NJCubScouter

Ed says: Your school district chooses curriculum without your input & your tax dollars are spent there! That is unless you are a member of the school board. That sounds like my cue. First of all, the people of my community had input into the decisions to be made by the school board, when they elected me and my colleagues. Second of all, at least in my state, all final decisions regarding curriculum (and almost every other subject) are made in open public meetings, and I can tell you from personal observation, the fact that the public is watching (or could be watching) DOES sometimes have an impact on what is decided. Third of all, although not required by law, my board (and virtually every other school board to my knowledge, at least in my state) provides for a "public comment period" before decisions are made and an "open mike" for the public at least once a month. And I can tell you, we really do listen, at least most of us do. I don't want to overstate the "openness," because most of the time we really are just approving recommendations by the administration. But not always. The public does have input. Compare that to a place of worship that has received some sort of government assistance. The public has NO input. I as a member of the public have no opportunity to attend meetings of their governing bodies unless I have been admitted as a member. I have no vote as to who their leaders will be, and even if I write a letter or something, they have no reason to listen to me. It's nowhere near the same as a public school.

Tortdog writes: The interpretation you use occurred in 1947 (150 years after the founders wrote the amendment), and it was a 5-4 decision (meaning 4 justices disagreed with it). Fact is, the interpretation of the 1st Amendment that YOU rely on is divisive, controversial and been held for only about 50 years of the 200 year history of the union. Tortdog, I think you know what would happen if you went into a courtroom and made that argument. The prevailing interpretation of the First Amendment or any part of the constitution is how a majority of the Supreme Court would interpret it now. The basic principles of the case that you are discussing have been reaffirmed by majorities (usually 5-4 or close to it, I suppose) of the Supreme Court many times since 1947. So, that is the law. It doesn't matter how long it wasn't the law, or how much you think it isn't, or shouldn't be, or how "divisive" or "controversial" it is. It is the law. I am sort of surprised that you, as an attorney, would even mention how "divisive" or "controversial" something is, in an argument about whether it is the law. You know that is irrelevant. Moreover, when a principle of law is on "your side," I tend to doubt that you worry very much about how "divisive" or "controversial" it is. By the way, wasn't the case of BSA v. Dale decided by a 5-4 vote? By five "unelected judges"? Five "unelected judges," who, incidentally, were striking down a law adopted by the elected members of a state legislature? So should I assume that you disagree with that decision, too? Or is that different, somehow?

Ed, that question has been answered for you so many times, that I will give you the answer again, but you'll have to pay me a dollar first. (Of course even if you wanted to pay me the dollar, I am not sure how you would, because I don't give out my name or mailing address to anyone in this forum, and I have a web page but it doesn't take credit cards and I think it has my real name on it somewhere so that's out too. Plus I suppose Scouter-Terry would have some right to a commission on my dollar, perhaps the whole dollar. I think what this is all adding up to Ed, is, you'll have to go back and find the other times I answered your question.)

The problem with Scoutmaster Conferences under the YP guidelines is that while on one hand you want it to be a "private" conversation, without other people tromping by (or through), possibly interrupting, potentially listening, or the Scout becoming self-conscious because others MIGHT be listening, etc. etc., it cannot be completely private because that violates the one-on-one rule. I suppose that some troops' meeting layout will solve this problem, because there will be places where two people can talk in full view of everybody, but uninterrupted and un-eavesdropped upon. My son's troop really does not have that, however, and I have seen our SM become somewhat frustrated about where to have these conferences. He can do them in one of two ways. The first is to have the conference in the "adult room" which at one time was either a small classroom and/or phys ed teacher's office, which is off the gym where the troop meeting takes place. During troop meetings the adults not actually taking part in the troop meeting congregate in this room, but boys often enter to get equipment (the closet also is in this room), show their books to the advancement records coordinator who enters their advancements into the computer, pay for trips or hand in permission slips, meet with their Eagle advisor, or whatever. This is a small room, essentially a long "meeting table" and just enough room on either side to get to or from a chair. As a result, trying to have a SM conference in this room is often an exercise in futility; although it complies with the one-on-one rule, it is so not one-on-one that you really can't have a meaningful conversation and certainly not anything approaching a "private" conversation. The second option is to have the conference in an empty classroom, which is completely private, or in the "coat room," which has no door but is basically private, and have a second adult (an ASM) sitting in. Obviously this is not ideal either, because with 2 adults the meeting starts to look suspiciously like a Board of Review. But given our physical setup, it is the better option and that is what our SM has been tending to do recently.

Tortdog says: There is a prohibition from Congress (and I'll expand that to the states) from ESTABLISHING a religion. Actually the Establishment Clause does not have the word "a" in it, and I think that is pretty significant. In other words, it forbids legislation regarding an "establishment of religion," not just establishment of "A" religion. I think the "tests" developed by various justices of the Supreme Court who have written majority or concurring opinions over the years, while not perfect, have come reasonably close to the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Government-initiated prayer in schools, government ownership of entities that require a belief in God, displays of explcitly religious symbols by the government (especially when standing alone and not as a part of a more general "symbols of the season" display), all these things do "establish religion" according to the case law, and I agree.

