David CO

Do they have any formal affiliation with the USCCB? Their website doesn't say that they do. It says that it "relates" to the USCCB. It talks about "interaction and dialog" with the Secretariat of the Laity and Family Life".

Yikes! Do you have any idea how many permits it takes to build a bridge!

Is that correct?

RememberSniff?

Same here. My unit has never had a single contact with NCCS. NCCS seems to parrot whatever BSA says.

Under the heading, Our Authority, the NCCS says it is a church committee. Many people might take this to mean that it is owned and operated by the Catholic Church. A person might also jump to the conclusion that the NCCS gets its authority from the Catholic Church. It doesn't actually say from where it derives its authority, does it? I might also point out that Catholics are instructed to always capitalize the word Church when they are referring to the Catholic Church. Anyone can form a church committee. It takes an appointment from a bishop, or his designee, to form a Church committee.

What is the National Catholic Committee on Scouting? In another thread, someone posted a quote from the NCCA. What is the NCCA? Is it a private organization or is it owned/operated by the Catholic Church? Who are its members/leaders? Does it have any authority to speak for the Catholic Church?

Your post demonstrates that you understand absolutely nothing about our religious beliefs. Our religious beliefs are a 24/7 type of thing. We don't just go to church on Sunday and set them aside the rest of the week. They follow us everywhere we go and exists in everything we do. There is no chance whatsoever that we would set aside our morals and values. It is a waste of breath for anyone to suggest that we should.

True, but he would have also seen the computer as a form of witchcraft and burnt us all at the stake. The death warrant would have been beautifully written though, so there is that.

It wasn't. The change to include girls might have been.

I disagree. It is not at all unusual for someone to respond to a post with the first sentence/paragraph directed in response to the person being quoted, and then continue with a general discussion in the subsequent paragraphs.

Not always. For example, I just quoted LegacyLost, but I was not directing my response to him. I was responding to numbersnerd. In that post, I was careful to make this clear by putting in a comment before the quote. At other times, I have separated my comments into two back-to-back posts to make it clear they are not both in response to the same quote. Not everybody does it this way. It is more a matter of writing style than a hard-and-fast rule.

I took numbersnerd's suggestion and looked back to see what was actually said. The use of the word (you) in this context is somewhat ambiguous. Did he mean to specifically identify firestone, or did he mean it generally, as in "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? His second use of a pronoun (we) is certainly a general term. When he says, "And now we see the consequences", he means everyone, not anyone one person or group in particular.

If the Chartered Organization is an Orthodox Jewish group, it has every right to impose its dress and dietary laws on its members. It can also restrict the units membership to those of its own faith.

Yes. We have a strong moral code. It just doesn't demand morality. What gibberish.

Which brings us back to my previous statement. You can't have a moral code in a totally inclusive group. It's just not possible.

So much for having "wide latitude" in interpreting the scout oath and law. It seems that "wide latitude" only applies to those who express liberal views.

No, it isn't. BSA is requiring that units accept gay youth. That is no latitude at all.

It can't. At least it can't have a moral code and still be inclusive. It's one or the other.

If you feel this way, then you should be arguing the case that BSA should have no moral code. You should not be imposing your moral code on us by insisting that we respect something that we feel is the very definition of immoral. You shouldn't be asking that we keep quiet about it either.

I agree with that. We have no argument there. The new policy is no more non-denominational than the old one. BSA switched sides. It is still favoring the beliefs of some religions, denominations, etc. over the beliefs of others. Only now, BSA is on the other side. If BSA had amended the scout oath/law to completely remove "morally straight" from all of its literature and policies, that would have been non-denominational. It didn't do that. BSA did not want to face the hailstorm of criticism it would have undoubtedly received from such an announcement. BSA has, in effect, declared that homosexual conduct is morally straight. That is not non-denominational. This declaration flies in the face of the moral teachings of many of the religions that have had a long association with scouting.

This discussion is taking place in the context of the LDS pulling out of scouting. LegacyLost just told us that a major Evangelical minister has advised that others pull out as well. I didn't know that. I think this information is relevant to our discussion.

Who told the scout to meet with the ASM? Was the scout given the option of meeting and consulting with someone else for expert advice?

It's none of your business. Stay out of it.

That would all depend on what sort of action the committee is contemplating. Does the COR need to be involved in any/every decision? No. I think the unit has already been too much involved in this boy's project. It is his project, not the unit's project.