David CO

I am being careful. I know that I am walking on eggshells here. It's a tough topic to talk about. How do we reconcile our core belief (A scout is to be trusted / A scout is trustworthy) with what we are now told about child behavior. We cannot trust/depend/rely on boys to report child molesters. This questions the very existence of scouting. If our core belief was wrong, then we were wrong, and we need to make amends.

True. The standard hasn't changed, but some assumptions have changed. 50 years ago, most of us assumed that a boy would not keep quiet about being abused. We didn't think a boy would wait 30 minutes, much less 30 years, to report a child molester. This has been a real shock to us.

I know what you are saying, but you could phrase it better.

Even if that were true, I would still argue that scouting is philosophically different from other organizations. B-P founded scouting on the premise that a scout is to be trusted. That premise was fundamentally different from other organizations of his time. It is fundamentally different from other organizations of our time. We are being challenged by a legal system that believes that boys can not, and should not, be trusted. BSA has failed us in that it is not arguing our main point. Whether we say a scout is to be trusted, or a scout is trustworthy, this should be our main argument. It goes to the core of our program. Should BSA, or any scout association, now or in the future, be held liable for trusting boys? I am not a lawyer. Maybe this is not a good legal argument. But I would go with it anyway. Scouting should live or die by its core beliefs.

It really isn't fair for you to pose the question to us, and then criticize us when we attempt to answer your question.

I'm stunned. The entire premise of scouting is that boys can be trusted. They can go camping with their buddies, with limited parental involvement, and have it be strictly clean and wholesome. That is scouting. Take away the trust, and it is no longer a scouting program.

Until the bankruptcy, I've never given a thought to these paintings. Never made any effort to see them. If I've gone this long without seeing them, while they were on public display, I see no reason to be concerned about them now.

Yes. A lot of repair will be needed.

No. The general public doesn't even know that WOSM exists. The public has some vague notion that there is an international scouting group, but couldn't say who it is. I'm not sure that's important. The important thing is that WOSM does exist, and it can authorize the creation of a new scout association in the USA. WOSM will not leave the USA without a scout association.

Yep. So long as it all works out well for the kids, that's all that really matters.

Nope. Our local unit still has a good reputation in the community. BSA's reputation is dirt.

I totally agree. The new scout association will have to completely disassociate itself from BSA in the public mind.

I don't think scouting is tainted. BSA is tainted.

The worst possible outcome would be having us all stuck with a BSA which is barely surviving on life support, unable to serve the youth members, but just alive enough to prevent WOSM from appointing a new successor scout association. I think the executives will try to hang on to their jobs for as long as they can, no matter how negatively it effects the kids.

Not a chance. WOSM will not leave the USA without a scout association.

It could be the end of BSA, but it will not collapse the scouting movement. The scouting movement is bigger than BSA. It will survive.

Ah yes. The District Executive motto.

I think that is true of everybody. Nobody wants to pay. So the question isn't if they want to pay, but will they pay. The only other choice is to quit.

To make that work, you would need to have a scouting public who is willing to pay in perpetuity. I don't think the parents and donors are collectively willing to do that. They'll quit.

I would imagine that CO's all over the country will be arguing that BSA kept them in the dark. It is not only a good argument, it also has the advantage of being the truth.

It's hard to hide your head in the sand and cover your butt at the same time.

If we are going to be fair and honest about this, you're both right. I was talking about identifying kids to better protect them. That's true. But I have stated in earlier posts on other threads that my unit does reject some youth applications. We don't automatically accept every boy who asks to join our troop.

Boy, that's a relief.

Yes. Parental consent to participate in scouting.

I deliberately left that out. I didn't want anyone to misread my comment and quote me as saying children can consent to sexual abuse.