skeptic

Yep, once again the pre-announcement of the resolution, not yet actually passed, has become REALITY in the press. I suppose they needed to have the actual resolution wording available for the voting members ahead of time, and it would have been leaked anyway, but now we are again where we were with the earlier announcement about the "local option". I do find it interesting that there has been little verbal jousting about the small, but definitely changed, adult wording that clarifies to some extent the definition of "Avowed", and adds wording to include other possible distraction bent leaders. It also very specifically appears to make it clear the pushing of ANY agenda is unacceptable. To me, that is a huge improvement and does give more support to the CO 's part in leadership selection.

Read the numerous comments on Bryan on Scouting on Facebook, as well as the comments directly on the Scouting Magazine site. Almost all are agreeing that this resolution is almost laughable and nothing more than trying to please everybody. Just do not know how much longer I can work in the trenches with the constant shadow of this foolishness over my head. But,will continue to try and simply do the program on the unit level and try to keep the politics at bay.

Well that's the lovely thing about membership organizations, you can always leave and start your own if you want or find another that fits your belief system. If I don't like AARP I can find another senior's group to belong to. Don't like my college because they encourage anti-conservative or liberal values? I can find myself a college that fits my belief system without forcing the obvious majority of people at said college to conform to mine. Why would you want to do such a rational and common sense thing?

Atheists like myself still obey the scout oath and law. The scout oath says: On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country I do my best. My best is that I do not believe there is a God. I think it is a children's story made up to put priests in power by selling people comforting myths and legends. The best I can do is my duty to my country. I pay my taxes. I vote. And I speak out. I volunteer for things. Etc. Likewise, I also obey the Scout Law: A Scout is reverent. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others. I am faithful in my religious duties. My religious duties are to wait for solid evidence of an afterlife or supreme being before I believe in one. In the meantime, I spend my time respecting the beliefs of others. Our scout unit has a chaplain. As the unit leader, I ask him to give prayers before eating or at the end of the meeting. I bow my head and remove my hat during prayers. In fact, sometimes I am the one leading the prayers when he is not there. I usually do the Great Scouter of all Scouts prayer, or the Philmont prayer. You religious guys seem to like those, and it seems courteous, kind, and friendly to fulfill my expected role in those areas. I never speak about religion to boys in the unit. I assume the parents and the fundamentalist church that hired me to lead this unit without asking my religious background would not appreciate me evangelizing for atheism. So, I don't speak of it, and I tell my son to not speak of it to scouting friends. Should I be kicked out? I don't think so. Should I be allowed to be an atheist openly? Yes. Would I do so openly? No. I would remain secretive about it and continue to lie to people about my religion. I wish I could be trustworthy on the topic, but BSA and the COR's beliefs have placed me in the difficult position of having to lie to maintain my membership. As I teach my sons, "A Scout Is Trustworthy" does not mean that he outs himself as a Jew to Nazis. It just means people can rely on you. So far, this unit has relied on me, and I have delivered. Without me, this unit dies. I am what holds it together. I wish religion would go away from the world. I think it is nonsense. But, that will never happen, so I work within the confines that those who still need it require, and it is a sacrifice on my part that you who despise me will never understand or appreciate. Meanwhile, all around me I listen to people tell me about how atheists cannot be good people, because apparently everyone will murder and steal without religion. I am a black man before MLK came along in a way. I'm OK with it. One day, religion will start to fizzle as we continue to advance technologically. Just like in Europe. For now, this is us, and I am one of us, so I do my job. I'm the best man for it. Merlyn; Maybe I look at things too simplistically. For me, the Dale decision by the local council and National was wrong. His life away at college had no real effect on the unit to which he was still registered. Most likely, few if any members of his actual unit cared, as it had never been an issue when he was there. But, once the whole thing became public and a part of a political agenda, it was not possible to re-bottle. Just the way I have seen it from the beginning. National tried to make it less controversial by using "avowed" in the ban; but that term has pretty much been either ignored or terribly twisted by both sides of the debate. It was also meant to be related to "leaders" only; again it was extended to youth by a few illogical and extreme individuals and became just another skewed attack point. That is why I have always favored the so called local option, as only the unit really understands how something has become or is becoming a problem, no matter if it is these two political points or something else such as abuse of some sort or alcohol or drugs. Just the way I view things and what has worked in our unit for a very long time.

