skeptic

It remains to be seen about the supposed extra voters; somehow I think that is nonsense. On the other hand, the individuals in this particular group appear a bit hypocritical to me in that they are bending the data themselves. As far as the Catholic faith is concerned, I have no problem with it basically; but I have never understood the idea that somehow going to confession and getting forgiven repeatedly for the same sins is in itself sinful from my perspective. And that is a very common thing from appearances, though I obviously do not have anything but long time hearsay. The person that posted in their comments from the given link that ANY sexual activity within the youth is grounds for dismissal makes a valid point in regard to this update. It is a step in the right direction; but they will still need to find a way to deal with the transition from youth to adult that makes sense. How about if we simply wait and see and in the meantime just do what we do on the unit level.

It worked; I posted a new item. Yea.

Annual district Camporee this weekend; go up Friday afternoon, return Sunday morning. Have 402 paid registrants at the moment, and the weather looks like it will cooperate. Now, if the cows have not left us too many gifts in the grass, it should be a good weekend. My small group seems better prepared this year; have hopes they will do better in the events and get through most of them. Also have scouts to be "called out", the first group in a few years; one leader is on the list, but he may not be there because he is caring for a younger child this weekend. Hope he may be up for the evening on Saturday.

Pack; There were some other similar issues that came up before Dale, but National did not get involved, so they did not reach the level Dale did. I too do not remember any real issues with this at all until the 90's when the Gay political movement really began its push in various arenas. We will not likely ever get the total truth on Dale, but it appears from what data is available that someone in the council took exception to the college involvement in a very public activity, even though it was NOT in the local area. My understanding is that the unit from which he came had no issues; it was someone outside. Apparently that person and perhaps a few others had some pull in the local council and decided to push it. Of course, it then became a National issue very quickly when the Gay supporters chose to use it as a test; or at least that is the way it appears to me. What is sad is that if the local council had just let the local unit determine its membership, and told the outside individual(s) it had nothing to do with them it may very well have not reached the level it did. I do suspect that if Dale had not been the touch point, another would have soon been found due to the beginning of the modern Gay political maneuvering. Just my take from the bits and pieces easily found. Someone in the actual council area that was around then may have a lot more light to shine on it, but it is way too late now. So, here we are walking that thin line at the unit level, trying to keep the idiocy of the radicals on both sides from destroying us. I still see a possible glimmer of hope for adults in the less obvious wording of the overall proposal that deals with NO types of agendas being acceptable within the program, and specifying that ANY disruptive leader may be disallowed. The biggest hurdle is the one of movement from youth to adult if the status would change. How they deal with that is beyond me, unless they amend the resolution or something.

Neither right or left should be using the BSA as a political weapon. We are not supposed to be political at all, only patriotic. There is no solution for this that will completely satisfy either side. So, if you believe the positive of BSA outweighs the negative, then simply work the program locally and keep it to yourselves. Only deal with divisive issues if they come up; don't go looking for them.

Sentinel; take it with a grain of salt as B.P. exaggerates constantly and obviously has a vendetta against National in general. He may deny, but it is clear from his long list of negative posts, no matter what the issue. Just my personal observation and opinion of course.

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.