Jump to content

Hunt

Members
  • Content Count

    1842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hunt

  1. Another student who helped others was identified as an Eagle Scout in some of the articles: http://news.bostonherald.com/national/south/view.bg?articleid=195363
  2. "Hunt, I've seen you and other people mischaracterize the ACLU as acting that they are getting revenge because they "lost" the Dale case, but I've never seen you nor anyone else suggest why the ACLU should ignore the issues that are raised by the BSA being a private, discriminatory, religious organization considering all the government entanglement with this supposedly private club. You were not at all concerned that the BSA's largest unit sponsor (public schools) could no way legally charter ANY units of a private, discriminatory religious club, yet you were quick enough to criticize efforts
  3. In my son's troop, there was an older boy that everyone called "Spongebob." I'm not sure why they called him this, but it seemed to be an affectionate nickname. It would seem extreme to me to forbid this kind of nickname. On the other hand, I recognize that nicknames can be cruel (especially when they are applied to younger boys). It seems to me that this is something the SM and SPL should monitor and evaluate--while I'm not as sanguine as Ajmako that you can simply apply the Oath and Law to all situations, perhaps I would agree that this is one situation where a bright-line rule may not b
  4. "Whats going to happen is the will end up banning all groups." That's what happened in our school system, when they wanted to exclude fliers from an evangelical group. First they banned fliers from everyone except school groups and sports leagues, and then they banned all fliers except from the school itself (even banning fliers from the PTA). Now they've reached a compromise in which all groups (presumably including the evangelistic group) can send home fliers four times a year. It really is pretty much an all-or-nothing thing--the school doesn't have to create the forum for speech, b
  5. "Yes Hunt, YOUR money will be wasted on court costs; I note you aren't concerned about MY money being spent on an organization that excludes atheists, being paid for by all taxpayers, including atheists. I doubt all the litigation would exceed what the DoD spends on one jamboree." I'm not concerned about it because I feel confident that the courts will rule that your money is being well spent for purposes that benefit the military in its training and recruitment. While you may not like that (just as I don't like some of the things that the government spends my money on), I think it's dif
  6. That's right, the case was against DOD, so it will be MY money that will be wasted if a futile appeal is taken. While there are legal arguments on both sides, the chances that the current Supreme Court would strike down the Jamboree law on the basis that members of the public can't participate fully is vanishingly remote. Really, if I were the plaintiffs, I would be concerned about appealing the case for fear that the Supreme Court would take up the reasoning of the concurring judge on standing.
  7. I think an en banc rehearing is unlikely, since there was no dissent in the case--in fact, the concurring opinion went even farther than the majority in asserting that there was no standing. Realisticly, this is probably the end of the line for this case. And, as Ed points out, the Jamboree is open to the public--a point emphasized in the opinion, by the way--so I think the kind of standing Merlyn suggests is unlikely to succeed. What's more, with the Supreme Court we have now, BSA would very likely prevail on the merits even if some plaintiff could show standing--the Court would simply say
  8. "Someone should definitely tell her that the way she is wearing the shirt is improper. Wouldn't someone correct a Scout who had his shirt on that way?" Would someone? That's really the question here, I think. How good is the uniforming for others in the troop, including leaders? If there are men wearing non-uniform pants without being criticized, for example, then I think it would be unfair to single her out unless there is something indecent about her attire.
  9. I've read the opinion, and it seems to me that this is probably the end of the road for those who want to challenge the military's support of the Jamboree. I think it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would take this case on appeal, and even more unlikely that the decision would be overturned. Although the suit was dismissed on standing grounds, this is not one of those cases where the plaintiffs can go back and find somebody else with a better claim to standing--the decision essentially says that no private citizen has standing to challenge the Jamboree statute. By the way, the co
  10. They could enforce the Eagle MB requirement by insisting on seeing the actual blue cards (assuming they are used in that district). I suspect that this whole thing arose out of an Eagle BOR in which a boy had a large number of MBs signed off by a single counselor. That's not to say it's a reasonable limitation, but you can easily imagine situations that might make leaders want to impose it.
  11. "BSA as a MOVEMENT that stresses the STRICT adherence to signing the Declaration of RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE, sounds a whole lot like religious fundamentalism to me." You want to characterize an organization that includes Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Unitarians, etc. as practicing religious fundamentalism? The religious principle is about as vague and general as you can get and still be religious. I mean, seriously, what does this part of your argument gain you? I assure you, if BSA were truly run by religious fundamentalists, they wouldn't let in adherents of
  12. I think that diversity has some benefits by itself, but its primary value is demonstrating that the program is available to all--in other words, if the membership isn't diverse, that shows that we are underserving some communities, for various reasons.
  13. "Unless the vast unknown emptiness IS that god for some person - and unless BSA is ready to make a very specific definition of what BSA means by "God", the judgment should be left to the individual holding the belief. BSA's desire not to provide such specificity is obvious." I think this makes BSA's virtue into a vice--that is, you are essentially criticizing BSA for its non-sectiarian position. BSA's only limitation, essentially, is that there must be some supernatural element in order for something to be a "religion." I think that another theme that runs through this discussion is
