CalicoPenn

Qwazse, I would say the fear of exposure to folks with a more sexually permissive ethic is at the center of this hurricane - and I would further suggest that it's a speculative fear. We've seen folks on this forum trying to use pride parade participants, and a minority of pride parade participants at that (you know, the mediagenic ones that they see in pictures since few have been to an actual pride parade) to suggest tht the entire gay community is some kind of monolithic group where everyone thinks and acts the same. The far more likely scenario is you're going to get parents in monogamous relations (albeit same sex relations) and former Scouts who want to give back and have already been instilled with the Scout Oath and Law volunteering. I doubt the BSA is going to be inundated by volunteers who are going to be more sexually permissive - there are a lot of straight folks with a more sexually permissive ethic too, and I don't see them being discussed as an issue in Scouting, mostly because, I suspect, they just aren't involved in Scouting, or if they are, they're very secretive about it.

Maybe because their assets are not owned by the unit but owned by the chartered organizations and moving those assets elsewhere with the intent to deprive the chartered organization of their assets would be considered theft, and would certainly be a violation of the Scout Law??

Well that's interesting - the Great Salt Lake Council is quoted as saying that the group will have to get approval for their application from National - why would they be treated differently from any other chartered organization which are approved at the Council level???

Unless someone can point to a BSA document that states this, it is just speculation on the part of a poster.

I found it rang true

I've been thinking about this argument and I just don't buy it - not in 2015 in an age of instantaneous communicaton almost anywhere in the world. If the issue was that important to the leaders, they would have found a way to discuss it - it's not like the Mormons are technological luddites. And frankly, what would be the point of waiting? The position would have been one of two - We support or We oppose. It doesn't sound like the Executive Board would have been swayed either way so might as well just get on with it. So ok, maybe the BSA merges all of the Utah Councils in to one - I'm surprised the BSA hasn't already done so anyway - Utah has a population of about 3 million people - that's less than half the population of the Chicago metro area, and all but one of those councils have merged already. Having more than one council service a population of 3 million seems like a waste of resources.

We've never asked if anyone is an athiest, and I doubt we ever will.

BTW - word came down from our CO's church leadership this past weekend - it was a very simple statement: "We don't discriminate - neither will you"

I wonder just what kind of national policy they might make given who the current Pope is?

If you want to discriminate against someone or want to denigrate someone who is different from you, or who does not comport to your idea of what people should be like, then be brave enough to discriminate against them or denigrate them - don't hide behind the term "politically correct" as a way to do so by complaining that you can't do so because of political correctness. There are no liberals out there saying you can't use the "N" word or the "F" (not the 4 letter one, the 3 letter one) word because they aren't politically correct - they're saying you can't use them because they're hurtful and just not acceptable in polite and civil society - if you want to say that's politically correct, that's you whining that the "big, bad liberals" won't let me say those words anymore. Go ahead and say them - you have 1st Amendment Rights - just stop complaining when the rest of society shuns you for it. Or do the "Big Bad Liberals" have that much control over your mind.

Well then maybe it's time to call their bluff and let them leave. Isn't that what a lot of non-Mormon Scouters have wanted for decades anyway? I've heard an awful lot of campfire and cracker barrel chat from an awful lot of non-Mormon leaders wondering why their camporees and summer camps and one day events have to be planned around the LDS schedule. I've heard an awful lot of campfire and cracker barrel jokes about LDS units getting lost in the woods, or setting forests to blaze. I've heard an awful lot of campfire and cracker barrel chat about LDS units handing out Merit Badges like candy, and folks calling Mormon Eagle Scouts "Seagull Scouts". When I was a Scout the LDS units in my Council did not really participate at the District or Council level - they pretty much ran their program on their own. About 1976 or so, the LDS Stakes (and there were quite a few spread out around the Council) decided they wanted to start taking advantage of District and Council events. The word got out and only one District (and I'm proud to say it was the District I was in) said they would welcome the opportunity to bring the LDS folks aboard so every LDS unit, no matter where they were in the Council, we assigned to my District - the leadership of the other Districts just flat out refused to welcome them (and no, this should'nt be that much of a surprise - white bread Chicago suburbia in the 1970's? Archie Bunker's home was reality television). Of course, we had to adjust our programming a bit - and when the Stake leaders saw us doing so, they adjusted some things as well (all of a sudden, it was possible for the Scout Troops to travel on Sundays if the campground was more than one hour away). And still, I heard rumblings about the LDS. Can the BSA survive the loss of half a million boys? Sure - we've done so before. Can they survive the loss of $15 Million in revenue? Yeah, probably. Knowing the Mormon's I know, if the LDS leadership eliminates Boy Scouting from the Church, they'll join up with non-LDS units. I suspect that the Executive Council is just not losing any sleep over this decision - I don't see why any of us should either.

Whenever someone complains about things being politically correct, my first assupmtion is they're whining because they can't discriminate against or denigrate people that aren't just like them anymore without being called out on their narrow-mindedness. Archie Bunker would have deployed the term Politically Correct at least once in every episode.

