Kahuna

"Just what Christian values that would be considered the values of the nation are not shared by other faiths. What values that would be considered American values are uniquely Christian?" This is kind of like the definition of pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. You have to go to other countries that are not Christian to see the difference, I think. Countries governed by Sharia (Islamic) law have a completely different system than ours, not just in government, but in beliefs about human behavior. So do Hindu and Buddhist countries. Our system of marriage is a Christian-based system. We don't allow polygamy. Even divorce is based on Christian principles. In Arab countries, men can divorce their wives by merely saying it is so. Women have few rights there, even compared to the diminished number of rights women held here 200 years ago. Many of the values expressed by "mainstream society" are Christian values. Most people will not take a diety's name in vain in polite company. In this country, suicide is not only illegal but thought of as a disgrace. In Japan, it has only been illegal for a short time (if it is illegal, I'm not sure) and at the time of WWII it was a very honorable act. As to the question of who gets to decide, the people do. In legislation, we elect people who will do what we would like (although they never quite seem to do it, but that's a different story). Those people are constrained, though, by the Constitution so that if they wished to pass a law saying we all must go to a Christian church on Sunday and Hindu shrines are forbidden, they couldn't. Sadly, in my view, the Christian values of society are being eroded and I don't think we are a better nation because of it. Please understand I'm talking about values here and not the practice of Christianity itself.

John-in-KC, you missed my point. The question was what values, exactly, make the U.S. a Christian nation. I said I couldn't define it except by comparison. My point was that Japan was clearly a nation without Christian values. I was not holding it up as respecting human life, just the opposite.

Dreaded double post. (This message has been edited by Kahuna)

From the point of view of one who is not a Christian, I think it is inescapable that this is a nation founded on Christian principles. While the men who actually crafted the structure of the country after the Revolution were not necessarily Christian, the people who started the country more than a hundred years earlier, were. In fact, they came here to escape persecution for religious beliefs or to set up their own (Christian) governments based on religion, in many cases. The principles of Christianity guided those who founded the United States in so many ways. Does that mean we are a nation under a Christian God? No. We have freedom of and from religion although there are many who would prefer it otherwise. There are many Americans, like myself, who are not Christian, but it doesn't threaten me in any way to think the nation is a Christian nation. The majority of people here are Christian. The values of the nation as a nation are Christian values (as opposed to sectarian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist). Did the Founders intend to found a nation embedded in Christianity? Obviously not. But the values prevalent at the time and the heritage of those men were Christian. They could not help but establish values that were, in essence, Christian.

One of the reasons I enjoy Scouting is that contact with kids helps us to stay young and keep in touch. It's really easy when you get to be my age to think how much better or how much easier it was a few years back (well, maybe 30 years back ). We do have to keep an open mind about new things, especially if they are important to the kids in the program. It really bothers me that we have been forced to adopt this cautionary attitude about everything, but at the same time I think back on what we let out boys do years back (or even did with them) and think how lucky we were never to have had any serious injuries.

Whoa, John-in-KC, before you call someone's viewpoint a stinking pile of excrement, you might want to be sure you understand what was being said. In this case, you obviously didn't. The question was what values, exactly, make the U.S. a Christian nation. I said I couldn't define it except by comparison. My point was that Japan was clearly a nation without Christian values. I was not holding it up as respecting human life, just the opposite.

Whoa, John-in-KC, cool down a bit. I think you misread my post. The question is what values the makes the U.S. a Christian nation. My response was to explain my understanding by comparing it with non-Christian nations. Japan was one of the clearest examples of the values of a non-Christian nation that I could think of. I am not holding them up as an example of a nation that values human life, just the opposite.

Whoa, John-in-KC, cool down a bit. I think you misread my post. The question is what values the makes the U.S. a Christian nation. My response was to explain my understanding by comparing it with non-Christian nations. Japan was one of the clearest examples of the values of a non-Christian nation that I could think of. I am not holding them up as an example of a nation that values human life, just the opposite.

