David CO

I haven't read the book. Yes, a scout is obedient. He is obedient to his parents. He is obedient to his teachers. He is obedient to his scout leaders. He is obedient to the people he is supposed to be obedient to. This doesn't mean a scout must be obedient to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who happens to cross his path. It may sound like blasphemy to some scouters, but the scout law is not a universal declaration of principles. It doesn't apply to every person and every situation.

What a remarkable child he must be to have made up his mind at such a young age.

I don't see scout associations banning travel to Great Britain because of brexit. This is just more liberal Trump bashing. I wish other countries would stay out of our internal politics.

It's the same with Canada. I was detained and questioned once when I was crossing over with a group of boys to see the Canadian falls. It turns out that one of the boys parents had a restraining order out on someone, and I fit the description. They wanted to make sure that the boy wasn't being abducted. The parent was very embarrassed. Had no idea that it could make it difficult for us to take her son into Canada. We are all assuming that this British teacher was stopped because he is a Muslim, but we don't actually know that. There are many reasons a person can be detained or turned back at the border.

So If just 1 of the Girl Guides of Canada's 90,000 members isn't allowed access into the USA, than none of them may take the trip. This is an impossible standard to meet. It always has been. It always will be. If the Girl Guides were to stick to this policy, then they would never be able to take a trip to the USA ever again. The USA would never guarantee universal access to all Girl Guides of Canada and their leaders. This would only invite terrorists to use the organization to gain access to our country. It would never happen. Not under this administration, and not under any other administration. Of course this is just political posturing.

Once again, I disagree. We don't do separate COH events for scouts. We recognize all of our boys' scouting accomplishment at our end-of-the-school-year school awards assembly. We feel it is important to recognize our scouting achievements together with our athletic and scholastic awards.

That is true. All we are told is that the COR is aware of the situation and seems to be fine with it.

I would not allow anyone to participate in our unit who does not fully understand and accept the fact that the Chartered Organization owns the unit.

A den doesn't belong to the den leader. It belongs to the Chartered Organization that owns the unit.

I don't know how to respond to people who believe that a volunteer can't be fired.

I don't like to make jokes about refusing someones participation in the unit. It is one of duties that I enjoy the least.

It is obvious that both the council and the CO are aware of what is going on. There are circumstances in which it it entirely appropriate for a CO and its unit leaders to conduct closed meetings. This sounds like it may very well be one of them. It has been made perfectly clear that beaglelover is not allowed to take part in these meetings. At this point, if she were to persist, (if I were her IH) I would fire her.

I don't know what this means either. But I do understand the instructions you were given. Don't do anything.

Since RememberSchiff seems to agree with you, I will concede the point and bow out. Perhaps a moderator could move the discussion to Advancement, since the originator of the thread doesn't want to talk about issues and politics. To the moderator, please delete my posts on this thread.

The OP chose to put the topic in Issues & Politics. That makes it fair game. Besides, it really is a partisan political issue. It isn't the conservatives who have been forcing all these membership changes on us. Liberals own it.

If they really feel that a classical scouting program would fail on its own, the liberals ought to give it 100% support, and let it sink or swim.

Those who say that BSA has no single-sex tradition are engaging in historical revisionism of the worst kind. That is why I say that the liberals not only want to change BSA, they also want to rewrite BSA history.

For those of you who aren't familiar with reenactments, they are not just for old guys like myself. A lot of young people join reenactment groups. Our neighboring public high school has a Civil War reenactment club with about 40 youth members. It is very much a family activity. There are more boys camping out with the reenactments than there are Boy Scouts from that school. BSA is really missing something. A lot of boys are very interested in history. History and camping is a great combination.

Exactly. There could me many varieties of classic scouting. I think the rule should be that a classic scouting unit be authentic to the historical period they are reenacting. No mix and matching. Authentic reproductions of uniforms, tents, equipment, etc.. As with military reenactments, modern safety equipment and supplies would be on-site, but out of sight. They are only for emergencies. I don't think most people would choose the time period that corresponds to their youth. This has certainly not been the case with military reenactments. There are very few modern era military reenactments. Most choose either the American Revolution or the American Civil War. I would guess that the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression would be popular eras for classic scouting reenactments. I think others would reflect the history of their community, Chartered Organization, or local scout camp by choosing the era of their founding. Classic scouting units would be a blast, and BSA would make a mint selling or licensing the reproductions of their uniforms and supplies. Sadly, it will never happen.

The social engineers at BSA would never allow a "Classic Scouting" program. The people who are advocating for all these changes aren't really interested in scouting. They just want to deny us our scouting program. Once they achieve their goals at BSA, they will just move on to destroy some other program. But if were were to do something like "Classic Scouting", I think we should start with a living museum program, with reenactments of scouting practices during various eras. I doubt that BSA would allow even this. Not only do they want to consign our scouting program to history, they also want to rewrite history to deny that our religious, moral, boys only programs ever existed.

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. It may very well have been a businessman who came up with the new policy changes. Perhaps it was the same marketing genius who brought us New Coke.

When I started my troop, I went to the council with a list of names of boys who were not currently registered as scouts. The DE was very eager to add new boys into the scouting program. I suspect that the council would not have given me the same level of enthusiasm and support had I brought them a list of boys that I wished to poach from another unit.

No, but that shouldn't stop you from doing the activity. Not every scout activity needs to be about advancement or OA requirements.

Sure, and BSA could have included an explicit anatomical definition of "boy" on the application form, complete with illustrations. What would that have accomplished? Nothing! New Jersey would still claim that a girl meets that definition.

If it is by mutual agreement, and I'm not saying it is, then it is an agreement between the CO and BSA. It is not a mutual agreement between the CO and the unit leaders. The CO owns the unit, and the unit leaders serve at the pleasure of the CO.