Stosh, I wasn't commenting on whether it is right or wrong - I was commenting on what seems to be a specific criticism that you offered - that the group was marching with 3 US flags as if that's somehow not kosher. Google Fourth of July Parade pictures and you'll find lots of examples where the flag code seems to have just been drop kicked to Kazahkstan

And if you really follow politics, you know that is politic speak for "this isn't on my radar, and I doubt this issue is going to come up in a serious way but I know these words will appease the person who asked me about my stance on this without committing myself to any position"

Hmmm - lot's more that 3 flags below

Reading the actual resolution, it states that the BSA will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation. It states that National and Councils (presuming Regions as well since they're part of National and Districts since they're part of Councils) can not turn down volunteers for National and Council volunteer positions on the basis of sexual orientation (like Council Presidents, District Commissioners, etc.). No where does the resolution actually state that non-religious chartering organizations can not turn down volunteers based on sexual orientation. The only way that the resolution treats religious and non-religious organizations differently is that it specifically states that if a bona-fide religious CO is sued, that National will defend them. It never states that they will defend non-religious CO's in a discrimination lawsuit over this issue. In other words, it implies that all CO's can use sexual orientation as a criteria in choosing leaders and if you're a religious CO, we'll share the risk and we got your back but if you're a non-religious CO, you're taking the risk and you're on your own.

So they're stealing from the Boy Scouts of America - the charter does require the CO to either store the equipment and escrow the funds until they can form a new unit or turn the equipment and funds over to the BSA since the presumption is the funds were raised using the BSA brand and the equipment was purchased from funds raised using the BSA brand. How very upright and moral of those folks.

My pinewood derby cars were built by my dad (though my younger brothers built their own, with help from dad). I really wasn't big on model making - my idea of a pinewood derby car was to paint the block of wood as it was, glue on the wheels, toss on a few stickers, and viola - je suis finis (btw, I did just that as a Den Chief for the Den Chief races (we had a big pack at the time - 10 dens + 2 Webelos dens, and enough Den Chiefs to form a small Troop) and won - the only car I had that did win). When I was asked, I was proud to say my dad built it - all I did was add a couple of stickers. Not every kid is going to be in to building the pinewood derby car - keep that in mind before slapping a dad upside the head (though the dad who wouldn't even let the boy touch the car? Yeah - he deserves a smack on the head).

You won't find any documentation from the Boy Scouts of America specifically stating that gays and lesbians (or even homosexuals) could not be members of the BSA, were not morally straight, and could not be the best kind of leaders until the 1980's. For most of it's history, it was silent on the issue. It didn't become an issue until the move from New Jersey to Texas, and even I don't think that's a coincidence.

Troops weren't allowed to do the Lumberjack Song at my summer camp - not because it was inappropriate but because it was reserved as the go to skit for Staff (and that's both staffs, on both sides of the lake - we had an East and a West Camp - both with their own dining halls, waterfronts, trading posts, shooting sports ranges, etc.). When I did a turn as a CIT at the camp, we actually had time blocked out during training week to practice the song.

I always seemed to remember that it just wasn't scout appropriate as the Scouts starting quoting huge chunks of it sitting around the campfire. About then, I'd usually remember that when I was a scout, we we're quoting huge chunks of George Carlin.

Sure, but to be more accurate, these are the top seven in order of size ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America LCMS - Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (about half the size of ELCA) WELS - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (about 5 time smaller than LCMS) LCMC - Lutheran Congregation in Mission for Christ AFLC - Association of Free Lutheran Congregations ELS - Evangelical Lutheran Synod (not related to ELCA) CLBA - Curch of the Lutheran Brethren of America There are some smaller Lutheran groups, like the American Association of Lutheran Churches and the North American Lutheran Church, and many lutheran congregations that are tied directly into other countries churches (you can still find Church of Norway and Church of Sweden Lutheran congregations in the US). Interestingly, ELCA has statewide or local dioceses that they call synods

It's interesting what the actual resolution says. First, National and the local councils will no longer be able to use sexual orientation as an automatic disqualifier for employment. Summer camps can hire gay youth and adults, Councils can hire gay DE's or support staff, National can hire gay employees. That's pretty much standard for most large corporations now and large corporate donors are looking for those same kind of employment policies in the non-profits that they donate to. Second, National and Local Councils can no longer use sexual orientation to disqualify a volunteer from a National, Regional or Local Council/District position. This doesn't have a direct affect on units (other than those units that have people that don't even want to work with gay people at all). Gay adults can now be commissioners, district staff, merit badge counselors (yeah, don't worry - no one's going to force your to send your Scouts to a gay merit badge counselor). Their memberships are at the Council level, not the unit level. At the unit level, Chartered Organizations can now set their own membership standards for adults - they can accept gay leaders if the want, they can deny gay leaders if they want. Now here's where it get's a bit tricky and even the Bryan on Scouting blog isn;t getting it quite right (and this is going strictly by what the resolution says). No where in the resolution does it say that a unit chartered by, say, an American Legion, can't set their own membership standards for adults. There is no ban on non-religious units setting their own standards. What the resolution does say is that if a bona-fide religious organization is sued for refusing to allow gay assistant scoutmasters, the BSA will defend that religious organization's right to make their own leadership rules. What they aren;t saying is that they will defend the non-religious organizations for doing so. In essense, they are saying if you're a religious organization, we'll take on the risk. If you aren't a religious organization, you can bar gay adults if you want but you take the risk - if you're sued, we won't defend you (though I suspect they might file a friend of the court brief on their behalf but it won't go farther than that). It appears to me that the BSA's lawyers turned this every which way they could and realized that religious organizations have a much stronger potential to win a suit against them than a non-religious organization. All that said, until we see any actual lawsuits, everything is mere conjecture -

For clarification, these are the numbers for all 7 Lutheran Synods, not just the Missouri Synod.

Sure, why not - then they can pay big dollars to the BSA, the GSA and to Lutheran Church camps to rent their facilities for camping trips.