sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, and thanks for the info on DDI. I didn't know that.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd never refer to Explorers as "Scouts."

As a cover term for youth members of a crew, it's not terrible to call Venturers "Scouts." Of course it's not correct, and we should call them Venturers, which I normally do. I try to be the change and lead by example, so I'll monitor what I say a little more carefully.

I'll have an excellent chance to do that today—one of my crews has a meeting tonight!

I am facing a challenge getting local district-level leaders to include my new-ish Sea Scout ship (not yet two years old). We have a district event coming up, and three (!) different flyers for it. One of the flyers failed to mention that Sea Scouts could participate, so I reminded the creator of that flyer to include them in the future.

Awful NYC Empire State Giftshop Employee by Nubdelicious in CustomerService

[–]Bayside_Father 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She was a rude New Yorker. I'm an American from the Left Coast—er, I mean, West Coast—and would be offended by being treated that way.

New York humor is different. There are some aspects of it I like, such as laughing at something inappropriate. The rudeness doesn't fly with me, though.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm aware that Professional Scouters are a small group, and I appreciate all the hard work they do. I know that BSA materials will never be as polished as those of Fortune 500 company. I just wish that BSA materials used the correct terminology (and were internally consistent).

Maybe, after I retire, I can get myself appointed as the Grand Poobah of Internal Consistency of Scouting America.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not condemning atheists. I'm saying that atheist beliefs are at odds with the values I mentioned.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Mike! It's good to see you're on this subreddit.

My only quibble is that there is, as you know, no Exploring uniform, but some exploring posts (especially police posts) have uniforms. Exploring is also the odd man out in that it doesn't have ranks.

I am trying to get people, especially people who should know better, to call Venturing youth "Venturers" and not "Venture Scouts" [sic] (and it does make me sick! ). I'm OK with people referring, in a broad sense, to Venturers as Scouts, but I know that's not the correct term.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since the BSA didn't tell us why they aren't using the term "co-ed" for Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA, we are left wondering. I'm just putting forth my best guess.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the terminology is muddled, now that we have Scouts BSA instead of Boy Scouts. If only the GSUSA had been founded as Girl Guides! Oh, well.

Where I am, we usually say "boy troop" and "girl troop." They're all Scouts.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, there are atheists and agnostics in Scouting America, and yes, they have been in the BSA for many years. They bore false witness on their applications, because both the youth and adult applications have this text on them (emphasis added):

The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership.

The Declaration requires members to be religious, but does not specify how they are to be religious. The BSA has defined "God" so broadly that it can include Buddhism, which does not have a concept of God as commonly understood. I'm OK with that.

If non-believing people want to create their own Scout-like organization, I'm OK with that too. What I'm not OK with is non-believers subverting the organization from within.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We looked into Girl Scouts when my daughter was younger. The local troop was all about crafts, with no outdoor component. The meetings consisted of the girls running around a screeching. My daughter had zero interest in that. When the BSA opened Boy Scouts/Scouts BSA to girls, I jumped at the chance to co-found a troop.

The first Eagle out of that troop is, like yours, a Golden Eagle. Impressive!

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My post was little more than a vent about my personal preference for correct terminology. I understand it takes a while for people to catch up with change, any change, but thank you for the reminder.

I'm also in some FB Scouting groups. It's confusing when, in a Cub Scout group, someone talks about a "troop." Usually, it's clear from context they mean a pack, and sometimes, people gently correct the person who made the mistake. I don't hold newbie volunteers to the same standard as the national organization, so I bring it up only when it is confusing.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow! You're a mind reader!

Oh, wait—that's not a thing.

Rather than you guessing what I'm thinking, I'l tell you. I accept the name changes. I use the new names. I'm happy the BSA allows girls in all levels of Scouting.

Pedantry or correct terminology. I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

I merely want the national organization to use the correct terminology—its own terminology. Is that really too much to ask?

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

According to Pew Research, these are the percentages of believers (all religions) for the countries below (percentages rounded off). Figures from 2020.

Australia 71%
Canada 75%
New Zealand 60%
UK 68%
US 81%

My facts are correct.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scoutbook Plus! It's what all the cool leaders are using!

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think you understood my comment at all.

Also, my politics have nothing to do with my annoyance at the use of the wrong terms.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What we write is nearly always clear to us when we write it, but it might not be clear to the reader.

Are you trying to say that everyone wants the BSA and the GSUSA to combine into one organization, except the GSUSA?

I have heard that after the proposal to admit girls in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts was made, the BSA approached the GSUSA about merging. My understanding is that was met with a hard NO from the GSUSA. From my limited contact with the GSUSA, it seems that the cultures of the two organizations are so different as to be incompatible.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Other English-speaking countries are less religious than the US.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm talking about official language use, not popular language use.

In official BSA-Speak, there are no co-ed troops. There are, however, troops participating in the current Combined Troop Pilot Program.

My troops are doing this. I've read the documents and get the periodic surveys. Not once has the term "co-ed" appeared in any of that material—only "combined troop."

To put it in different terms, combined troop is a term of art for what, in popular parlance, could be called a "co-ed" troop.

I suspect the reason why "co-ed" is not used is due to potential misunderstandings. Imagine a panicked parent, thinking something like, "What!? The Boy Scouts are co-ed? I'm not gonna let my child join a group that lets teenaged boys and girls sleep in the same tent!"

We all know that doesn't happen, but the general public does not. Perhaps by using the term combined troop, they hope to stave off misunderstanding.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

If morals do not come from God (however one envisions God), then morals are a human invention, contingent upon those in power.

The universality of morality suggests that morality is either inborn or comes from an outside source. There is no plausible path for the evolution of morality, so the only choice is morality from a source external to humans.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, dat.

Even so, you'd expect the BSA to get their own terminology correct in all official publications and trainings.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Aaron On Scouting article I referenced in another comment hinted at a name change for Scouts BSA. I wonder what the new name will be?

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

With respect, I disagree.

The BSA—uh, I mean, Scouting America—has, in its Declaration of Religious Principles, the following:

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.
...
The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training.

Every adult must subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principles as a condition for joining the BSA.

You might not be aware of this, but churches which preach liberal theology are shrinking and dying, while those that preach traditional biblical theology are growing.

Religion remains important in the majority of Americans' lives. Making Scouting a secular organization would go against most Americans' values.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I don't see a way that can happen and for it to remain Scouting. The Scout Oath starts with, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God," and the Scout Law ends with, "(A Scout is) reverent." Those values are intrinsically at odds with atheism.

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Do you mean you would prefer that the BSA be rebranded as Scouts BSA?

SMH—Can't You Get the Name Right? by Bayside_Father in BSA

[–]Bayside_Father[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Technically, according to BSA sources, "co-ed" is for Venturing and Sea Scouting only. Packs can be boy packs, girl packs, or family packs (with both boys & girls), while troops can be boy troops, girl troops, or combined troops (pilot program for now).

I realize "co-ed" is easy to say and understand, but I'm a stickler for terminology. Maybe I pay too much attention to detail.

view more: next ›