littlebillie

pack, my point was - however poorly stated - was that regardless of whether or not ANY of these lapses have been necessary (or in some cases even understandable), we eventually come to our collective senses, and regain that which was taken away - sometimes with greater appreciation than we ever had before!

"When considered for employment, you owe your potential employer an upfront assessment on how your religious beliefs may effect your work effectiveness. Your potential employer owes you the potential impact your employment may have on your religious observances." well, I'd suggest that if the employer only describes an 8-to-5 or whatever job, and never mentions a need for overtime OR that VT is not carved in stone, then there's no need... if the job on paper raises no possible conflict, then who needs to know?

as I said, THAT was taken as a given. but perhaps maybe it shouldn't..? your comment "However if the Reformed does want to observe the Holiday that should be the end of it" begs another issue. Let's add this to the mix - if Christian execs are called upon to work, say, Christmas or Easter, year after year, and/or are regularly called upon to work Sundays, regardless of their religious plans - for whatever reason, needs of the service or what-have-you - and if fact the company displays uniform disregard for any and all religious holidays, regardless of faith - what impact does this

your point is taken as a given. MY point was there can be work-arounds for Reformed that would not be considered by Orthodox. I'm tired of Jews being seen and treated and described as all exactly the same. It's like saying a Lutheran is the same as a Catholic is the same as an Episcopalian.

kwc57, I think we've given up liberties in the past - McCarthyism, wage freezes, Japanese-American internment camps - and yet somehow, we've brought them back - civil liberties, I mean, not HUAC! Reduce it to a REALLY basic tribal level, everyone sitting around the mouth of the cave, mammoth roasting on an open fire, and so on. When the hunting and gathering is done, you have time for a little civil liberty - making floral garlands, say, or inventing music, or domesticating a dog. Maybe even sharing the mammoth with the tribe from the next valley. BUT as soon as the tribe from

Its Trail Day, Well, I gotta disagree. An Orthodox Jew most likely will NOT want to use a standard cell phone connecting to a teleconference once the 3 stars are visible and he's on foot, not wanting to talk business on the Sabbath, etc, but a Reformed may very well not mind, if he's on his way to the services AND on the TC at the same time, plugged into his car's cigarette lighter socket (which could spark, even if the Orthodox was still being driven by the Shabbes goy chauffeur) and et cetera

First 2, I gotta make some changes... 1. I would "A) Discreetly pull her/him aside and tell them that was offensive, and you might want to think about apologizing" 2. I would "A) Discreetly pull her/him aside and tell them that was offensive, and you REALLY want to think about apologizing" (Yeah, well - the exec. has a bigger liability, lawsuit-wise...) 3. I need more info. a. Does he USUALLY leave at 4 on Fri? b. Also, when is corporate quitting time on Friday? c. IF strictly due to the holiday, and not normally done for the S

war IS avoidable. sometimes the big dog can just bark a bit, mark some territory and walk away. the issue is NOT whether it's avoidable, but whether some are so set as to consider no other course (this can get into a whole philosophical issue that starts off "well then, it ain't avoidable", but that's a different argument altogether, and not one that addresses the "painted ourselves into a corner" motif previously discussed). I, for one, have sufficient humility to understand that just maybe the President has access to info and intelligence that I do not. I have sufficient hum

whew. whotta lotta spittin 'n' hissin... Two-deep is a minimum. MINIMUM. And if there is the slightest possibility that the group will need to split, then it increments evenly, not by odd numbers. 2 adults, 4 adults, 6 adults and so on. You can have odd numbers, of course, provided the odd man is not stand-alone. (gulp!) Bob White is absolutely spang-on about this - WILL it ever happen that a single adult is alone with one or more boys? Yes, in the real world, AND as a result of BAD PLANNING. Bad planning that should never happen again. Are the boys splitting up into te

"...and the sign said 'Long-haired freaky people, don't even try', so I stuffed my hair up under my hat, and i went in to ask him 'why?' he said 'you look like a fine upstandin' young scout - your Eagle's due!' then I took off my hat, I said 'imagine that' - I just got my Eagle from you whoa-oh-oh signs, signs, everyWHERE there's signs, tramp-a-lin' our freedom and breakin' our minds... (submitted with total apologies! :-))

ummm, Bob, not sure what your response really has to do with my post unless you're saying that as long as gays and atheists don't do that stuff around the boys, they're welcome? the secret drinkers and smokers I'm referring to go out behind the dumpster...

