Rick_in_CA

Isn't that basically what they are doing? They put out a statement that they are not approving a new travel to the US. i.e. going somewhere else. They are reacting to things that are happening, not just what might happen. There have been multiple reports of Canadian's suddenly having trouble at the border. How is this grandstanding? They put out a notice to their members, and the media picked up on it. How else would they do something like this? And how is this without foundation? And it's not just the Canadian' Girl Guides. Multiple organizations such as Canadian schools have canceled trips to the US for the same reason. From: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/13/girls-guides-suspend-trips-to-us-citing-border-concerns.html Looks like real concern, not grandstanding. As for the "so some people a blocked, so what" attitude expressed by some in this forum, the Girl Guides address that. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/girl-guides-of-canada-cancelling-u-s-trips-due-to-uncertain-entry-rules-1.3323157 Seem a reasonable response to a valid concern to me. At least until more is known.

How is this nonsensical? I think it's a reasonable precaution. I'm a natural born US citizen, but I wouldn't take a scout unit into Canada in the current environment as I'm not sure I would be able to get them all back into the US without a problem. Especially if they are or look Muslim.

I agree with Stosh here. If it looks like the recharter is going to take a while, find a friendly pack with a charter, and see if they would be willing to "host" your pack's members for a while. Register everyone with that pack, and you are good to go until things get sorted out (register a few of your adults as an Assistant Cub Master or Member of Committee with the host pack so you are covered for YPT).

Wow, now that is what BP mean when he said "first class scout"! Of course if we tried this today, we would be sued and then arrested. Just this requirement alone would send multiple people to jail and get CPS involved: It's only a matter of time before the lifesaving merit badge replaces actual rescue techniques with "demonstrate how to summon help" and "discuss the dangers of trying to rescue a drowning person".

Actually they do allow some atheists, as long as they don't call themselves atheists. Also the BSA is 100% non-sectarian, not simply non-denominational.

Well, that would explain a few things wouldn't it?

Where does the BSA say this?

I have to agree with Col. Flagg here. I think the core outdoor program (patrol method, etc.) is what makes the BSA unique, and it should be the center piece of what the BSA does. Not that they shouldn't try new things, but it should always come back and tie into the core program. As for numbers, the reality is that a large part of the drop in BSA membership over the years has nothing to do with the BSA, but with changes in society at large. More activity choices, societal fear and competition, changes in technology, etc. all contribute to dropping numbers. As flag points out, the question now is where is the equilibrium point, and how does the BSA maximize that number?

I was referring to the issue that in modern English grammar, most treat the word "God" as a proper name when it referrers to monotheistic deities and not in other cases. That is what it said in my grammar book when I was in school (actually it explicitly said only capitalize the Judaeo-Christian God), and in the AP Style Guide and many other sources. So you get examples like: "I prayed to God", "The Greeks once widely worshiped the god Zeus", and "This is a prayer to the Hindu god Vishnu.". It is this "rule" of capitalization that I have seen used to argue that when the DRP (and other writings) capitalize "God", that means the authors are excluding any non-monotheistic or non-Judaeo-Christian religions. This is not something I agree with, especially in the context of the DRP. I once watched a scouter use this capitalization "rule" to explain why a Hindu scout couldn't do his duty to God.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The BSA requires that leaders agree with the DRP, but asks them to do so without having really seen it. What is on the application is a paraphrase of the DRP. From the application: The actual DRP from the bylaws: There are some key differences. I have met more than one scouter (including an ordained protestant minister) that had no problem with the "short" DRP on the application but couldn't accept the full version in the bylaws (though I admit in the case of the protestant minister, I couldn't understand the basis of his objection - it had something to do with the "grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings" bit. Huh?). I think the reason the BSA replaces the DRP with a paraphrase is because the full version is so obviously written from a Judaeo-Christian perspective (my understanding is that the full DRP is almost identical to one written by James West - which he brought over from the YMCA, an explicitly Christian group). Which doesn't go with "absolutely nonsectarian". So the "hiding" of the full DRP brings up the question: "what is the BSA really asking when they say accept the DRP?" Are they asking that scouters accept the "spirit" of the DRP (whatever that is), or accept it to the letter? I suspect that many Buddhists would have a problem with the full DRP (the whole "ruling and leading power" bit) but the BSA has been on record for years saying Buddhists are welcome. I know I have a problem with the "fundamental need of good citizenship" bit because I don't accept the idea that Buddhists and others that don't believe in a creator god somehow can't be good citizens. And if we take it literally, we can argue that only Jews and Christians can accept it because a capitalized "God" is a proper name and therefor referring to (and only referring too) the Judaeo-Christian god, God. Which is clearly not the BSA's current intent. So what does it really mean?

