Rick_in_CA

And you are missing my point. I don't care WHY she is making up lies about the GSUSA, just that she is. And yes, the statement I quoted is a lie. I get that she has strong feelings against the GSUSA. I get that she doesn't agree with it's policies and values. If she wants to complain and campaign publicly about and against the GSUSA, more power too her. But when she then takes it to the level of making up lies about the GSUSA to "make her point", she has moved into wacko territory. Unfortunately, this is becoming so common on the wacko right, that it isn't even considered unacceptable in many circles. And I don't understand your point @. I get that from her religious point of view the GSUSA is wrong. What I don't understand is how that justifies lying? Or are you saying that because of her religious point of view, she is not capable of understanding the difference between truth and falsehood? Or that any statement about GSUSA is acceptable as long as it's negative, regardless of it's truth? I don't buy that.

How? You wrote: "I have heard that the staff at Girl scout camps is sometimes as much as half lesbian." You then continued under the assumption that it was true. Your rant however is nonsense because the "half lesbian" stuff is nonsense. Just because "I have heard..." something doesn't make it true. If you want to rant about GSUSA camp staff being half lesbian, you need to present some evidence that the claim is true if you want anyone to take such an extreme claim seriously. Look, my point was that it is easy to find people saying ridiculous things about GSUSA (and about the BSA, and about <... insert topic here ...>). That doesn't mean you should take them seriously.

It isn't completely clear, but reading Bishop Kagan's letter, it looks like he doesn't know that the GSUSA is a different organization than the BSA?

One of the reasons that scouts uses the native American symbolism, is that it was popular with the boys of the time. Along with Tom Sawyer, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boon, the books of James Fenimore Cooper, etc. When was the last time a Davy Crockett movie was made? Visited Disneyland's Frontierland lately (it's all pirates now)? Ask your scouts if they ever read The Last of the Mohicans, or even heard about it? See you kids running around outside playing cowboy and indians lately? That is why I think a lot of the native American (and general frontiersman) imagery doesn't stir the boys like it used to (though a well done OA ceremony can be quite effective). If the BSA was looking for some sort of symbolism today, I think you would much more likely to see something like Jedi Knights. They are something the kids know and like, it wouldn’t be hard to build a sense of mystery around Jedi Knights, and there is a ready made code of conduct that can be adapted (ignoring licensing issues). Lots of the same stuff the native American symbolism brought to the table back then. The one important thing that is missing with Jedi Knights however, is a strong connection to the outdoors. Unfortunately I don't know of any popular cultural memes that have that outside of reality television (Survivor, Man vs Wild, Naked and Afraid, etc.). Which is why I agree with people that if the scouting movement was starting today, it probably wouldn’t have a strong outdoor focus.

What she said is this: Note, she is not saying something of the form: "I believe the wrongheaded policies and poor values of the Girl Scouts will lead girls into promiscuity". She is saying that the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood are deliberately working together to encourage promiscuity specifically to generate clients for PP's abortion and STD services. Which I consider an absurd statement. That is what she said. Read the quote! Are you denying that is what that quote means? "These groups work together…†implies willfulness. “…thereby creating clients…†denotes a specific reason for the willful action. I'm not sure what the organizations focus and beliefs have to do with parsing the English language.

Wow. So when I ask that the BSA follow it's stated values and allow my CO to follow it's religious beliefs when picking it's leaders, I am being intolerant of the conservative religious COs that don't agree with my CO? But when they insist that my CO NOT be allowed to follow it's religious beliefs, they aren't being intolerant? I don't think I undestand your definition of "intolerant". It's like the old joke about the Puritan complaining about the end of the death penalty for Catholics:

So the wacko is basically claiming something like this happened: Planned Parenthood: "I would be great if we could increase the number of women taking advantage of our STD and abortion services." GSUSA: "Hey, maybe we could help you with that. Any suggestions?" PP: "Hmm... How about if you teach your girls scouts to be promiscuous and risk taking. That would increase the number of STDs and unwanted pregnencies among the girls right? Then you could direct them to us and we would get more customers!" GS: "That sound like a great idea. We'll get right on it!" Which is completely untrue. So no, I don't consider that "it makes sense from the speakers point of view".

I have also heard that the Girl Scouts works together with Planned Parenthood to “steal children’s innocence and make them vulnerable to the negative consequences of promiscuity thereby creating clients for their abortion and STD servicesâ€. Yeah, right. Just because some wacko says it on their radio program (or on the internet) doesn't make it true.

