No good ones. Here is a good link to a precis on the many things wrong with the scouting movement in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_controversies_and_concerns

Well, it's at best a militaristic organisation, riddled with pedophiles and authority jerks. At worst, the U.S. version seems also to have become a mouthpiece for the religious right. Shame, as I understand they used to do some good work.

I've got many thoughts about the Scout movement. The brainchild of Lord Robert Baden-Powell, while he was in Africa, the first camp took place at Brownsea island in 1907. BP had written a book called "Scouting For Boys", and this was so popular a book that he was almost forced into creating the Scouts. The book centred on how the local children had come together during the siege of Mafikeng (now Mafeking) and helped the soldiers who were defending the town. They had been taught some simple skills and used these to great effect. BP thought that these skills were what we now term "moveable" and wrote his book for British boys. The camp was also a success, and the movement spread very quickly. Similar movements started appearing soon after in other countries, from the Boy Scouts of America to the Ukrainian Plast. BP's wife and sister were also very involved with the idea, helping to form the Girl Guides. Over the decades the movement has changed to keep up with more modern thinking, and in the process had lost some of its original innocence and direction, but it is still mostly a force gor good and helps many children to grow and mature in ways that are not always available at school or home. Children can now join at age 6, swimming into Beavers, then swimming up to Cubs (originally Wolf Cubs), then onto Scouts, Explorers, then becoming a Young Leader. At each stage the child learns progressive independence through a wide range of Scouting tasks and badge-work, as well as camping. Girls are now just as welcome as boys, and this year is the Centenary year of Scouting - 100 years since it all started. I personally think it's a great movement, occasionally marred by some sicko, and the boys and girls really enjoy themselves and get to do things that would otherwise be beyond them. My step-son came here as a shy young lad with little English and little hope of making friends quickly, but is now a confidence young man with some great friendships and shared memories, and a host of badges that tell the story for everyone to read (currently Senior Patrol Leader). He has learned to lead, and that communication isn't just about language. My older son travelled to Tanzania and took part in a service project, then went on safari and climbed Kilimanjaro. I couldn't afford to allow him to do that on my own. My daughter went to Ireland and The Isle of Man with her Guide Troop, before she moved to be with her mum and it fell by the wayside. She's now dumbed down her ambitions in many areas. My younger son has just joined the Scouts and is the only one in his Troop allowed to wear the Saltire, as he attended a meeting with us and was presented with it by the our ADC. He is so proud of even that badge, and excitedly tells me about others that he is working toward. From what I've seen Scouting today is just as important as it was 100 years ago, and just as needed. It is still an opportunity to show how much better you can be, and the only thing holding Troops like ours back is that there are so few ADULTS willing to give some of their time to help out. We have a waiting list of children coming up from Cubs, and we know some will always be disappointed, but can't persuade the grown-ups to give a few hours a week to help so many. If Scouting descends into obscurity in the future it won't be because of the children, but the lazy, slobbish, selfish adults that our society has created. So, any thoughts on Scouting? Yes. I think that it has been, and still is, one of the best guiding forces for children and young adults, and one of an elite of movements that covers almost the entire world without caring about your background.

You know, it always amazes me when people criticize the Boy Scouts of America for intolerance. The BSA is a purely voluntary organization. No one holds a gun to the head of people and forces them to join. The BSA is very clear about the values that it supports and does not try to force those values off on people who are not members. All that they ask is that they be allowed to continue to do their work of helping young men grow into responsible adults in peace. It is those that disagree with the value espoused by the BSA that are constantly trying to force their values off on to the BSA. Rather than simply forming their own competing organizations, these people file law suits to try and force the BSA to accept their values. When these law suits failed, then these same people filed suits aimed at forcing the BSA out of all public facilities and properties. It is the critics of the BSA that are trying to destroy a group that disagrees with them. I challenge all of those critics to show me one law suit in which the Boy Scouts have tried to force some other organization to change their beliefs to conform with those of the BSA. Show me one case in which which the BSA tried to deny another organization access to public property. Once you come up empty in this search, ask yourself who is the truly intolerant group. It is not the Boy Scouts that are intolerant of different systems of beliefs. It is those that disagree with them that are intolerant. ************** yeametoo and auntie em, Let's try this scenario. How would you feel if a group of Klansmen or Neonazis decided that they wanted to join the NAACP and have a voice in that organization's policies? By your own logic, you can't ask them to give up their white supremacist views. So, you would have to force the NAACP to accept members who hold view that are repugnant to what the rank and file of that organization stands for. How about the ACLU. They get money from the government. Should they be forced to accept member that think that the government grants us too much freedom? Should they be forced to accept people in their midst that think that the Patriot act didn't go far enough and that we need more limits on our freedom? Finally, what about the Congressional Black Caucus? This isn't just a private group receives money from the government. It is a group actual law makers that limits its membership. They have rejected attempts by black Republicans to join them. Should they be forced to accept white Republicans in their midst? What those of you who want to force your ideas of morality off onto the Boy Scout fail to realize is that we have a right to peaceably assemble that is guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution. This means that we are allowed to choose with whom we will associate. You think it is so bad that the Boy Scouts chooses not to allow certain groups that you support in their midst and therefore want to force the Boy Scouts to accept your beliefs. However, such a policy is a two edged sword. When you start forcing one group to accept people with whom they disagree, then you have to force all groups to accept people with whom they disagree even if that group finds the other people's views repugnant. So, let me ask this again. Who is the more intolerant here. Those that simply choose to follow their own moral code or those that try to force their moral code onto others? You think it is alright for you to try to force you morality off on others, but let others try to force their morality off you and you would be screaming bloody murder.

I enjoyed my years as a Cub Scout, Boy Scout and Explorer Scout. There were some bad spots, like being fondled by a sicko assistant scoutmaster, but I found most of the guys, both scouts and leaders, to be helpful and enjoyable to be around. We had some great times. I learned a lot about life and about myself through Scouting.