Jump to content

Hunt

Members
  • Posts

    1842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hunt

  1. "The ad spot I see is an x-gamesish montage of guys rapelling down sheer rock walls, whitewater rafting, shooting sports, hiking a breathtaking vista, telling jokes around a campfire, etc. with a pumped up soundtrack and voice over. This could be done in 15 seconds. A national campaign would cost money for sure, but I'll bet it would work." I like this idea, but I'd add to it. I'd show that footage on the right side of a split screen. On the left side, I'd show a boy sitting on a couch with a game controller in his hands, his pale, slack-jawed, glassy-eyed face illuminted by the blue light of a TV screen. At the end, I'd show a screen with a slogan like "Live the Adventure. Be a Scout." Then there would be a link to a well-designed recruiting website.
  2. Fuzzy Bear puts his finger on it--we live in a less trusting society. I don't know if molestation is more or less common than it was 30 years ago, but we hear about it a lot more, and it makes us suspicious of everybody. When a leader has kids in the unit, it's less likely that anybody will wonder why he's involved. Two-deep leadership is the antidote to these concerns. One other point--the whole scouting "thing" seems odd to people who haven't been exposed to it before, especially the spectacle of adults in uniform, the saluting, the lingo, etc. The neophyte might have trouble understanding why somebody would want to be involved in all that if it wasn't for their own child.
  3. Perhaps a short-lived cosmetic surgery fad among well-heeled Klingons?
  4. I don't think there's much more to be said about how to interpret "best kind of citizen," so I'll turn to the question of whether BSA is a "religious organization." Look at the two following definitions of "religious" "adj 1: concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a member of a religious order"; 2: having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude" In my mind, BSA fits the second (but not the first) definition. Clearly, BSA is not a religion (such as Roman Catholicism), nor is it a religious organization in the sense of an organization primarily devoted to religion, such as, say, Campus Crusade for Christ, or the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. However, as an organization, it is "religious" in the sense of the second definition. Perhaps another example of an organization that is "relgious" in this way would be Alcoholics Anonymous--its main focus isn't religion, but it does invoke a "Higher Power." I think there has been some confusion in this thread and others between these two kinds of "religious organization." I think that confusion can be seen in the controversies in the courts, too--BSA emphasizes its "religious" character when it wants to justify its religious membership requirements, but emphasizes its non-sectarian character (and the fact that religion is not central) when it resists removal of government support. I actually think it's a moot point, because the religious membership requirement alone is probably enough to make government support unlawful. It would be better for BSA to simply agree that it is "religious" in the sense of supporting religion in a non-sectarian fashion.
  5. Look, it's just absurd to say BSA doesn't think it's better to be religious than not to be religious. Its own words make it clear that it does think that. Furthermore, any honest religious person would would have to admit thinking that it is better to be religious than not to be religious (or at least it's better to believe in the true religion than not to). As I see it, there are two possible basic reasons for thinking it is better to be religious: 1. God, or at least something divine, is real, and there really is a religious obligation. If this is true, it's obviously better to be religious so you can perform your obligation. 2. While God may or may not be real, being religious provides benefits to the individual or to society. From this point of view, religion is like midnight basketball--it keeps people off the streets. (Or it's the opiate of the masses.) Currently, BSA's statement of religious principle suggests that it believes in the second reason--that religion is necessary to become "the best kind of citizen." I'm just saying I think the first reason is a better one, and doesn't require claims about better morals that are awfully hard to prove given world history.
  6. I just saw the new Citizenship in the Community Requirements--assuming these are the real deal, they are much more demanding than the old requirements, including volunteering 8 hours for a charitable organization. I have two questions: 1. It's my understanding that if a scout has already begun work on the MB before Jan. 1, he may complete the badge under the old requirements. Correct? And how do you interpret "begun work?" There are some boys in the troop who have been issued the blue card and have made contact with the MBC before Jan. 1, but haven't really done anything. Still, my inclination would be to say that if they have the blue card, they've begun the merit badge. 2. Another double-dipping question--can we also count the 8 hours of volunteering for a charitable organization towards the service project requirements for Star and Life? The MB requirements appear to be silent on this point. A comment--I was surprised to see these changes. To me, it upsets the idea that a Scout should progress throught the Citizenship badges by doing Community, Nation, and then World. Now, I'd say Nation is the easiest, and Community the hardest (or at least most time-consuming).