Which makes some sense. But they could have just replaced it with something that clearly said "no alcohol around the scouts". Instead we get "check the rules" without a listing of the rules.

Yah. Too bad about all those Buddhists though.

@@RichardB I find the new section on Alcohol less clear. The old GTSS clearly stated: i.e. not allowed around scouts or on BSA property. The new one says: Which says alcohol is prohibited only when it's illegal or in violation of "any Scouting rules, regulations, and policies". But it doesn't say what the rules, regulations or policies about alcohol are. The Scouter Code of Conduct says basically the same thing. I find this new GTSS section significantly more ambiguous than the old one. How is the new one better than the old "no alcoholic beverages" statement?

Yes it does. This is how it was explained to me by someone from National: "If the person doesn't have a belief in a god, it's fine as long as they don't use the word "atheist" to describe themselves. If they call themselves a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Taoist, a Pantheist, a Unitarian, or a ... then they are OK. It's the label that is the problem, not the belief. The BSA is not in the business of judging anyone's faith." - or words to that effect, it was quite a few years ago. I think part of the problem is that a lot of people don't know what the word "atheist" really means. They think an atheist is someone that thinks anyone that believes in God is stupid (there are some atheists that do think that, but that is not inherent to being an atheist), which is incorrect. An atheist is simply a non-theist. There are priests out there that are atheists, there are entire religions that are atheistic in nature. But many people still think an atheist is someone that will automatically insult their faith, instead of just being someone with a different faith. Hence the "atheist are bad" idea. I have even met atheists that claim they don't believe in any sort of god, or a soul, or an afterlife, or anything "spiritual", but insist they aren't atheists because atheists are "bad" and they aren't that. It's a very misunderstood word. Of course part of the definition problem is in order to properly define "atheist", you need to define "theist". And to understand that you need to first come of with a definition of "god" or "deity", and to do that ... (and down the rabbit hole we go...).

I think part of the reason (and only part) it's such a big issue is that the USA still has a strong puritanical streak. Look at all the fuss about sleeping arrangements whenever this topic comes up. I understand that with our European counterparts, coed sleeping arrangements are not uncommon (in international scout camps like Kandersteg, I understand that single sex sleeping quarters are only by special request). They look at us and don't understand the fuss. It's right up there with beer for the older scouts at camp outs (at least in Germany). Compared to a lot of cultures, we are incredibly uptight. Which means that we need a lot more rules and procedures (and a lot more CYA type behaviors) to handle coed units than a German unit would. Not to mention that in our sue happy and semi-hysterical society, our legal risks are also probably greater. For me, I know the day that the BSA goes coed is the day that I buy umbrella liability insurance. Basically I fear that coed scouting will simply be harder to do here than in many other countries.

Actually what I think happened is that the BSA didn't have a policy on TG youth (one way or another) at all until someone told the recent kid "no". It's not clear (to me at least) at what level the "no"decision was made (council, regional or national) and by whom. My guess is that the "no" had been issued without a lot of discussion at the national level. So suddenly the folks at the top realized that had a policy now, and not one they had put much (if any) thought into. So they had a choice, stick with and defend this new policy and all the baggage that came with it, or come up with the policy that they actually want (and all the baggage that comes with that - at least they get to pick their baggage). Going back to having no policy on the question was no longer an option. And they had to do it pretty quick. That is why it appeared to largely come out of the blue. I think we would still be here even if the parents of that kid hadn't sued. It was the "no" that was the trigger, not the suit.

You don't consider 38 percent substantial? I do. What it isn't is a tiny minority.

