NJCubScouter

Nothing has been said about the new uniform in my son's troop and I tend to doubt there will be any discussion until questions come up. I assume that as people start going to the Scout shop or distributor and find only the new uniform parts (either for new Scouts/leaders or as replacement uniform parts), the new parts will start showing up. I suspect the change in loop colors will cause some confusion but it will be addressed as it comes up. The small rainbow of loops is going to look silly for awhile, but I guess National decided it was worth it... for some unknown reason...

kraut, your apology is appropriate and appreciated, but as for your "resignation"... how about if you are just more careful with your analogies in the future? Of course I am just one member of the forum.

Actually, it is oversimplified, and as a result, not really correct. See what I wrote in the other thread. I don't really want to get into this again, but basically, "Jewish" is both a "people" and a religion, and you can be part of either one without being part of (or believing in, as the case may be) the other. I don't see why this is a big deal, and I don't see why it needs its own thread (which Novice says was created by mistake anyway.) In the other thread, Merlyn made a statement, it was incorrect, I pointed out how it was incorrect, he then backtracked and said that he had made a different statement. I decided to leave it at that. Can't we just leave it at that? If anyone is really interested in the subject, there is a pretty good article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F . Actually I only read the first third of it or so, and Wikipedia articles have a way of containing nonsense with nobody finding it right away, but I saw no problem in the part I read. If you want to read about it, go read about it, and there are other articles you can find on the Internet as well. I just don't see the benefit of discussing it in this forum, as it has nothing to do with Scouting. What does have to do with Scouting is this: One, the Jewish religious awards can be earned by adherents of any of the the four major movements (or denominations) within Judaism, of which "Jewish atheists" is not one. "Jewish atheists" are part of the Jewish people, but they do not believe in Judaism. Two, in earning any of the Jewish religious awards, a Scout would either have to believe in God, or be extremely untrustworthy (which I guess would also apply to Christian, Muslim, etc. Scouts as well.) I am not talking about teenagers who have doubts, because many teenagers of many religions have doubts. I am talking about a youth who has become committed to the belief that there is no God. Earning the awards requires regular attendance at religious services, prayer, Bible study, etc., all of which is predicated on the existence of God.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

GaHillBilly, the truth is that Sarah Palin did advocate teaching creationism in schools, and then after her remarks drew some unwanted attention, she un-advocated it. Here is what she said in a debate: Teach both. You know, dont be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and its so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. The next day, or so, she said what you said she said. So it is kind of up to the voters (the ones who care a lot about this issue, anyway) to decide which of her statements she actually believes. (To be fair, Joe Biden also is prone to making remarks that have to be followed the next day by "What I really meant to say was..." But he has never advocated teaching creationism in schools, as far as I know.)