One of the things I love about this forum. I learn so much. I never heard of World Scout Scarf Day until I read this post! To bad I didn't see it until I was home for the evening I could have worn my scout necker to the outdoor concert I went too.

I'm so very sorry to hear that. You have my condolences. Such things are never easy. Know you have friends in many places whether you know our faces or not. You and yours are in my prayers.

I'm a former reenactor myself (it's been a while), and I agree with you about FARBs. Especially when doing a public educational display (excuse me, but they didn't wear sunglasses during the civil war, and no, you can't carry a samurai sword). Though it can be a real debate about how realistic to be (and at which point does your presentation move from educational family fun too a not-family friendly horror show). Back when I was doing reenacting, the ww2 and civil war groups didn't allow women to do a male impression (i.e. dress up and pretend to be a man). Now days, I see more than a few women in the civil war groups doing male impressions (I haven't had contact with the ww2 groups in years - I have no idea what they are doing now). There was also the debates about language (use of the n-word), and how to present the more unpleasant side of things. Most just ignore the more unpleasant bits (because after all most people do this stuff for fun, and the bad stuff isn't fun). But there is a point where ignoring the unpleasant bits itself presents a false impression. It's can be an uneasy balance (think about the debates Colonial Williamsburg had about if and how to do slave auctions - it's important but NOT fun).

They are being asked to respect the religious faiths of others that believe differently on this issue. You know, follow the scout law?

I have to agree with @@Stosh here, there are effects from this that will take some time to shake out, so it isn't "over" yet. While I believe that local control is the only choice that honors the fundamental BSA values of respect for other faiths (yeah I know, those religious faiths don't deserve respect), it will still generate some large effects. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy. The LDS pulling out would have a significant effect nationally. What the long term effect of the LDS leaving is hard to tell. But the short term would be a big negative as the LDS supplies a lot of direct support at the local level (at least half of our council's round tables are in LDS facilities, not to mention district and council recognition dinners and other like events).

Depends on what is meant by coed. I can easily see TL and AHG merging, but I don't see them merging their units beyond the committee level. The reason is that TL doesn't allow female leaders (though they do allow female committee members). Last I heard, AHG didn't allow male leaders. So the troops would have to function as single gender units, so at the scout level they would not be coed.

To take the question seriously, nothing exists in a vacuum. Part of the reason the boy scouts exists in it's current form had a lot to do with the concerns of early 20th century society. Look at Seton's League of Woodcraft Indians (in fact Seton was friends with Baden-Powell, and gave him a copy of his book the Birch Bark Roll in 1906. It heavily influenced his Scouting for Boys.). The same cultural concerns that led to the Boy Scouts also led to Seton's Woodcraft Indians and Dan Beard's Sons of Daniel Boon (both of which were merged into the brand new BSA in 1910). So any organization starting today will reflect today's concerns and culture. The Native American, Frontiersmen and Kipling inspired elements would be gone (along with westerns and coonskin hats), probably replaced with Jedi knights and Harry Potter style wizards. So what are the cultural concerns of today that would drive the creation of an outdoor focused organization? As others have pointed out, our society is much more competitive than it was earlier. So every youth activity is put through the "how will this help my kid get into college?" filter. It becomes about documenting achievement (hence the desire for MB mills and the like) instead of character building. So any outdoor focused organization would have to have a program the looked good on a college application (STEM Scouts), or be an occasional or one off thing that won't get in the way of more academic pursuits (like the Duke of Edinburgh Award). Our society is much more fear based along with having an extended childhood. So I don't think boy-led would be a thing.

I live in California and I have no idea what they are talking about either. Wait, there is the white, cold, fluffy stuff that you can drive too and visit in the wintertime. I wonder if that is what they are talking about?

This is something else I don't remember much of: homesickness. I never had it that I can remember, nor do I remember it being much of an issue in our troop. I wonder if modern parenting styles increase it? By the time I hit boy scouts, the idea of spending time away from my parents wasn't very novel. Even before cub scouts I went to the three day camps in Indian Guides (of course my Dad was there for those camps so I guess it doesn't really count. Even though the adults slept in a different building from the kids). I do remember the first day of kindergarten and a some of the kids crying as their mommies left them for the day. I didn't understand it then either. I remember asking the kid next to me why is he crying? He said "because mommy left!" I replied: "you know she is coming back after school right?"