  7. The argument has some bite, but it proves too much. Thus, the writer says: "If it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of which ideology one chooses to follow or which god one chooses to worship, it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of whom one chooses to love." If one chooses to love three wives? A minor? Obviously, at some point society has to decide whether "voluntary" behavior is harmful to society as a whole--thus, laws against such "choices" as using certain drugs, or limiting gambling or prostitution. Our Bill of Rights creates certain protected zones--like religion and race--the whole issue here is whether sexual orientation should be one of these or not. The editorial writer assumes that it should be, whether it's a choice or not, but the law doesn't protect other choices--for example, in most places, at least, it's OK to discriminate in housing against people based on their job--ie, some rental properties won't rent to lawyers. That's a choice too, but it's not a protected zone.
  8. With all due respect, Fuzzy Bear, BSA's statement is hard to interpret as anything other than comparative. It states: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God..." If it said something like "Recognizing his obligation to God helps a member grow into the best kind of citizen," I might agree with you, but it doesn't say that. As stated, BSA wouldn't recognize some of the Founding Fathers as "the best kind of citizen." But as I said, I think BSA has good reasons for maintaining its religious requirement other than morality. If I were given the opportunity to rewrite the statement of religious principle, it might go something like: "The members of the Boy Scouts of America share the belief that life has a spiritual dimension, and that fulfilling his obligation to God is an important part of a Scout's development as a whole person." Let me put it this way--religion (in my view) isn't important because it makes people behave more morally, or because it makes them happier, or because it helps society run more smoothly--it's important because God is real and people do have obligations to God. Being more moral isn't a reason to be religious (although it may be a reason to want other people to be religious). If you lived in China, performing your obligation to God would not make you a good citizen--in fact, it could make you an enemy of the state and send you to prison. But that doesn't change the obligation. I think things would just be simpler if we said, "Hey, BSA is a club of and for people who believe in God, just like the Roman Catholic Church is for people who share the beliefs of that faith, and the Britney Spears Fan Club is for people who like Britney. You might have reasons you'd like to join one of those groups without accepting the shared views of the members, but you can't. You'll just have to find another group that fits your views, or start your own."
  9. To be fair, BSA does choose wording in its statement of religious principle that suggests religious people are better than others: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God..." I think this could easily be replaced by something like "The Boy Scouts of America believes that all persons have an obligation to God..." But even as written, it's a proposition that either you agree with or you don't--if you strongly disagree, you don't join.
  10. "If there is absolute truth, and I am one that subscribes to that opinion, then some of these moral codes are mutually exclusive." I agree with that--but I don't think it follows from that proposition that a religious-based moral code is necessarily "better" than a secular moral code--from your point of view(and mine as well) the true test of a moral code is how closely it adheres to absolute truth. And the only way for me to perform that test is to compare a person's moral code to my concept of absolute truth. When I do that, a particular atheist's code may be closer to my views than those of a religious person's. Now it could be that there is some intrinsic different between moral codes based on belief in a higher power and moral codes based on secular philosophical ideas, but historically the basic ideas (like the Golden Rule, justice, altruism, etc.) have characterized both kinds of codes. (There are counterexamples, of course, like Ayn Rand's philosphy--but they aren't mainstream.) If you really had to pick out a difference, religion-based moral codes are much more likely to include very specific requirements that are very difficult to explain based on a broader principle. Another possible question would be: is a person with a religious-based moral code less likely to violate his own moral code than a non-believer with a philosophy-based moral code? I'm sorry to say that I haven't really observed this to be true, with the exception of people very strongly devoted to their beliefs.
  11. Just to clarify--my point was that if a city develops a policy that it will no longer lease to any organization that discriminates, I think it would be able to enforce that policy with respect to future leases and lease renewals, as long as it applies it evenhandedly. Thus, given what little we know about the facts, I don't think BSA will succeed in forcing Berkeley to allow it to use the marina, unless Berkeley allows other discriminatory groups to use the marina. In the San Diego case, the plaintiffs in the original case wanted to void the existing leases--and they needed an argument that the leases were somehow illegal--they couldn't rely on a nondiscrimination policy. It should be noted that the San Diego cases doesn't turn on whether BSA's policy is discriminatory, but rather on the proposition that it is a religious organization. This is why BSA's separate suit has pointed out that San Diego has leased many properties to religious organizations, and I suspect it will come out that the leasing process was not much different for them.