I feel compelled to respond to Merlyn's statements about the religious beliefs of Jewish people, as I suspect I am one of the few current members of this forum with direct, lifelong knowledge of the subject. In response to the question of "How can an atheist Scout earn a religious emblem?", Merlyn says: Depends on the emblem. There are religions where belief in a god isn't a requirement. Buddhists, Jews, and Wiccans can also be atheists. and later Merlyn says: Buddhists, Jews, Wiccans, UUs, etc can all refuse to believe in the existence of a supreme being, while still being members of those religions. I am not going to deal with Wiccans, Buddhists, or UUs, I just wanted to keep the quotes intact. While it is true that one can be a "Jew" (or "Jewish") without believing in God, I don't think one can be a member of the "Jewish religion" without believing in God. While this may seem to be a paradox, the key is that the terms Jew, Jewish etc. refer to at least two different, overlapping but not identical groups of people. One is an ethnic/cultural group, made up of the descendants of those who traditionally followed the Jewish religion. The other are the followers of the Jewish religion, which has as its central tenet, the belief that there is one God (no more, no less.) One can therefore be "Jewish" (in the first sense) while believing only part of, or none of, the Jewish religion, and therefore one can be an atheist and still say that he/she is Jewish. (In fact, some people call themselves "Jewish atheists". I don't really want to get into other permutations, such as "Jews" who actually believe in a different religion, because it starts to get not only very complicated, but also very controversial. The same goes for people who are not "born Jewish" but are converts to the Jewish religion, because the question of who actually counts as a convert also is controversial and is beyond the scope of this semester's curriculum.) Where was I? Oh yes. Judaism is not "a religion where belief in a god is not a requirement." If you actually believe in the Jewish religion, you do believe in God. This does not account for people who are "faking", about which more in a moment, but I don't think that is what we are really talking about here. As for the Jewish religious award, I looked up the requirements for the Ner Tamid award ("Eternal Flame" in English; it is the basic "Boy Scout age" award, there are others for Cub Scouts and for older Boy Scouts and Venturers.) I don't see how a committed atheist, who believes there is no God, could earn this award without doing a tremendous amount of "faking." He would have to know, participate in and discuss the basic prayers, rituals, some portions of the Bible, etc., all of which are premised on a belief in God. He would have to be Bar Mitzvahed or working towards it. (And that is a lot of work, definitely not something you do just because you have a few hundred spare hours when you are 13 years old. And again, it is all based on God, the Torah (Old Testament), etc.) Now, if a boy were to go to a rabbi and say, "I'm not really sure I believe in all this, I'm sort of an agnostic, but I'd like to work on the award", many rabbis (after discussion with the parents) would probably explain why it would be difficult but the bottom line would be, if you really want to do it and are going to do the work, and keep an open mind, let's give it a try. (As I suspect would the clergy of a number of other religions, including at least some denominations of Christianity; some would not, and I suspect an Orthodox Jewish rabbi might suggest the boy go elsewhere, but that is a nuance I don't want to get into.) In the course of earning the award, the boy would be constantly professing a belief in God. Now let's assume the boy instead tells the rabbi, "I definitely believe there is no God and there is no way I will ever change my mind, no God, no way, but I want to get the award." I don't think the rabbi is going to waste his/her time, or the boy's time, if this is the case. By Jewish law and tradition, the boy is a member of the Jewish people, because his mother is Jewish. But to say he is a member of the Jewish religion, and can earn awards based on that religion, really isn't correct. Sorry to be so long-winded, this just kind of bothered me and I wanted to clarify it, because I know that this is a subject that is often misunderstood.

OK, the question was asked. How can an atheist Scout earn a religious emblem? I didn't interpret that as being a serious question. My impression was that Pack15Nissan was trying to be funny. Perhaps I was wrong, but that was my impression. I'll counter: How can the parents of an atheist place a young man in a program where God/gods are a primary point? Has anyone suggested that they can? I know there have been a few cases where atheistic Scouts (and sometimes their parents) have challenged the policy, but at this point I don't think anyone can doubt that the policy is the policy. (Apart from the issue of whether the policy should be changed, which is not what you raised.) There will probably always be some who defy that policy, and others, but that is just one of the facts of life in an organization, especially a large one with policies that are controversial.

I agree with those who say there should not be a "hard requirement" for a youth member (in any of the BSA programs) to earn the religious emblem of their faith, because there is no requirement that a youth "belong" to any "faith." All that is required is that the youth believe in a higher power.

There is a difference between active suppression of speech by the "authorities" (whether it be the actual government or by an institution, such as a university), and the expression of the belief that certain words should not be used. People should be allowed to say what they want, but if they say something offensive, it is perfectly acceptable for someone else to point that out. I agree with what Acco said, too often "PC" is used by those who intentionally use offensive words, and when the inevitable reaction occurs, accuses the "audience" of being PC.

TheScout, I could provide you with an official job description and you would still be parroting the same talking point. So, no, I am not discussing this or any other aspect of politics with you anymore. And Sarah Palin just mentioned the "community organizer" thing again, just as Giuliani mentioned it earlier. I am beginning to see a pattern here. Some people need to get a new joke-writer.

Now all the Republican delegates are chanting "Drill baby drill, drill baby drill..." Oil, that is. Leave No Trace, anyone?

The line about Obama having once been a "community organizer" has become one of the talking points at the Republican convention and the Fox News Channel. Rudy Giuliani just referred to it a couple of minutes ago. It's getting tired already. TheScout, as for your inability to understand what a community organizer is, despite having now read a 24-paragraph Wikipedia article that goes into some detail about what they do, I can only say this: There is a biography of the British author Douglas Adams, written by another British author. At one point the author is writing about Adams' participation in a British pantomime show on the radio. At that point there is a footnote that says: "For those Americans reading this, who may have difficulty understanding how there can be a pantomime show on the radio, that is a personal problem that you will have to deal with on your own." TheScout, this is a personal problem that you will have to deal with on your own. I myself cannot imagine how you can have a pantomime show on the radio, but I do know what a community organizer is, especially now that I have read the same article about it that you have read.

