David CO

Sounds familiar. During my youth, returning servicemen were spat upon and subjected to taunts of "baby killer" and such. There was a difference though. Back in my day, it wasn't scouts or scout leaders who were denigrating our troops. Welcome to the modern Scouts BSA.

Youth first is a meaningless term. Liberals all think the best interest of the child is to be raised liberal, so youth first means liberal first. Conservative parents obviously believe something else. Many of us believe that God and religion do come first, in every aspect of our lives. We want to pass that view on to our children and grandchildren. I think we have a right to do that.

I agree. The lawyers end up owning the house.

Spell check. BSA spells it commissioners.

Let it be. Let it be. Let it be. Let it be. Whisper words of wisdom. Let it be.

Thanks for the video clip. I'll watch it later. I have grandkids sleeping in the next bedroom, and I don't want to disturb.

BSA doesn't own the councils or the units. It is not their house.

It doesn't help stop the rioting, looting, and arson. I doesn't help show our support for law and order, or for the police who put their lives on the line to protect us every day. The scouting program of my youth were unapologetically pro-military and pro-police.

No, I think they have been planning something like this for some time now. They have probably been looking for a reason to impose their political correctness doctrine. I don't think this is just a knee jerk reaction. I think they are taking advantage of recent events to do what they have been wanting to do all along. This won't be just about racism. They will add the whole liberal grocery list.

As are all of the anti-Catholic comments I hear in scouting.

You can say that with impunity, but it would probably be considered very bigoted for them to say that they wouldn't want to spend much time with you.

I wouldn't worry so much about the walls. The roof is caving in.

We can only hope.

Is scouting in danger? BSA is definitely in danger. If you feel that scouting can only take place under the corporate seal of BSA, then it would appear that scouting is doomed. But I don't look at it that way. I see scouting as a movement, not a corporation. Scouting is alive and well. We need to be preparing to reboot scouting in a post-bankruptcy world where BSA no longer exists.

It is really that simple? I have a hard time believing the bankruptcy court would accept that argument. Either all of the councils are independent corporations, or all of the councils are controlled by BSA. It is one or the other. To have each council's status depend on its liability exposure would be absurd. This is yet another example of BSA wanting to have it both ways. They want councils to be independent corporations, when it suits them, and then they want the opposite when it doesn't. BSA should just take one position and stick to it. It would be the honest thing to do.

I'm sure the council's executive committee will announce their decision as soon as BSA tells them what the council executive committee's decision is going to be.

I agree. But I don't think BSA is looking to do the greatest good for the greatest numbers. BSA wants to appeal to its wealthiest donors, the sort of people who can not only afford to send their kids to the high adventure camps, but can also write out big checks to the national/local councils. It is all about the $$$.

Of course they should. Scouts should never feel trapped in a unit. However, I think it is a valuable lesson for scouts to learn how to get along with other kids and resolve problems. I would not encourage scouts to unit shop as a way to avoid having to learn those useful skills.

Philmont not opening was a political decision. If we can't talk about the political aspect of the closing, there really isn't much else to say. You should close the thread.

I don't like the answer. BSA doesn't own the units. The Chartered Organizations own the units. BSA should defer to the CO's on this. This looks very bad for BSA to be micromanaging at the same time as they are trying to tell the bankruptcy courts that the councils and units are independently owned.

I think the reason does matter. The 1918 flu pandemic hit us in the middle of World War 1. We had no choice but to fight regardless of the cost. Our national survival was at stake. The same might be said of the American Civil War where 2/3 of the soldiers died from disease. I don't think the current political dramas rise to the same level of national importance as WWI or the ACW, but I'm sure that there are many who would disagree.

I don't think selling off a scout camp should be regarded as a feather in his cap.

Yes, it is obvious. A scout who can afford jamborees and high adventure trips is not likely to care about increased fees. It's the scouting families who can't afford the high-end stuff that I'm worried about.

I think they would be very happy to be paid in 1970 dollars. We were on the gold standard in 1970. $35 per ounce. Pay them in gold double-eagles.

A scout unit is owned by adults, but operated for the benefit of kids. The adult owners of a unit are not supposed to seek a benefit for themselves. Likewise, the kids should strive to benefit from the scouting program, but not assert ownership over it. As for the character question, I believe character is modelled, not taught. No program or curriculum, no matter how well planned and developed, can develop good character in youth. It is only through adult association, with adults of good character, that youth develop good character in themselves.