BW, the response was to Mark - tring to point out that discrimation against an atheist is indeed religous discrimination. he was asking the old question of how can discrimination against an atheist be religious. yes. we all know the BSA discriminates. that wasn't the immediate issue, but thanks.

Bob, your example is 5% apples to 10% oranges. "When someone asks if your family has grown do you really answer based on the world population trends?" Well, perhaps if I'm part of ZPG. That aside, I'm not holding my family's growth OR lack thereof up as an example that all is just swell with my family. See, that's usually what couting growth percentages are held up to mean - that things are good in the land of Scouts, and that the program is strong. Well, maybe, and maybe not! The growth stat by itself shows us nothing about that, especially when many times the numbers are being tout

secret smoking and drinking seems to be getting defended by some of the same folks that would condemn be secretly gay or atheist. no real point - just an observation

Bob, gotta disagree. if the population of eligible boys has doubled (i.e., increased by 100%), and the number of scouts has only increased by 5% - this should NOT be seen as good statistical news for scouting. and on the other hand, if the number of boys in the program doubles, but there's been no change in the total boy population - THIS means something good has been perceived about the program that wasn't there before. at another level, if the number of volunters increases, but the number of chartering organizations drops, you're seeing something else as well. measuring the

even though UCLA withdrew support, sponsorship and permissions from the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts on the one hand, the University's admissions web site still advises the applicant who has achieved Eagle to list it as part of their package - it is still viewed as the mark of an individual who can run a course. The savvy parent knows this, and I'll bet you at least part of the increase in percentage is due to that. AND - while I don't know if the evolution of the 'post-graduate' Venturing program into something a little more involved and relevant has anything to do with it, I can g

I have to think that religious discrimination has to include any discrimination against atheists if the sole or basic cause of that discrimination is based on nothing more than the fact of their atheism, and the discrimination is by religious individuals or groups. here, the discrimination is being done by the religious; i.e., religious discrimination - by, just not against. racial discrimination can be seen as having both sides - discrimination by as well as discrimination against. indeed, part of my dictionary's definitions of religion include a code of behavior or ethics, and lis

ec. 30902. - Purposes The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916. Hmmm - apparently girls aren't mentioned in the charter. that's probably a digression, esp. since the international bodies are encouraging the US orgs to look at uniting and becoming co-ed. (Also, I don't read

Mark, Satanists worship Satan and many believe in God. How does that synch your thought? Not promoting the one, just curious about the other.

BW, sorry, I still don't find where M_L says that he's a spokesman or spokesperson or spokes anything. I'm really trying to be fair to everyone, so if it the comment in question was in fact originally attributed to a "spokesperson", it sets a certain stage, and that's one thing, but if the spokesmanship was added after the fact, that's quite another. regardless, it is the unguarded comment that frequently is our only true measure of many of those in the public eye. 'Heimie town' comes to mind, for example, and much of the recently released Nixon tapes as well - examples abound.

BW, I just did a search for the string "spokes" and only found the most recent entries in this string, for ML, where he's using it in response to your recent entries - can you direct me to the specific original entry where he mis-attributes spokespersonhood? Thanks.

um - I think it's Squidward...

ed raises an interesting question with "speeders". let's not consider those going with the normal flow of traffic, and the occasional emergency. we all know folks who consistently, habitually abuse the speed limit - labeled another way - chronic lawbreakers. what do you say to/do about parents who speed to Scout functions? how about if they're driving kids? breaking the law AND endangering kids!

NJCS'er, I've given it a lot of thought. On the one hand, a rainbow flag could just be pretty. BUT (and I'm not saying right or wrong, here, b'lee me!) if the flag-hanger is a gay activist of any kind, that puts the flag in one context. on the other hand, if the flag-hanger quietly and unobtrusively lives with someone in a manner that you or I or the boys couldn't tell as different from having a room-mate, I can't take the symbol as an avowal - the rest of the context isn't there, and besides, sometimes a rainbow is just that - a rainbow! so this would fail the test for avowal but not

when I was a kid, we played in the rain every chance we got. it was wet, it was fun and it was free. nobody every told us "you'll catch cold". and we didn't. when it was too cold or too stinging, we came in. never caught a cold that way, and as far as I know, never have! today, too many years later, I know folks who invariably catch cold after being caught in the rain. when I've asked, they were always told they would... anecdotal? sure. but interesting nonetheless!