sherminator505

You see a continuum from that event to the present day. First we got the program experiment of 1972 that, despite official utterances, never really ended. Then we got this Mission Statement that talks about "moral and ethical choices" and ignores the whole point of the exercise, namely citizenship. As B-P so eloquently stated of Scouting in Scouting For Boys, "it is, in a word, a school of citizenship through woodcraft." Unfortunately, we have "progressed" from having Scouting be active in the community to removing Scouting from view in the community and sequestering it in church basements, and we have "progressed" from raising up strong citizens to carefully molding sheeple! In effect, we have forgotten the point of the exercise.

In the article, a BSA representative stated that allowing another organization to call itself Youthscouts would be "diluting the meaning of what it means to be a Scout in the United States." I find this ironic, as the BSA has been doing that themselves for four decades now!

This thread needed hijacking, begged for it actually. Still wondering where GP1971's post came from, though. That was completely random.(This message has been edited by Sherminator505)

I think a whole lot of energy has been misspent on this whole Chick-fil-A thing. Basically an old coot who happens to own a restaurant chain says something about gay marriage and that gets liberals all upset (this happens far too often with liberals) and they start making noise about it. This causes conservatives to rise up in righteous indignation (this happens far too often with conservatives) and then we have Chick-fil-A day and kiss-ins and all sorts of nonsense. Basically what we have here is a massive pointless expenditure of time and energy and emotion.

@ BadenP- What I see happening in the BSA (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the BSA is trying very hard not to look like Royal Ambassadors on steroids as it becomes Royal Ambassadors on steroids. I mean, if the percentage of units chartered by religious institutions has gone up from 46% in 1972 to 69% in 2011, with the number of units sponsored by civic groups and PTAs dropping and the number of units sponsored by religious institutions holding steady at about 78,000, wouldn't it seem that the churches are doing all they can and that the BSA ought to be approaching civic groups to charter more units? Instead, they are trying to get *more* religious institutions to charter units. It doesn't seem like that approach will yield more units, but it does suggest a very skewed set of priorities driven more by ideology than a desire for growth.

@GP1971- This is the Issues and Politics forum. Interestingly, no one was talking about Scouting except you. Here's a tip. Next time you want to throw up an indignant post panning the entire discussion, make sure it matches the discussion.

I like the idea. I think Cubs would have no problems getting it, and it would make sense for the Venturers as it would be consistent with our Mission Statement (such as it is).

Even pudgy, apathetic, non-participating individuals are capable of making moral, ethical choices...

Yes, SeattlePioneer, I'm sure that from your perspective you showed more decorum at your ECOH. Whatever.

I would say yes. Yes it has.

Normally, I don't repost. But it is more germane to this discussion: BEGIN REPOST "I don't see that the Congressional charter is of any practical significance beyond an endorsement of Scouting by a political body." Really?! Well, I suppose if you apply post-1972 "standards" then I guess you could justify that statement. But let's take a look at what Congress actually endorsed when it granted the Congressional Charter... In the preface to "Scouting for Boys," B-P writes: "Therefore the aim of the Scout training is to replace Self with Service, to make the lads individually efficient, morally and physically, with the object of using that efficiency for the service of the community." Earlier in the preface B-P offers the following eloquent description of Scouting: "It is, in a word, a school of citizenship through woodcraft." For many years after this, Scouting remained true to this vision. Consider the following, which appeared in the "Handbook for Scoutmasters" for many years: "THE AIM OF SCOUTING - SCOUTING trains for CITIZENSHIP by inculcating in the boy, from within instead of without, the qualities of Character, Health and Strength, Handicraft and Skill, and Service to Others." (CAPS in the original text) In 1972, "Aim" became "Aims" and the vision of Scouting became muddled. This was followed by the "Mission Statement" we are familiar with today: "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." There is nothing of citizenship here! This is something that any boy, Scout or not, can get in any church, temple, synagogue or mosque! So if the program we are now offering is not the program we promised the American people in seeking the Congressional Charter, and the Charter is now "fluff" that we as an organization can dishonor at our choosing (being a private organization and all), then we should probably be honest about that fact and disavow the Charter entirely! END REPOST

What do the British know about Scouting anyway? *sarcasm off*(This message has been edited by Sherminator505)

"I don't see that the Congressional charter is of any practical significance beyond an endorsement of Scouting by a political body." Really?! Well, I suppose if you apply post-1972 "standards" then I guess you could justify that statement. But let's take a look at what Congress actually endorsed when it granted the Congressional Charter... In the preface to "Scouting for Boys," B-P writes: "Therefore the aim of the Scout training is to replace Self with Service, to make the lads individually efficient, morally and physically, with the object of using that efficiency for the service of the community." Earlier in the preface B-P offers the following eloquent description of Scouting: "It is, in a word, a school of citizenship through woodcraft." For many years after this, Scouting remained true to this vision. Consider the following, which appeared in the "Handbook for Scoutmasters" for many years: "THE AIM OF SCOUTING - SCOUTING trains for CITIZENSHIP by inculcating in the boy, from within instead of without, the qualities of Character, Health and Strength, Handicraft and Skill, and Service to Others." (CAPS in the original text) In 1972, "Aim" became "Aims" and the vision of Scouting became muddled. This was followed by the "Mission Statement" we are familiar with today: "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." There is nothing of citizenship here! This is something that any boy, Scout or not, can get in any church, temple, synagogue or mosque! So if the program we are now offering is not the program we promised the American people in seeking the Congressional Charter, and the Charter is now "fluff" that we as an organization can dishonor at our choosing (being a private organization and all), then we should probably be honest about that fact and disavow the Charter entirely!(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

@ eoleson - So you *would* ignore/gloss over any promises/expectations implied by the granting of a Congressional Charter, correct?

The Congressional Charter is fluff?! Well, if you wish to ignore/gloss over any promises or expectations implied in the issue of such a Charter, then I guess that is what you would say.