The Scout, you quote the first paragraph of the article and say you don't get it. Did you read the last 23 paragraphs of the article? (By my count.) Maybe then you'll get it. If not, I guess you'll have to ask the question somewhere else, because it's unlikely anyone here can help you.

OGE, I understand, but it was the last three paragraphs of the post, with all the stuff about Soviets and Communists and millions of lives snuffed out, etc. etc. that caught my eye.

OGE, there is information about the subject here: http://tinyurl.com/5hbpfl (Edited: The first link didn't work, try it this way.) As I recall, Biden's campaign was not doing very well with fund-raising, and this incident was probably the last straw. It may have just been a graceful way of getting out of a primary campaign that he had concluded he could not win anyway. (Which is sort of ironic, because he would have been a better candidate than the eventual nominee, Michael Dukakis.) The point is, he had given the same speech a number of times, quoting the British politician for the statement he was making. He forgot one time, and that is what created a controversy. But, as I said, I think he really got out because he wasn't getting the large amounts of contributions that are needed to win.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Those who may be confused by Merlyn's quotation of Godwin's Law should know that what OGE invoked in the other thread is technically a corrolary of Godwin's Law. Wikipedia states that "there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically 'lost' whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law." Godwin's Law, as it is understood in this way, is not "PC". It is a principle designed to maintain at least some minimal standards of communication on Internet forums. I think the idea is, once you have called your political opponent a "Nazi" or have said he is like "Hitler", where do you go from there? The discussion is really over. That is exactly what kraut did in the other thread. Of course, now, in this thread, it seems to me that kraut has analogized OGE and other enforcers of forum decorum, to the Soviet Communists of the last century. Is there a corrolary to Godwin's Law for that? Neither the Nazi analogy nor the Soviet Communist analogy seem well-designed to promoted reasoned debate and discussion.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

TheScout: Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizer Now that you know, maybe you want to pass the information along to the Fox News Channel, over the weekend I heard several of their "commentators" asking the same question or making fun of Obama for having once been a "community organizer." But I'm sure that isn't where you got the idea from, to keep asking.

I think the important thing is to maintain a balance, both as to the content of the program and how decisions are made about the program. Twice a year, our troop has a pizza party at a troop meeting (the last meeting before Christmas and the last meeting of the school year in June.) I think that's fine, but if anyone proposed a pizza party every month, that wouldn't be fine. If someone proposed a movie night, I wouldn't have a problem with that -- once a year, not once a month. Or a game night, where the kids bring board games, which we have had in some years. Or a hobby night or collections night like we used to have in Cub Scouts. Once a year, and notice it's "or", not "and." Where are these things in the Scout Handbook? How about "a Scout is a brother to his fellow Scouts." Friendship and team spirit among the Scouts can be promoted by the occasional social activity or fun activity that doesn't match up with the advancement requirements, but it can't overwhelm the "program". The same is true with "boy run" vs. "boy led". I think that if things are handled correctly, the distinction never really comes up. Again, balance is the key. In our troop, the boys meet to "plan" the activities for the year, but they know and we know that what they are actually doing is proposing a list of activities, and that if they "go too far" their plan will be substantially altered by the committee. They rarely do go too far, because the older boys know roughly what the expectations are. They have at least a vague sense of what the Guide to Safe Scouting prohibits (i.e. paintball) and if during their planning meeting they "forget", the SM is there to remind them. They know that excessive "social activities" (see above) will be rejected, so they don't propose them. They know that if they propose one or two trips a year that are (say) 200 or 300 miles away, the adults will do their best to make it happen, but if they propose 10 such trips a year, it isn't going to happen. The same goes with trips that have a significant admission fee (I'm talking about $40 and up, per person, like a camping trip on one of the retired battleships, or a football game at one of the military academies on "Scout Weekend); one or two a year, we'll see what we can do, more than that, forget it. If you make sure that the expectations are clearly understood, all that is necessary after the boys have their meeting is a little tinkering by the activities chair in consultation with the other committee members and the SM, and you have your plan for the year -- without the issue of "who is making the decisions" ever really coming up.