Atheists like myself still obey the scout oath and law. The scout oath says: On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country I do my best. My best is that I do not believe there is a God. I think it is a children's story made up to put priests in power by selling people comforting myths and legends. The best I can do is my duty to my country. I pay my taxes. I vote. And I speak out. I volunteer for things. Etc. Likewise, I also obey the Scout Law: A Scout is reverent. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others. I am faithful in my religious duties. My religious duties are to wait for solid evidence of an afterlife or supreme being before I believe in one. In the meantime, I spend my time respecting the beliefs of others. Our scout unit has a chaplain. As the unit leader, I ask him to give prayers before eating or at the end of the meeting. I bow my head and remove my hat during prayers. In fact, sometimes I am the one leading the prayers when he is not there. I usually do the Great Scouter of all Scouts prayer, or the Philmont prayer. You religious guys seem to like those, and it seems courteous, kind, and friendly to fulfill my expected role in those areas. I never speak about religion to boys in the unit. I assume the parents and the fundamentalist church that hired me to lead this unit without asking my religious background would not appreciate me evangelizing for atheism. So, I don't speak of it, and I tell my son to not speak of it to scouting friends. Should I be kicked out? I don't think so. Should I be allowed to be an atheist openly? Yes. Would I do so openly? No. I would remain secretive about it and continue to lie to people about my religion. I wish I could be trustworthy on the topic, but BSA and the COR's beliefs have placed me in the difficult position of having to lie to maintain my membership. As I teach my sons, "A Scout Is Trustworthy" does not mean that he outs himself as a Jew to Nazis. It just means people can rely on you. So far, this unit has relied on me, and I have delivered. Without me, this unit dies. I am what holds it together. I wish religion would go away from the world. I think it is nonsense. But, that will never happen, so I work within the confines that those who still need it require, and it is a sacrifice on my part that you who despise me will never understand or appreciate. Meanwhile, all around me I listen to people tell me about how atheists cannot be good people, because apparently everyone will murder and steal without religion. I am a black man before MLK came along in a way. I'm OK with it. One day, religion will start to fizzle as we continue to advance technologically. Just like in Europe. For now, this is us, and I am one of us, so I do my job. I'm the best man for it. Now, I would not have any problem with your approach, even if you stated you were an atheist directly. You are not promulgating scouts to believe as you do; rather you are referring it to its proper place, the family. You seem to respect the religious' right to have their religion. Just like the other G so discussed, you do not make it a major item for discussion or suggest that others do as you do or act. That is the way it was for years, and things went fine. And they still will if people just keep their PERSONAL lives to themselves and refuse to be drawn in by someone that wants to somehow demonize them. JMHO of course.

Truly sad news; like others, my thoughts and prayers are with his family. Appreciated his resolute voice on various sometimes difficult topics; calm and reason always are helpful.

Ditto; and I made sure I was signed in first. At least appear to be able to work within the limited groups. I click new topics on the upper left, then filter for today. That brings newest posts up for the most part it seems. Still, hope the rest gets fixed soon so we can post new topics within their own threads.

Yep, many of the National questions are way too open ended and ambiguous. Answers will vary depending on what you think they want to get at. Did the best I could, as it is better than nothing. Still simply think the "local option" is the ONLY answer; but National would need to assure the CO's of support should the PC people choose to sue individual groups. Most CO's would not have the financial ability to fight such a suit, and the Gay agenda supporters know that.

Every council has certain voting members that can vote at the National meeting; usually the Key Three and, depending on the size of the council, member(s) at large. Our small council has 4 total. They just put out a three question survey regarding the issue, sort of. The queries did not mention "local option", only acceptance or non-acceptance of Gays; so do not think it is going to get meaningful results. On the other hand, just got a National survey as well; and it was very specific, and asked for detail as to why and so on. It seemed to be aimed at an honest attempt to get "real" answers. I had to deal with one local member of the congregation at our Methodist sponsor on Scout Sunday. We had a short discussion out in the patio away from the others. Not sure if my answers mollified her, but at least she did not pursue it further. She had gone to the minister, who came to me and asked me to speak with the woman. The church as a whole, is very supportive still.

Every council has certain voting members that can vote at the National meeting; usually the Key Three and, depending on the size of the council, member(s) at large. Our small council has 4 total. They just put out a three question survey regarding the issue, sort of. The queries did not mention "local option", only acceptance or non-acceptance of Gays; so do not think it is going to get meaningful results. On the other hand, just got a National survey as well; and it was very specific, and asked for detail as to why and so on. It seemed to be aimed at an honest attempt to get "real" answers. I had to deal with one local member of the congregation at our Methodist sponsor on Scout Sunday. We had a short discussion out in the patio away from the others. Not sure if my answers mollified her, but at least she did not pursue it further. She had gone to the minister, who came to me and asked me to speak with the woman. The church as a whole, is very supportive still.

Because it is simply another illogical fan the paranoia idea. Remember, a large number of people that post here have no idea how the charter arrangement works. Many do not even know the difference between types of units and the various levels of membership. Not sure why, but feel much is due to laziness and accepting anything they might see posted by a "supposed" authority.

Since, as I understand it, Philmont belongs to ALL BSA members (as stipulated in the donation to deter selling), what does the LDS group have to do with it? Just curious where that is coming from.

Schiff; They are neither for or against according to what I read. But, as they pointed out, if the change is made, it would/should have no effect on the units, as that is already pretty much what we did anyway. Notice the second to last sentence; "the reason WE ENDORSED this model........." " Once they made the decision to propose this change there are basically two ways this could have been implemented. One would have changed the national standard to force all charter organizations (in our case, local churches) to accept gay scouts and gay leaders. The choice they made was to move that decision to a local level. The reason we endorsed this model of implementation is because it allows your local church to continue to operate exactly like it is operating today. You choose the leaders, you recruit the scouts, the leadership of your troop and pack reflects the traditions and values of your faith community."