Very good post, Hunt. I see the thumbs are still there above the message thing, but I haven't voted in months. Does anyone still do that? (Not to hijack the thread or anything, but maybe this one needs it at this point. I think that most if not all of the usual suspects have already been heard from, so now we just go aroundandaround in the usual big circle for 4 or 5 more pages. But that's part of the charm of this forum, I suppose.)

My comment is that I think the writers of the article were a bit too "clever" for their own good. Their so-called disclosure statement says that the BSA "retains the right" to discriminate, which is nothing more than a statement of what the law is after the 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dale case. It doesn't even match what they talk about in the rest of the article, specifically they say the disclosure statement reveals the organization's policy. It really doesn't. The "policy" is to discriminate on the basis of avowed sexual orientation, not merely to "retain the right" to discriminate. Perhaps it is less of a distinction than I am making out of it, but that is my professional training, to attach a significance to every word of something. (Though I notice that this article was written by 2 law professors, which explains a lot. Except for the ones who spend their "free time" in court, generally law professors have their heads in the clouds, and often the clouds aren't even on this planet.) As for whether I would sign the statement, I suppose I could sign it as written in the article, since it doesn't actually mean anything. If it instead said "I acknowledge that it is the policy of the BSA to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation" (which is what the professors would have written if they were being consistent with the rest of their article), well, what would I do then. I would probably conclude that I could no longer be NJCubScouter, or NJScouter for that matter. (But don't you all fall all over yourselves to hold the door open for me, I don't think the BSA will be putting that on the application anytime soon.) As for OGE's point about people not knowing about the policy... again those statements by the professors are evidence that they are not exactly on the same planet as the rest of us. I think generally people do know that the BSA has an anti-gay policy, though there is a great deal of misunderstanding, even WITHIN the organization, about exactly what that policy is and what the rationale for it is. In fact, those misunderstandings within the organization are demonstrated on a regular basis in this very forum, including at least one thread that is active right now.

I have posted on this very subject a number of times, though not so much lately I guess. There have been times when I thought of "announcing" that I wasn't going to post anymore at all, because I just do not have the time to keep up with everything that is said and respond. But instead I just post here and there when I can, and occasionally mention that just because I don't respond to the kinds of posts I used to respond to, doesn't mean I have changed my mind. So my response to Prairie Scouter is, one, the BSA does claim (in the Declaration of Religious Principles) to be "absolutely nonsectarian" in terms of religious beliefs, and also (in the explanation of "Reverent" in the Scout Handbook) teaches "respect" for the beliefs of others, but two, absolutely fails to live up to those standards by enforcing the religious belief that homosexuality is immoral on those who do not share that belief, as a membership standard. And by "those who do not share that belief" I am primarly talking about straight people, not gay people. I do not believe homosexuality is necessarily immoral and I do not believe gay people should be excluded from among other things, the Boy Scouts. The BSA has the legal right to have this exclusive policy, but it is the wrong policy, as it violates the BSA's own Declaration of Religious Principles. Now, my own belief on this issue (in contradiction to the anti-gay religious beliefs espoused by the BSA) are not really based on a particular religious belief. I just don't think people should be excluded from things unless there is a good reason to, and in this case there isn't. However, there do happen to be several religious denominations, movements, individual local churches, etc. that do have a religious belief that gay people should not be excluded. As I have said recently, these religions are treated like second or third class citizens in the BSA because while the BSA will accept the membership dues of their adherents, and in some (but not all) cases will "permit" them to charter units, at the same time the BSA is saying that one of their religious beliefs is wrong, because it has adopted the belief of other religions. So, the BSA says it is "absolutely nonsectarian," but on this issue, that isn't true. The answer, of course, is local option. That will happen some day, but not anytime soon.

Koda: I was a parent and then a leader in a pack whose CO was the PTO of the school attended (through grade 3) by almost all of the boys in the pack. I could write a book -- well, maybe just a pamphlet -- about that relationship and what was done right and wrong on each "side" and how things could have been better. But one thing I always noticed is that, just by the laws of probability, at least one of the two co-presidents of the PTO almost always had a son in the pack. In other words, the IH (head of the chartered organization) was a parent in the pack. It was probably always the case that at least one member of the PTO executive board was either a den leader or assistant cubmaster, or the spouse of one. In other words, the basis of communication was right there in the intertwined relationship between the membership and leadership of the CO, and the parent-membership (and sometimes leadership) of the pack. Now, if one were to ask me whether that relationship was sufficiently "taken advantage of" for the benefit of both the pack and the PTO, my answer would be no, it wasn't. As I hinted before, things could have been a lot better. But, Koda, if your situation was anything like mine, you and your CC may have the opportunity to improve the situation, without waiting for some inaccessible IH to have a moment to spare in his/her busy schedule, because the IH may be sitting in your pack meeting room watching his/her son doing a skit.