NeilLup, I agree that the idea is to teach, not to punish. (Actually I would say that making sure that everyone is safe comes first, but this thread has beaten that into the ground, so let's leave that aside.) But as for your specific suggestion, I think it is indeed too late for that. The Scout's father has acknowledged that the Scout did it, so the Scout will know that the SM knows that the Scout did it. Acting as if the SM believes that someone tampered with the application will just make the SM look foolish, because everybody knows the SM doesn't believe that. Even if that was not the case, my preference is usually for the direct approach. "Joe, please look at this paragraph in your application; did you write that?" And go on from there.

Brent, members of Daily Kos may be Democrats, but they are not "the Democrats." For purposes of this election, it is Barack Obama who speaks for "the Democrats", and he says this is not an issue, and he had nothing to do with it.

Bob, building on the electioneering in his previous post, says: The fact that the democratic party would try to make this an issue... The Democrats have specifically not made this an issue. Barack Obama says it is not an issue. Please stop making things up.

Bob, your post is completely ridiculous. I do not know where to start, so I won't even try. The whole thing is absurd. And quite frankly, it is way below the usual quality of your posts, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I find it difficult to believe you even wrote it.

CrewMomma, the "open and honest" part is not quite clear. The only reason they came out with this information when they did is that for the previous 48 hours, rumors had been flying all over the Internet that the mother of Trig Palin (born April 2008) was not Sarah Palin, but 17-year-old Bristol Palin. (I alluded to this, and linked to it, but didn't actually say it, in another thread, before the rumor was debunked.) There was actually some evidence for that, but like some things for which there is evidence, it turned out not to be true. Unfortunately, the only way the Palin family could conclusively prove it wasn't true was by announcing that Bristol is five months pregnant. Who knows when they would have announced it otherwise? The baby is due after the election. Not that it is anybody's business but the family's. Unfortunately when one is running for national office, in our 24-hour-news-and-Internet society, there is no such thing as privacy, for the candidates or their family members. It's almost a surprise that anyone still runs. And, just for the record, I don't think this news says anything about the Republican Party's stance on teen pregnancy. It just proves (as does Joe Biden's forgetting to attribute a quote 20 years ago) that politicians (and their families) are human beings with the same problems as everybody else. Perhaps more so, or so it seems sometimes.

Brent, generally people don't vote for a vice presidential candidate, although they might vote against one. The two candidates that people really care about are both Senators. Sarah Palin is getting a lot of attention because she is a novelty, and because many conservatives are overjoyed that one of their own has joined someone who they were somewhat dubious about on the Republican ticket. The question is, how many people who were going to vote Democratic, or not vote at all, are now going to vote for McCain because his running mate has been a governor for a year and a half. We will see, but I doubt that number is going to be very high.

Lisabob, this isn't exactly what you were looking for, but personally I think the "experience" issue is mostly a red herring. Some people vote exclusively for one party, regardless of anything else. I believe that for the remainder, the large majority of people really vote for the candidates who they perceive as having beliefs on the issues that are closest to their own, and secondarily for the candidates they perceive as being most able to "get the job done." Experience can be a factor in the second element, but it is not all of it, and not necessarily even most of it. Obama won the Democratic nomination in part because he convinced a lot of people that what the country needs is "change" and that he is the best person to bring about that "change." How much sense would it make for a voter to say, "I want change, and Obama is the guy who can do it, but I'm not going to vote for him because he doesn't have enough experience." On the other hand, how much sense would it make for a conservative to say, "Sarah Palin adds to the Republican ticket a person who believes in my conservative positions down the line, to go along with McCain's somewhat softer conservativism, but I'm not voting for them because Palin doesn't have enough experience." Neither one makes much sense, and for all the talk of experience, I don't think most people think this way. I believe the "experience" issue, and all of its twists and turns, has mostly been created by the political pundits on the Fox News Channel, CNN and elsewhere. (And we are hearing echoes of the same punditry on this forum, from a couple of people.) Maybe some voters will listen to the pundits who are telling them how they are supposed to think, but I do not think that is what is going to decide this election.

Well, it isn't often possible to conclusively disprove an Internet rumor, but I guess Governor Palin did it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin_dc_3 As they say on that commercial, I didn't see that one coming.