Likely anything sold in scout stores, and possibly fund raising such as popcorn and so on.

AZ; It is obvious to me that the total capitulation is their goal. They may finally overplay their hand; if the infamous "silent majority" finally has had enough. Time will tell. Meanwhile, I still am for the local option, as have always felt that was the way it should have been left anyway. But, changing the keystone of belief in personal spirituality would I think pretty much be the end of it. Even on an international level, God, or some spiritual entity or belief is part of almost all of the Scouting groups. Those that claim otherwise are simply wrong, though some other groups do have internal pushes against it.

What should be of just as much, if not more, concern is the additional mentions of religion and religious groups. I would think that would be unconstitutional, but given the weird legal decisions now regarding these types of things, who knows. If there was really any question that there is a very active direct Political Attack on BSA, this should make it obvious. I have already lodged my opposition with my local state representatives, neither of which shows on the supporters of the amendment. I find it particularly disengenuous that the SF paper conveniently leaves out all the sections relating to religion, but do give them credit for making it pretty clear this is A DIRECT ATTACK on BSA. Of course, as noted numerous times, the complete lack of real concern for the youth possibly affected is simply terribly sad.

This article which was shared with me by one of my past scouts who is now a Lt. Colonel in the army is right on target and reflects very well much of my personal beliefs on this subject. Certainly, we all see the results of what is discussed. As a leader for over three decades, I have seen this problem develop, especially in "trying" to get the boys to "take charge". As a sub teacher, I see kids that simply refuse to try anything new because they "might" make a mistake. http://growingleaders.com/blog/3-mistakes-we-make-leading-kids/

Why they will all be sort of effeminate, overly fastidious about their camps and uniforms, and may even speak a bit funny, Patrol flags will all have rainbows of some kind. They also carry the Gay Cooties. How can you not understand that? And even the wind blowing can waft the infectious cooties onto you from afar, so camping anywhere near them will be dangerous.

Well Beavah; Since the coach had a degree in physical development and a teaching credential and was also an ex marine that would ride you like a bronco if he thought you were not giving it your all, I guess he "was full of it". While it may be true that many kids simply are too lazy to do the work, it is also true that some are not physically capable of doing certain skills at the level one might expect of someone otherwise in good condition.

Especially with pull ups. Body type and muscle structure effect these things too. When I was sixteen I could do close to 20 parallel bar dips, 25+ pushups in a minute, and close to to 200 situps (not crunches) keeping my feet on the ground myself. I could do three pull ups. Did not matter if I went under or over hand either. The coach simply shrugged and said it was just my build. And I agree that ANY improvement should count, especially at that age.

Spoke with our Exec and assistant today, and they both are really concerned about the effect of the final decision. The CE said his calls are running at about 41% against it, and a lot of threats to leave if it happens. He said they are already looking at ways to redo the budget, as they fear they will lose considerable income. We are in a bit more conservative area of California, so his percentage does not really seem too off to me, though my own discussions have indicated most people would prefer the local option as long as it WAS a local unit choice. Our church has has already told us they will run with our decisions on leadership and so on. And the National Methodist have indicated support for local as well. We discussed the nightmares of people dropping out of jamboree at that late date, as well as loss of executive board members. Apparently there has been some that indicated they would resign should the change occur. As noted earlier, I really just do not get why this is such a problem with so many, other than we now live in a very egotistical cultural climate. Will just focus on the troop and hope for the best.

Merlyn, while I am fairly certain you will disagree, the reality is that if Dale had not happened, the groups noted above would have found other excuses, because their goal has nothing to do with the benefit of the group, and all to do with their agenda. And, while you will claim they have no agenda, it is fairly clear to most of us that they do. Have a nice day.

While it really does not surprise me too much, I am saddened by those that simply refuse to allow the expediant decision of Local Option as the logical and workable compromise. What those now demanding total capitulation are doing is attempting to change not just BSA, but any Charter Organizations that would continue to not support the Agenda due to their organization's tenets. And that then puts the LGBT group into the same position it has challenged BSA on in the first place. It would no longer mean a child could not join BSA period, but rather they would have to find a group whose sponsor met their personal criteria. I guess the idea of compromise is now joining the simple premise of common sense. Someone recently stated that the LGBT groups would "never" stop until they destroyed the BSA, and I scoffed, thinking they could actually be reasonable people. And maybe most of them actually are, but the ones pushing things are not it appears.

If mom will not allow the needed paperwork, then it is on her. There is no way around it; there has to be some kine of records. She has no recourse if she continues to refuse the registration and update. Sounds to me like she is simply looking for another publicity event. And of course, there will be people to support her, even though it is entirely ridiculous. The council/troop should get her refusals in writing as protection IMO.

Add a "page" change to the bottom of the list, or move it down there. Have to scroll back to the top to move forward when you reach the bottom of a multi page thread. Thanks.