp one year when I was a Scout, actually it was one week of regular summer camp and one week of TLD (the 1970's predecessor of NYLT.)

I am just curious , you say in the thread title that you are from NY, and your council camp is Camp Alpine, but Alpine is the council camp for the Northern New Jersey Council. Does NNJC cross state lines? It turns out I was completely wrong, see below -- NJCS I know where Alpine is but have never been there. I am in Patriots Path Council.

Do you mean because of the admittance of girls into some packs? Does your son's pack have girls in it?

That's right. If you're going for a "look", you have to do it right or don't do it at all.

Here's hoping for the safety of all, as first priority, and then that the program and facilities are affected as little as possible.

Trail_on, welcome to the forum. I think we need a clearer time-line and some details of what happened here before people can give an opinion that is really relevant to the situation you are describing. If you are asking whether something that happened while a person was not a registered leader can be used as a reason for denying them registration (or re-registration) as a leader, the answer is yes (as others have said.)

Welcome Terasec!

I know. I was quoting another poster. The quoting in older posts no longer appears on the screen correctly. I was actually pointing out that Oscar de la Hoya was a boxer.

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.)

I'm missing the connection.

Amazing what those 12-step programs can do.

Yeah, yeah. Which makes it even more misleading, since Obi Wan knew it didn't happen that way. (I am trying to remain in the fictional universe here. I know it's just a movie and that George Lucas simply changed his mind and made a weak attempt in Episode VI to reconcile it.) And that's basically what he (or actually his ghost) says in Episode VI, but the way he says it, it sounds like he knows he's full of baloney, as my mother would say. And Luke knows it too. As besides, his explanation (especially if you call it "pyschological murder") doesn't work because by the end of that same movie, the "soul" of Anakin returns - right before he dies, and again when he appears as a ghost. So I guess his soul wasn't really dead. It was just hiding. Or pining for the fjords. Unless we are talking about resurrection here. Well, I see it as a good try.

I especially enjoy the pharmaceutical ads in which they are trying to sell you an asthma medicine where one of the possible side effects is that you may have trouble breathing. Or a medicine to deal with digestive problems that may cause digestive problems. (They don't say it exactly that way, of course, but that is what it adds up to.) A related thing that amuses me is ads for both minor things (like a skin rash) and major things (like a medication for people who have already had a heart attack) both often have possible side effects that may be fatal. I would be a little more likely to chance the fatal side effects if the thing I am trying to remedy (like having a second heart attack) is likely to be fatal all by itself. But if we are going to analogize this to the BSA, when you volunteer for the BSA they don't really tell you about the possible "side effects." In days of yore it didn't matter as much, but now the BSA works overtime churning out rules and regulations and obscure "codes of conduct" to shift the potential cost of a problem from them to "us," and most of "us" (not counting people who read this forum) don't even know it.

The problem is that you never know in advance which page that you skip (in the building code or the G2SS) is going to come back and bite you in the end - and in the wallet.

@RichardB, does the BSA realize that at some point, the cost and risk of volunteering ("cost" including time, and "risk" including statements such as appear above) is going to make people stop volunteering? I think that for some people, the point has already been reached. I also think that if all leaders actually read the Guide to Safe Scouting, a large number would decide that the point has been reached for them as well. Does the BSA recognize this as a problem and have a solution? Or is it just our problem?

Well, I do recall there were some Troubles...

They did. Of course, in the first film they said Darth Vader killed Luke's father, and in the next film Darth Vader was Luke's father, and no amount of verbal gymnastics by the ghost of Obi Wan in the third film can reconcile that. A certain point of view only goes so far. Not to mention the terrible thing the writers of the fourth movie (Episode I) did by turning the grand mystery of the Force into a matter of some bacteria-like things that you can measure with a blood test. By the beginning of the new trilogy, apparently the midichlorians never existed. Otherwise I have to believe that at some point, Rey would have been approached by a lab technician with a needle and a Band Aid...