ParkMan

I'd be interested to get Mike's opinion on what a troop should do. Much of what I see in his comments a unit could do today. Increase the adventure in your troop program. Make your troop program less coddling. Etc. I grant that National has restricted too many things in the name of safety. But I bet there is lot troops could do now to start the process.

This is my feeling too. Our program is our program. The scouts are still going to have great experiences and it will be fun and rewarding to help make that happen. I do get the feeling of hurt. Folks know that I think the membership changes are for the better- but I really do understand the hurt and betrayal they are causing. Despite that, I just keep thinking about the scouts and the wonderful adventures. None of these national changes will change that. So, for me I don't have a big concern about the future. I'll keep Scouting as long as interested kids show up that want to have the great Scouting adventure.

Hypothetically speaking... Were this the District Award of Merit. In my book, I think a district should feel free to award this to an individual once per district. The recipient hangs the plaque on his wall next to the other one. But, the recipient only wears one uniform knot. The uniform knot is a recognition that you've earned the award. I think you just wear it once. On the District Award of Merit nomination form, it says: It is not appropriate to nominate a Scouter who has already received this award. So, if the nominator paid attention to that, he should not have nominated that person. But, if the nominator ignores it and the District Award or Merit committee selects that nomination, then the recipient should gracefully accept it.

I Our troops challenge is coming up with adventurous ideas. We all most never veto an idea because of G2SS rules. Maybe we could have some of the grey-beards share some ideas we could learn from. I'd appreciate it.

What I meant by changed is that my world is much broader than my fathers and even more than his fathers. When my dad was a kid, vacation was somewhere in the state. When I was a kid, vacation was a trip to the beach. Today, my kids go to national parks all over the country, travel to Europe, etc. Travel is just less expensive than it once was. My kids have 200+ TV channels with stories about exotic places, survival experts, etc. When i was a kid we had National Geographic, a few TV channels, and the movies. I remember one of the troop high adventure trips a few years ago. By coincidence my family was visiting many of the same places at National Parks on the west coast. We'd see an email from the troop that they'd gone somewhere and I'd think - yep, we'll be there tomorrow. When I was a kid you'd do things in Scouting you couldn't other places. Now my kids just go on vacations with us.

I'm just trying to figure out how to build a bridge here.

As a Catholic, I knew of the group and had certainly heard of it before, but have not dealt with them. In doing my research on the topic, I looked them up and checked their position. I'm comfortable with them as a voice who has looked over the issues at hand from a Catholic perspective. But my CO is Presbyterian - so there's no way I'd have dealt with them anyways.

This is more in line with what I have seen too. The Scouting program is not providing the sense of adventure, challenge, and fun that it did generations ago. So, many boys are simply losing interest in it. Whether it's because we've become safer, because boys have raised their expectations, or something else - I'm not sure. It feels plausible that it's because the current crop of Scout leaders have been driven to be less adventurous and more risk adverse - but again, I don't really know.

Yep - I think that's a pretty spot on analysis of the situation. Not sure that I agree that being safe is the core problem, but it's an idea and props to him for thinking up a solution.

My sense is that groups like this exist to allow a faith (or really any group) to have a more co-ordinated voice on issues in Scouting that impact the faith. if you had 5,000 churches in a faith each saying their own thing, it would be hard for that faith to have much influence. So groups like this exist to provide that singular voice. I figured as it was overseen by a bishop that someone must have decided it makes sense.

I'd welcome us to focus on the 95% we have in common. I think that would be wonderful.

Just noting that these folks are volunteers like you or I. It's just that instead of being a unit committee member, they are on the national board.

The point is that it's the Chartered Organization's choice - not the BSA's. The BSA says - religious CO, you establish your membership standards as it makes sense for your beliefs. That's up to you. No gays - that's the CO's call. No girls - that's the CO's call. The BSA isn't forcing the CO to do anything with respect to gay, transgender, or female members. The CO is free to implement the program that is consistent with it's beliefs. That passage from the Catholic church is merely confirming that. They are saying - yes, we agree that it's our choice and the BSA is leaving it up to us. If the Bishops come along and say "nope, you can't exclude gay members", that's the church's choice - not the BSA's.

I'm Catholic and did a little searching for information on my church's take on this topic. I found a very illustrative statement at: http://www.nccs-bsa.org/pdf/letters/NCCS.20170208.Press.Release.pdf Here they write: The BSA has stipulated that religious partners will continue to have the right to make decisions for their units based on their religious beliefs. Scouting’s chartered organizations have the right to uphold their own moral standards within the units they charter. The teachings of the Catholic Church are upheld! Thus this change by the BSA has no impact on the operation and program delivery of scouting program in Catholic Chartered units. Further down: A Catholic parish can establish a membership guideline that follows Catholic teaching.

I never said set aside your personal beliefs. What I said was should not feel slighted that the BSA has a membership policy that doesn't agree with your moral beliefs. It's not that BSA judging your beliefs. It's not the BSA telling you how to live your life or what morals you should impart to your kids. From the BSA website: We work to ensure every youth and adult member has the opportunity to join a local unit that aligns with his or her beliefs and with the experience he or she wants within the Scouting community. You seem to be pushing a narrative that because the BSA is allowing gay members that it is devaluing your beliefs and morals. I continue to find no evidence of that at all. Further, I see no evidence at all that the inclusion of gay members in the larger BSA program in any way impeeds the ability of your youth to fully follow your morals while upholding the Scout law and oath to it's fullest.

Welcome @hardrockscout! I'm glad you decided to join us here.

Welcome @CedarsEagle! Congrats on becoming Cubmaster too - a wonderful job in Scouting.

Yeah - wouldn't be such a bad thing if we challenged scouts more today. Perhaps a day will come that we'll once again recognize the value of challenge for the Scouts.

Wow - interesting history. I'm surprised a new organization became that visible so quickly.

Hah - that was me. I took JLT as a 12 (11 maybe) year old. Didn't work so well.

I think there are two different views of what the BSA represents. To me, the BSA provides a program that I can leverage to help my kids be better adults and have a good time along the way. Whether the specific policies of the BSA match my beliefs is less important. If you and I were in the same troop I'd tell you to not sweat this change and how it reflects on your personal beliefs. It's pretty clear from my postings that I support the inclusion of gay scouts and adults. Until a few years ago the BSA did not. I didn't feel slighted by the BSA during this time. I would encourage others to do the same.

I didn't say flexible moral code. Show me thus rigid moral code you speak of.

That's silly. There is a ton of things that were different in 1907 and not used in the BSA. We use them all the time now. To follow a strict interpretation of only what was done then doesn't make sense.

I said it does not have a rigid moral code. It has a very good moral code based in living to your best potential. It talks about being reverant - but doesn't say you have to be an altar boy. It talks about being physicslly strong, but doesn't say you have to run 3 miles a day.

Everyone's actions are influenced by the norms and culture of the day. BP is no different. What's important is to understand the aims he had and to interpret them correctly so we can implement his program correctly.