I won't get into my feelings about Col North as a spokesman for the BSA, but as long as we are getting things straight: North is not a criminal. If your conviction is overturned (your technicality is my justice), you do not stand convicted. You may think he broke the law, but according to the law, he didn't. He retains his retired rank, pension and benefits from the USMC.

Honestly is always the best policy! But, seriously, in this case I think you did the right thing. However, there are some other cases in which it might not serve so well to tell the "whole" truth about everything, just because a Scout or anyone else asks you. We are not obligated to tell everything we know. We are only obligated not to lie. I have answered a lot of questions with, "Why in the world would you ask me that?" and ending the discussion.

The BSA position as stated sounds like sophistry to me. In any case, they obviously have no way of determining who is agnostic if the person doesn't tell them. I find that whole statement on the website to be inconsistent with itself.

Newbie DL: Backpacker is a former professional and so am I. We just have different takes on some of what is happening. Fabrication of units and numbers does happen, no doubt about it, but there is another factor that accounts for number inflation. Units do not always purge their rosters completely when the recharter. Some units are organized and fail for various reasons, many of which are not the fault of the council. Some COs want to keep a Scouting presence and will keep rechartering even though they don't have an active program. Some units are in fact combination troops and venture units and have the same membership, so what looks like two units is really only one. To be realistic, professional Scouters are in a numbers game. They compete for dollars with every other nonprofit and within their own organizational hierarchy they must have measurable achievements. Membership and units are the only really measurable way of doing it. It's a lousy way, shouldn't be that way, but reality is reality.

Lisa'bob, Yes, you would throw out the good (if you could find any) with the bad, but you would change the system. Right now, the whole legislative system is run according to rules it sets for itself. Very little of it is in the Constitution: filibusters, seniority, committees, majority leader/minority leader, are all made up stuff. If everyone was on an equal footing, I think we would stand a better chance of getting important legislation passed. A major change would be the motivation for getting into Congress. If you couldn't make it a career, you would have to be altruistic. There would be some loons elected, I'm sure, but they would be term limited. The big danger that I see with term limited Congress is that, without the current structure and the senior pols, the administrators could take over the system. I'm not sure how to deal with that, but, as I said earlier, this is about as likely to happen as my flying on the next space shuttle. The pols are the ones who would have to instigate the changes and they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Term limits are the only way of going back to the kind of government the framers intended. And, the only way to do it is by limiting to one term, possibly two for Representatives, pay them a decent salary, maybe provide them medical care and a military style home for the duration of their term and then, at the end, give them a plaque with the thanks of their nation and a plane ticket back home. Sadly, none of this will ever happen. The Constitution would have to be amended and guess who does that? Right.

There are many factors that play in membership stats for any organization. If you look at membership of Kiwanis, US Power Squadron, Civil Air Patrol, I don't care what, you find that, overall, they are down. People just don't have enough "time" anymore to be involved in those things. I am amazed to hear the comments about how many parents are counting on athletic scholarships to get their kids thru college. That will affect not only Scouting, but the quality of youth coming up thru the school system. If you look at the membership of any Scout troop or Cub pack, it depends on the program. The same is true of any Kiwanis club or other organization. If you have good program, kids will come and join.

I agree that the line-item veto can be misused, but it will help to cut out some pork. I support it. As to the jamboree appropriation, the DOD buries those funds in their training, facility maintaining and other budgets.

I thought Gilwell definitely worth the time. I was there in summer, when there were people camping and the interaction with British Scouters there was great. If you are interested in Scouting history, Gilwell is more significant than B-P House, which has only a small museum. Of course, if you're sightseeing in London, B-P House is close to Kensington Palace, Albert Hall, and the Victoria and Albert Museum, so easy to include. Gilwell is out at the end of the tube line and then walk, so it is time consuming to get out there.