  14. To me, an Eagle COH is very much like a high school or college graduation ceremony. While it is primarily designed to honor the achievement of the Scout or the graduate, it is also an important milestone for the family and other supporters. An Eagle COH is also an important event for the younger scouts in the troop. So, I do think a scout has an obligation to have an Eagle COH unless he has a very good reason not to do so, and I don't think discomfort is a good enough reason. Reminding a person that his choices have effects on other people is not unkind.
  15. I agree that "namecalling" is not necessarily bullying--however, it seems to me that what Lisabob is describing is beyond the friendly banter (including namecalling) that is common among boys (and men). It can be hard to draw the line, of course. I think it is true that men and women communicate differently, and this may be an element of this issue. If you haven't read it before, you might read "You Just Don't Understand" by Deborah Tannen, which has a lot about this. [she gives an example--if a girl has a big nose, her good friends will tell her it's not big, it fits her face, etc. If a
  16. Packsaddle, by your logic a boy who is an anarchist could also feel he satisfied the oath, because he believes he has no duty to his country. One of Ayn Rand's followers might feel that he has no obligation to help other people, and thus he could freely swear that he has met his obligation to do so. While I'm not advocating what I'm about to say, the way to drop the DRP while retaining the Oath and Law without changes would be to say that when the Oath says "God," that includes non-theistic ethical systems that take the place of religious-based ethics in the life of the individual.
  17. "I've told my son, that if he is uncomfortable with the attention, that he should look at it as an opportunity for him to thank all the leaders, fellow scouts and family who have helped and supported him in his journey." I would state this more forcefully--I think a boy has an obligation to thank those people who helped him get where he is. To deny them the opportunity to attend his COH is unkind.
  18. Kudu writes: "Six-year-old Mark Welsh is not a "rhetorical device," he is a human being with a heart that the BSA sought to capture in a public classroom and then break. The rhetorical device here is your attempt to shift the discussion away from the true meaning and practice of the BSA's "Religious Principle."" No, I'm sorry, the rhetorical device is your misstatement of the Welsh case. "BSA" did not tell him that anyone can join; a person did that, and that person was wrong. In fact, not everyone can join. While it is regrettable that a boy's feelings were hurt, I don't think a
  19. Some threads are unbearably long As we go at it hammer and tong But it's just that we care And just want to share And besides, the other guy's WRONG. Sometimes there is another poster who just gets under your skin, and sometimes you need to take a break from the fray to get over it. I've been there--at least once, when I finally returned, the person who annoyed me was gone. The only suggestion I would have for moderators is to feel free to move the more testy exchanges here to Issues and Politics, where those who choose to participate can do so. For participants, I would suggest
  20. The phrase "turn our backs on a six-year-old" is nicely turned, and certainly implies something only a heartless person would do. But it's the kind of rhetorical device that is designed to avoid focussing on the basic question of whether it is reasonable for a religious organization to restrict its membership to religious people. While it's too bad that some six-year-olds will have parents who choose to teach them that religion is a fairy tale, with the result that those kids will not be able to join the religious organization, that is a decision the parents have the right to make. It seems
  21. This subject has been extensively discussed here before, with some arguing that BSA's policies are enough, and others arguing that troop by-laws and policies may be necessary. Back when we were having this discussion, I was of the view that troops might need some rules (preferably set by the PLC)--however, I must say that when I went on the web and looked at actual troop by-laws and policies, the majority of them included rules that are contrary to BSA rules and policies, especially with respect to advancement--things like limitations on parents counseling merit badges, the number of merit ba
  22. I would say that overall, the program is rigorous enough as long as boys are actually required to fulfill the requirements as written. I think that like others, I would make some changes that might make specific parts more rigorous. For example, I don't like Swimming and Lifesaving being optional, because I just can't picture an Eagle Scout who isn't capable of saving a drowning person. If I were revamping the requirements, I would consider having two groups of non-Eagle-required Merit Badges, "Scout Skills," and "General," and would require that a minimum number of the optional merit badg
  23. You know, I agree that the teachers shouldn't have told a boy that "anyone can join" when it isn't true. But I'm nonplussed by the rest of Kudu's rant. Are you sure you don't want to take it back? I'm assuming you'd like to be taken seriously when you advance your other ideas on this board. As has been mentioned ad infinitem, BSA's religious requirement is extremely broad, and is hardly limited to fundamentalists. BSA makes no statements about who is or is not going to Hell, or what God to worship, or anything of the sort. What Lisabob keeps going back to is the idea that if "duty to God
  24. "Using a replacement explitive is still swearing and Swearing is a dirty habbit, like lying, like picking your nose, like other dirty little habbits. It's bad behavior and must not be tollerated or condoned." I can see this as a principle, but where do you draw the line? Dagnabbit? Great Caesar's Ghost? Goodness gracious? Godfrey Daniels? Shoot? Fooey? Do you allow use of the term "snafu?"
  25. My son's troop doesn't have any established attendance requirements (at least, that any current leaders know about). One result of this is that we have at times advanced boys with poor attendance, even boys who didn't perform their PORs very well at all. On the other hand, if we had rigid rules, there would be a few boys who would have had problems advancing because of sports or other activities, who, in my judgment, are good Scouts who contribute as much as they can. I guess my take on this is that at the least there must be some expectations of what level of participation is required for
×
×
  • Create New...