  12. To try to restate a point I tried to make before: EVERY moral code is a personal choice--even a code based in a revealed religion requires you to choose to believe in the truth of the religion. On the flip side, almost everybody's moral code is composed of elements they have adopted from others--whether it is their religion, social norms, books they've read, or something else, few people construct a moral code from the ground up. To put it another way, I see no reason to think that another person's moral code is more likely to be correct (ie, adhering to the true religion, ie, my religion) just because it is derived from some other religion. As I've said before, I think BSA has good reasons for insisting on religious belief of some kind for membership--I just don't think better morality is one of those reasons.
  13. Actually, the San Diego case is about two leases. One,for a camp in Balboa Park, was originally negotiated in 1957 for a term of 50 years, and renewed in 2001 for a period of 25 years. The second, for an aquatic center, was negotiated in 1987 for a period of 25 years. The plaintiffs wanted both leases broken because of the Boy Scouts' religious requirement, and the district court ruled (absurdly, given the facts) that the leases were not negotiated openly enough, and thus appeared to favor religion. Rather than appeal a clearly erroneous decision, the city caved in to political pressure and settled the case, agreeing to break the leases, and even agreeing to pay the ACLU $950,000. Now the BSA has sued the city to uphold the leases--a lawsuit I predict it will win. I must add that although I think the ACLU was wrong in this case, I think the ACLU genuinely doesn't believe that government entities should be sponsoring or aiding religious groups, and they're right about the general principle. In this particular case, their zeal (and anger at BSA for winning the Dale case, probably) caused them to take a position that was unreasonable and unfair. If it ever gets to a higher court, probably through BSA's lawsuit, it will be reversed. Certainly, the current Supreme Court would make short work of ACLU's argument in this particular case.
  14. This is all kid of picky, but I guess this is a picky topic. Question 1: Should Scouts be saluting the flag at all? Are they "in uniform" for the purposes of the Flag Code? If they are, does that mean that any private organization can authorize its members to salute the flag when wearing the "uniform" of that organization? Question 2: How "in uniform" must a Scout be before saluting is appropriate? All elements of the uniform, including belt and socks? If a Scout wearing a "field uniform" shirt can salute even if he isn't wearing the other uniform elements, I don't see the difference between that an a Scout wearing an "activity uniform" shirt. Question 3: (really picky) If the troop has chosen not to wear the optional Scout hat or cap as part of its uniform, what should uniformed scouts wearing other hats do during a flag salute? Remove the hat and then salute, remove the hat and put hand on heart, or salute while wearing the hat?
  15. The way it works here is that once a year the MBC "czar" for the District sends a message to the Troop's Advancement Coordinator with a list of all the MBCs affiliated with the troop, and asks for an updated list, dropping anybody that is no longer participating, and making sure that all the listed people, badges, addresses, etc., are correct. This works pretty well. I don't know what he does with people who are not affiliated with a unit, but I suspect it is similar.
  16. My son was in a pack that had one pack meeting and one den meeting a month, with some additional events. It was possible to complete the program (most of the Webelos achieved their Arrow of Light), but I wouldn't say it was a strong program. Quite a few of the boys didn't cross over to Scouts.
  17. My son missed the Derby one year because he was sick--he would have dragged himself there if he hadn't been contagious. The Pack raced his car by proxy. So I can't really support a "scout must be present to race" rule. Here's my suggestion--it should be part of the rules that the Scout is EXPECTED to be present to race. If he absolutely can't be present, he should arrange with his Den (not the CM) for his car to be raced by proxy. That way, the boy might feel some peer pressure to show up.
  18. Do you want more uniforming, or more saluting? When you get right down to it, you have to question whether Scouts and Scouters are really "in uniform" for the purposes of the Flag Code. Are Catholic priests in their clerical garb "in uniform?" Baseball players? How about McDonald's employees? The Orkin man? I think the Flag Code is referring to military (and maybe police, etc.) uniforms, not private uniforms. (Note that the Flag Code refers to the "military salute.") But I see no problem with Scouts saluting--it has become traditional, Flag Code or no. As to the question of whether Scouts in "Class B" uniforms should salute, here's my proposed compromise: Scouts wearing a troop-designated activity uniform should salute, even if it's just a uniform T-shirt...BUT, no person wearing a non-uniform headcovering should salute. (This includes the kid in his field uniform but a Yankees cap). I think the Flag Code (and proper ettiquette) requires that non-uniform hats be removed during a flag salute.