Our Ship used the sponsoring battleship ship's patch as our Ship patch on the right sleeve. It's a little different situation, since it also represents the Sea Scout Ship name.

Sunsetandshadow, welcome to the forum and the discussion. I don't know why you would be shocked by any of these comments or why you would assume that we must all be Christians to be Scouters. I don't take offense, but you must realize there are many religions, all of which are acceptable to the BSA, with very divergent beliefs on many topics. Evolution would be one of those, but there are many others. I would suggest it also possible to be a Christian without believing in the biblical version of creation. Certainly there are many Christians who do believe in evolution. To get back to unchanging moral standards, I was at a seminar this weekend which presented the philosophy of Shambala, which is a subset of Tibetan Buddhism, but not necessarily religious. That is, you don't have to believe in Buddhism, or even a divine being, to follow its path. Shambala is founded on the principle that there is a way to live that works and makes life more enjoyable that is not founded on anything divine. There are thousands of people who have followed this path since pre-history. This nonreligious philosophy teaches that there is an ethical way to live in dealing with others and with yourself. Those standards are as impermeable as granite, seem to work very well in society and yet do not depend on the dictates of a divine source. Just food for thought about unchanging moral standards.

ROFL, Kudu, I have no idea, but it could on for a few pages, I'm sure. BTW, I have never been able to make up my mind about B-P's sexuality myself. Those Victorians were notoriously complicated in that regard. However, other than some of the MacLaren references, which certainly are unpersuasive to my mind, I've not seen any evidence that convinces me he was ever an active homosexual (or pedophile). To my mind, it really doesn't matter what his orientation was, so long as he didn't act on it. I've often wished I could have brought this topic up to Bill Hillcourt to get his actual take on it. He was not as simplistic about B-P as one might conclude from his book.

BrentAllen: Funny, I don't see Kudu trying to bring down B-P at all. Jeal's book certainly has some provocative thoughts in it, but to say he asserts that B-P was homosexual is a little oversimplistic. Anyone who reads anything about B-P beyond Bill Hillcourt's book must conclude that he was an odd duck in many ways and his sexual side was somewhat puzzling. In any case, Jeal does not assert that his behavior was homosexual. B-P was an ordinary human being, not a god. I don't know what Kudu thinks about him and haven't read everything he's said about B-P. Jeal's book has held up pretty well, as far as I know. Unlike some other B-P bashing books, I don't think he has been directly contradicted in any significant respect.

There are others of local importance, but no other national figures that I'm aware of. The only one marked outside it's own plot is the baseball guy. I would think a project to mark gravesites all over the cemetary would be too many signs. All of Honolulu's founding fathers of white ancestry are buried there. Hawaiian royalty has its own mausoleum and Asian people tend to be buried together. It's interesting, though, that cemetaries are not generally referenced in guidebooks or tours, unless you go in for a special type of tour.

I very rarely find anything on network TV worthy of watching. I am hooked on no series, except Battlestar Galactica on the SciFi channel. I watch a lot of History Channel and Military Channel, some A&E and a few cable movies. Those channels are worth the price to me of the cable. I also watch a lot of Netflix movies. Movies of all kinds grab my attention. I also am badly hooked on having a news network running all day long, which I only monitor from other rooms. A throwback to my military intelligence days when you worked all day with CNN (that was the only one around then) on monitors all over the place. They usually had significant events from around the world before we got them by military wire.

I have to agree with DanKroh on this one. Moral standards are more determined, it seems to me, by your upbringing (parents) than by a religious standard. Their standards may be religious based or not. Certainly there is no reason that atheists cannot have an unchanging moral standard. There are some principles that can be determined from studying philosophy, history and (perhaps) comparative religions that work in society. Atheists only differ in that they don't believe there is a judgment awaiting at the end of life. Christians, on the other hand, believe that if they sin they will be forgiven. The behavioral result can be the same.

Great words, SemperP!