Actually, his unit protested his removal as they wanted to keep him as a leader. Their wishes were ignored.

QUOTE=skeptic;n372144]It was also meant to be related to "leaders" only; again it was extended to youth by a few illogical and extreme individuals and became just another skewed attack point.[/QUOTE]

Actually it was the BSA in front of the supreme court that said that the rule applies to both youth and adults. It was later that thy tried to spin it by saying "leaders only".

Well, that changed the direction of this thread.

The Reverent issue is already decided. If the Scout is required (by his own integrity) to "do his duty to God", and we do not require what that duty is, then the Scout's own conscience will be the guide. If he (and /or his family: see BP's classic comment about religion) decides that his duty is to not "believe" in a higher power, or make ritual thereof, then we have done OUR duty toward the Scout.
BP did note that Scouting was "practical" Christianity, much to the consternation of some of his time's Church of England's leaders. He tried to discuss the "church of nature", but some folks didn't want to hear that, either. And BSA became a non-Christian organization.
Come to think of it, the Brit Scout Org has decided not to make religion an issue. Can morality be legislated? Another degression on the horizon....
If the Scout's duty is defined by his and/or his family's faith/church/temple/mosque, then that is his business, not ours. If his duty is defined by his own conscience, then one of two things should happen: Either 1) the Scout will self select to remain in Scouting because he sees gain in it, or 2) he will leave Scouting, because he sees a conflict of interest/belief, a hypocracy that he cannot resolve. It should not be up to a Scout leader to declare that the Scout does not belong in Scouting UNLESS his BEHAVIOR shows a betrayal of his Scout promise or non-adherance to the Scout Law. If his behavior or language (that is a behavior, yes?) is such that the Scout Leader has to point out to the Scout a certain , umm, non-conformity (?), then , yeah, there might be a problem. But need it be a "religious" problem?

I just noticed something. I think this was mentioned some time ago, but since this new bulletin is kind of experimental, here goes.
Note the time stamp in the upper left corner of the post box. I am clicking "post at 10:58pm, local time click

Four gay NFL football players are considering coming out. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/91...ing-coming-gay

It will be a significant event when these pro athletes came out since pro football it is such a huge part of American culture. If the NFL players come out before the May meeting, it would certainly add more pressure on the BSA to open up scouting to gay people.

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

Despite the challenge of trying to navigate this new version of the forums, I am still drawn like a moth to the flame...

Just wanted to post something a little more in line with the original poll that started this thread.I'm a member of a Linked-In group that is comprised of about 30,000 Eagle Scouts. The moderator started a poll about the same time as this one. The poll is interesting in that the results are a flip of the one here.
377 votes in favor of current national policy, versus 232 in favor of lifting the ban and going local option. A 61% to 38% split.
However, when you skim through the nearly 1,300 comments posted to that poll, those in favor of the local option seem to be the most prevalent.

Well, given that the vast majority of the COs are religious organizations and how they feel about the topic in general, I think that gives you your answer about why the Eagles may be more conservative. But to be honest. I don't know that many Scouts that are really following this issue -- or any political issue for that matter. Most really could not care one way or the other.

I thought the Linked-In poll was a bit of an anomoly compared to most of what I've be seeing on the internet. Even the comments posted to the poll generally reflect more interest in the local option. Keep in mind that this particular group I've cited is not made up of youth, but adults who in the past have received the Eagle Award (following the tradition of "once an Eagle, always an Eagle."). The members may or may not still be active in Scouting.
I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that most of the noise seems focused on inclusion and the highly touted local option. If I had to bet, I would say it's a foregone conclusion. In fact, I think the decision was made several months ago but the board wants to give the air of open discussion so they kicked it down the road to the National Meeting. Now, I'm going to speculate a bit and suggest that maybe the poll I cited actually reflects what the "stakeholders" really feel, but have not been that vocal about. What happens when the vote in May turns to keeping the current policy? I predict should that happen the Board will simply overturn that vote and change the policy anyway.

I'm sure not looking forward to the media circus and Facebook madness that will surround that meeting. Might be a great couple of days to turn it all off and read some books instead!

Posting more to test the site, but here on the Left Coast a panel in the state capitol is proposing taking away the tax exempt status of the Boy Scouts (collect sales tax on every Scout-O-Rama booklet sold):

"[URL="http://www.latimes.com/topic/social-issues/social-organizations/youth-organizations/boy-scouts-of-america-ORCIG000073.topic"]Boy Scouts of America[/URL="http://www.latimes.com/topic/social-issues/social-organizations/youth-organizations/boy-scouts-of-america-ORCIG000073.topic"]
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/po...,6792808.story

Interesting how they, too, are ignoring the atheist exclusion as well.

The LA Times has come out against the proposal:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,2815858.story

"

My understanding is that this bill is basically dead on arrival. The state Senator that is sponsoring it knows that, and is using it to make a statement. Passing it will require a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, which is doesn't have a chance of getting. It is also a bad precedent (as the LA Times editorial pointed out), and the senators know it. I wouldn't worry about it (unless the BSA ends up doing something really stupid in the May meeting).

The opposition to this is organizing. Facebook just showed me an ad for [URL="http://www.onmyhonor.net/"]OnMyHonor.net[/URL="http://www.onmyhonor.net/"].

"OnMyHonor.net is the official coalition of concerned parents, Scout Leaders, Scouting Donors, Eagle Scouts and others affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America who are united in their support of Scouting’s timeless values and their opposition to open homosexuality in the Scouts."

The opposition to this is organizing. Facebook just showed me an ad for [URL="http://www.onmyhonor.net/"]OnMyHonor.net[/URL="http://www.onmyhonor.net/"].

"OnMyHonor.net is the official coalition of concerned parents, Scout Leaders, Scouting Donors, Eagle Scouts and others affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America who are united in their support of Scouting’s timeless values and their opposition to open homosexuality in the Scouts."

Interesting rumor I heard last week - the idea is being floated to keep BSA traditional, and allow Venturing Crews to allow gays as leaders and crew members. Use it as a test project to see what happens with the older crew members. The news media (which have the same deep understanding of Scouting complexities as they do of religious ones) hears that Scouting is allowing gays in, takes the pressure off National on the issue. GLAAD, other gay pressure groups get to declare victory and go home. Traditional morality still remains part of the Boy Scouts Core Mission. Religious COs can keep their BSA troops. Sounds like a Machiavellian version of the "Czechoslovakian Solution" that was discussed on this thread in the past. Probably just rumor, but anyone else heard this? Any comments?

A question for everyone (I’d start a new pole on this if I could):

The BSA’s bylaws state that the BSA is “completely nonsectarian”. What does that mean to you:

A) People of all religious faiths are equally welcome, and the BSA shouldn’t favor on faith over another.

B) The BSA is primarily a Christian organization and it’s core beliefs are based on Christian values. Others may join, but they must conform to those values.

Seems a simple question to me, and in my mind it certainly should mean interpretation A. Unfortunately, it seems to me that National has been following interpretation B for the last few decades, which doesn't seem to be logically correct in any way I can see.