When I was a scout at summer camp, I don't remember there being any activity being "booked". The swimming hole was always "free swim", the rifle and archery ranges were always drop in (sometimes there was a line and you had to wait a bit). Same with the boats, get in line and take the next free one (and there were plenty so I never remember waiting - except during the canoeing MB class). Yes the MB classes would "book" time on the ranges and such, but the classes were small so they wouldn't take up the whole rifle range, or use all the boats. Until I got to this forum, I never even heard of the concept of "troop swim", or the idea of a camp having specially designated "free periods". If a scout decided to work on three MBs, that was considered a heavy load and he was warned by the scout master about leaving time for fun. In our troop, no one was allowed to take more than three at summer camp - most only did one. Yes there was a schedule (meal times, lights out, camp wide events, etc.), but most of a scouts time was unscheduled. To be honest, scout camp today sounds to much like school to be fun for my taste. Way to much structure! No wonder people find it "stressful". Same with me. I think the SM and ASMs only had a basic idea where everyone was. If they saw us changing into bathing suits and heading off with towels, they figured we were going to the swimming hole. If we had our fishing poles, we were going fishing. They usually asked us where we were going, but sometimes the answer was "I don't know, run around for a bit". If you had a first aid MB class at 2:30, it was the scouts responsibility to remember and get there on time. Same at home. My parents wanted to have some idea of where I was and who I was with. But often all they knew was "I'm going bike riding with Charles." Too which they would reply: "OK, dinner is at six."

When is was working in the pits for our district pinewood derby, I was running the lubrication station (that is where we retrieve the cars from impound and allow the owners to add graphite lube to the wheels), a cub came up with his dad. The boy tried to pickup the car but dad didn't let him. As dad was lubing the car, the cub (I think he was a wolf) looked at me and said rather sadly "he never lets me touch the car". Dad's reply was "I let you pick the color". I wanted to smack that dad and tell him "this isn't the point of all this!".

True. But what @@SpEdScouter described: is specifically disallowed. Allocating money based on fund raising performance is a problem. The blog post I linked to goes into this pretty well.

I remember when I was a scout at summer camp, on skit nights we would usually see multiple Monty Python skits. The most popular of was the Lumberjack Song. I remember one year where there were three renditions by three different troops on the same night (with one ending with the scout in full drag). Not sure how scout appropriate it was, but everyone seemed to love it.

Actually, troops aren't supposed to do that (siphon money from fundraisers to the individual scouts). That is called fund raising fraud. While a lot of troops still do it, they shouldn't (a Scout is Honest). See this BSA blog entry on the issue for more info.

The girl scouts have the Powder Puff Derby, and our cub scout pack had plenty of female siblings building and racing cars. But I have been told that a lot of girl scout leaders think building and racing cars is too "masculine", so they look for more "feminine" activities. There are a lot of parents that are concerned with guiding their children into "gender appropriate" activities (my daughter isn't allowed to play basketball, that's too masculine - she can play volleyball instead. My son isn't allowed to sing in the school musical, it's too girly.).

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the vast majority of the world somehow makes it work. On the other hand I agree with some of the other posters that say boys need a place just to be boys (since there are so few of them now days). There is also our American paranoia and prudishness which is a problem. When it comes to girls, all men are "threats" first until proven otherwise (just look at how the GSUSA treats men - that isn't really driven by ideology, it's driven by fear). Currently, venturing has a low profile and most people have no idea that the BSA has a coed branch (I remember a conversation I overheard at the last Scout-O-Rama, there was a parent that was insisting to the parent next to her that the female venturers (in uniform) were in fact Girl Scouts or perhaps American Heritage Girls as she knew that the Boy Scouts didn't accept girls). But allowing girls in cub and boy scouting will be very high profile. How much do you want to bet if Boy Scouts went coed that YP rules would mandate separate camp sites, not just separate tents? Special restrictions on single men when dealing with female scouts (since while married men are threats, single men are worse threats)? Male and female only zones at scout camps? Male and female only swimming times at the swimming area? And coed patrols will guarantee that patrol camping (without adults) will NEVER be allowed again in the BSA. Yes the rest of the world makes it work, but a lot of them tend to be much less uptight and fear driven then we are. Boys and girls tenting together? Sure. Boys and girls changing in front of each other? No big deal. I have even read articles that claim that German coed scout troops will go skinny dipping together (I have no idea if that claim is true - but since Germany is the land of coed locker rooms, nude sunbathing in city parks, and no clothing allowed coed hot tubs and saunas - I do find it somewhat believable). There are already far too many silly and counterproductive (and as it has been pointed out in multiple threads here - some are actively harmful to youth) rules in the BSA. My big fear is that allowing girls will just give National the excuse to create a whole raft of new ones.

If that happens, click the little button on the upper left and switch out of formatted mode, then look for the block. Put your cursor after it and start typing. Hit the upper left button again to switch back into formatted mode.