Just look at the BSA's own polling on the issue: http://web.archive.org/web/20160415130812/http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Summary.aspx It includes data like: A majority of Boy Scouts and Venturers oppose allowing chartered organizations to follow their own beliefs if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next. According to a majority of current Boy Scouts and Venturers, the current policy does not represent a core value of Scouting. and for scout parents: The research finds a significant shift in attitudes regarding the BSA policy on homosexuality. Three years ago, parents supported the current BSA policy by a wide margin—58 percent to 29 percent. Today, parents oppose the policy by a 45 percent to 42 percent margin. Three years ago, 57 percent of parents of current Scouts supported the policy. Today, only 48 percent of parents of current Scouts support the policy. and for adult scouters: Respondents support the current policy by a 61 percent to 34 percent margin. Support for the current policy is higher at different program and volunteer levels in the organization: 50 percent of Cub Scout parents support it; 45 percent of Cub Scout parents oppose. 61 percent of Boy Scout parents support it. 62 percent of unit leaders support it. 64 percent of council and district volunteers support it. 72 percent of chartered organizations support it. All of which adds up to "substantial support" for both sides.

Whether it is or isn't effecting membership numbers is separate from the idea that it was a change that didn't have significant support within the BSA. It did have significant support. Whether it was a good idea or not is a different argument.

I getting really tired of this type of argument. I heard the same thing on the gays issue. It's based on the idea that the only people who wanted the change in the membership rules around gay scouts and scouters were themselves gay or were a "tiny group of outsiders". That is very wrong. There were a lot of scouts and scouters that were in favor of the change, not because they themselves were gay, but because it was the right thing too do. It wasn't just in the interests of a few "gay potential scouts and scouters", but in the interests of all those scouts, scouters and COs that thought the policy was wrong. I'm one of those that spent years writing letters to national arguing that the ban on gay scouts and scouters was against the BSA values of non-sectarianism (as it's says in the bylaws and the scout law), that it discriminated against more progressive COs by denying them right to pick the leaders they wanted, that..., etc. Please understand that the BSA is not "owned" by the conservatives. That it has to make room for all. In my local council, we have more COs now than before the gay ban. We lost a few over the change, but we gained several more that were waiting for the ban to be lifted (including two synagogues that had sponsored units for decades - they left shortly after the Dale decision, and now are back). I admit the TG issue is not as clear as the gay issue was for the simple reason it wasn't really on most people's radar (I admit it wasn't on mine) and that national had not made any statements or given any direction on the issue until the recent case. And I think that was the trigger for all this. By telling this particular youth "no" on membership, National had suddenly created a de-facto policy on TG youth. And National responded by having an actual, thought out (well one hopes it was thought out - but this is National) policy instead of an accidental one. Which I think was the right thing to do.

And this is something I just can't understand. How are we loosing this? If a troop over there has a trans scout in their unit, you can't be their friend anymore? Is that what you are saying?

But you want it to reject the values of the other half of the country right? I believe the BSA is trying to move away from rejecting either half. The BSA should not be a conservative or liberal organization, Christian or non-Christian. No one group "owns" it. That was the big mistake of the Dale decision. The BSA decided to pick a side and that hurt it (and betrayed all of the scouts and scouters that weren't "on" that side). Now the BSA is trying to fix that mistake. This is why Trail Life exists. It's explicitly conservative and Christian (and only the right kind of Christian at that).

Other than disagreeing with the anti-liberal dig (this is a society wide issue, not a liberal or conservative issue) - Amen Barry!

There is an interesting study on why this whole "leaving kids unsupervised is dangerous" thing has grown. The perceived risk is exaggerated in order to justify the feeling that leaving kids alone is immoral. It's tied to helicopter parenting. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-are-we-so-afraid-leave-children-alone <= this article about the study has a link to the actual paper.

And it's getting worse. Now people are getting arrested and being hassled by social services for letting their kids walk to school or play in the park. Or the "he/she is too young to stay home without adult supervision, he is only 13". Huh? My first babysitters were 12 and 13 years old when I was little. Now 13 year-olds need babysitters?