  19. Here, even changing badges doesn't require a new BSA registration, just a new (separate) MB form for the council/district. The BSA registration for doesn't even have a blank for what badges you're going to counsel.
  20. I think the article is overheated. Of course, BSA really does discriminate on the bases of religion and sexual orientation--and the US Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that BSA can continue to do so. The ongoing legal issues involve what relationship BSA and its units can have with government entities, which can't discriminate on the basis of religion (or, in some localities, on the basis of sexual orientation). If the City of Berkeley wants to restrict the use of its marina to groups that do not practice discrimination, I see no problem with that. It's their marina. It would be a different story if they allowed some discriminatory groups, but not BSA. That would itself be discrimination. But if they just say that their marina can only be used by groups that are open to everyone, the BSA will lost the case. The San Diego case is different, because the judge (in my opinion) made an absurd decision that the lease wasn't openly negotiated. That case was about San Diego breaking the lease--if it were a matter of San Diego just deciding not to renew the lease, I don't think there would be a case.
  21. I wouldn't ban anybody for using the term "liberal blather," but I do recognize it as typical conservative cant...oops! To me, the fallacy is the idea that what we call "liberals" and "conservatives" actually have consistent ideologies. They really don't--this can be readily seen when both groups defend states' rights to make laws, as long as they agree with the laws. I also always enjoy telling people that as a true conservative, I must oppose the death penalty because I could never trust the government enough to allow it to execute a citizen. But to the original question here--I agree that the best way to deal with these debates is to turn them into real debates, or to counsel the boys to avoid topics that cause conflict.
  22. Perhaps one reason "Class A" is such a widely used term is that "field uniform" seems nonsensical for a uniform that few would wear in the field. As to saluting, it seems to me that if the boys are truly dressed uniformly--ie, even if it's a uniform troop T-shirt, it is legitimate to consider them "in uniform" and to salute.
  23. Are you sure about this (MBCs reregistering every year)? We had the situation where we learned that people who were already registered in troop positions had to also register as a MBC--I never could get a good explanation of why this had to be done, but of course I obeyed.
  24. Whether you are religious or not, your system of morality is ultimately based on something that you have to take on faith--that you can't prove to be true. For example, for many Christians, that bedrock belief would be something like, "The Bible is true." If you accept that the Bible is true, then you can derive your moral beliefs from what the Bible says. If you're an atheist, you might believe that, "Whether an action harms others is the measure of whether it is good or bad." You can then derive your system of morality from that. But whether you are are religious or not, your system of morality is complicated, and was developed over a long period of time by other people, with many influences. For example, Eagledad's post suggests that he thinks (as would virtually everyone alive now) that slavery is immoral. Well, you can't prove that by the words of the Bible, which recognize slavery as perfectly normal, never condemn it, and don't even prohibit Christians from owning slaves. It is an evolving concept of the broader moral commands of the Bible that have led most Christians to now condemn slavery as immoral. I guess I just don't find persuasive the argument that religious people are more moral because their morals are based on timeless, revealed values, when they can't agree on the values, the values change over time, and vast numbers don't even live by the values they claim to honor.
  25. I don't think you can say it's not about majorities and minorities--it really is. The person who is in the minority feels a pressure that it is difficult for people in the majority to understand. It's OK to learn about other faiths--but that's not the same as having a Christian prayer for six weeks, and on the seventh being allowed to offer a Jewish prayer. The Eskimo dance sounds great, but would you really want to be in a troop that constantly referred to a faith you don't share? I also agree that you can only accomodate so far--it's one thing to avoid pork, but it would be something else to follow all kosher rules. But not eating pork, or not eating food that you're allergic to, is not the same as not liking spaghetti. If your fellow scouts respect you, they'll never ask to you to put up pork on the menu, or the food that can harm you. So with your religious beliefs, if your fellow scouts respect you, they won't want to make you uncomfortable, and if they find that their actions are doing so, they'll understand and find a nonsectarian way of expressing themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...