Tortdog says: The court found that the BSA literature is not promoting religion. You have a cite on that case, counselor? I'd like to read it.

Tortdog, on the issue of James Dale, I have read the opinions in that case (New Jersey Appellate Division, New Jersey Supreme Court and the three opinions in the U.S. Supreme Court), several times each, and I don't remember anything in any of the statements of fact about him "screaming" that he was gay, or anything else for that matter. I have always thought that the Dale case was the worst possible case for the BSA as an example of its gay policy. Based on the published facts, as of the time of his termination from the BSA, James Dale was just about the quietest "gay activist" in history. He was speaking at a seminar, near his college (not located in his home community where he was an assistant scoutmaster) about the problems that young people go through when they are in the process of discovering they are gay, based on his own experiences. A newspaper that is published statewide asked him some questions and printed his name, which he thought nothing of. Apparently, up until that point, nobody in his troop or council knew he was gay. Next thing he knows, he's out, and the rest is history. Now, I have seen the story repeated in this forum that he was terminated after being seen dressed in drag at a gay pride parade. Proving, I suppose, that it's a lot easier to get the facts on your side if you just make them up.

Tortdog asks: The BSA has set a standard that homosexual leaders are not acceptable to Scouting, as their conduct violates the Scout Oath/Law. But, the BSA has NOT set similar standards for anything else, right? There is no automatic removal of leaders who cuss, use pornography, lie, cheat or even steal. Or am I wrong? If not, why did the BSA draw a line with homosexual activities but not these others? That's a really good question. It is so good, in fact, that if you were to read through my past posts in "Issues and Politics," you would find that I have asked the same question at least 10 times, probably closer to 20. I have never received anything approaching a reasonable answer... in fact, I can think of only one poster who has even attempted an answer, and the answer didn't make any sense. When I have asked that question, my list of things that will not result in automatic removal by national policy has included other items as well: Adultery, heterosexual cohabitation, a conviction for driving while intoxicated (especially one in the distant past) come quickly to mind. You can be removed by your council for these things, in some councils you probably would be, but in some you might not be. In some cases it would be left up to the local unit, as most issues of leadership are. By the way, you give the examples of lie, cheat and steal... I think those would depend on whether the person has been convicted of a crime involving lying, cheating and/or stealing. If so, national probably would step in and remove the person. Being a convicted criminal, especially a recently convicted criminal, is on the very short list of things that will get you automatically removed by national. One of the others is being (leaving aside any technical or legal language) a child molester, and if it is done in the BSA context and reported to national, I doubt if it matters whether the person has been convicted or not. The third and fourth items on the list would be being an avowed atheist and being openly gay. What is the logic behind this list? The first two are to protect the boys (and the adults.) The third (atheism) derives directly from the express language of the Scout Oath and Law, and the Declaration of Religious Principles. The fourth (being openly gay) derives from no logic or sense that I can determine. It does not promote any "value" of Scouting, and should be up to each unit to decide.

Ed says: Public schools are not government agencies. They are educational institutions. Silly or not, that is my belief. If your basis for a government agency is one that receives public funding, we are all government agencies! Oh brother. In Ed's defense (briefly) I'd have to say "agency" may not be the correct term here. I do think it probably is technically correct to call a public "government agency," but I think the more common way of referring to a government operation that is contained in a single building or campus is as a "government institution." A public school clearly is that. The receipt of tax dollars is not the determining factor. The determining factor is that a public school is OWNED AND OPERATED by a governmental entity, in most cases a local board of education. As I have mentioned once or twice in the past, I am a member of one of those -- yes, I am an elected governmental official, though an unpaid one, and we tend not to think of our board as a "government," but by law that is exactly what it is. Our district receives tax money, but mostly not by grants or anything like that... most of the tax dollars we receive are from our status as a taxing authority. In other words, we have the power to adopt a proposed budget, which then becomes an approved budget either by approval of the voters or adoption of a budget (usually a reduced amount, if the budget fails at the polls) by the local governing bodies, and that approved budget is then converted to a tax rate, which is collected and turned over to the school district to be spent according to law. The school district, as mentioned before, owns the school building, hires and pays the staff, and does everything else needed to operate the institution, provide a curriculum, textbooks, supplies, etc. The district itself is a "government" and the individual schools are government institutions.

I thought it was strange that Ed would be voting for the alternative that was the least restrictive of other peoples' behavior. Thanks for clearing that up, Ed. By the way, tortdog... Well, before we get to that, tortdog, your account name compels me to ask... you wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you? If so, it's ok, you can admit it to me, I'm one too. So as I was saying, tortdog, who are you counting as the "A" vote? Would that be me, because I mentioned "soft core" porn might not violate the Oath and Law, so you took that as a vote that "hard core" porn would? If so, please change my vote to "E": None of the above, or if you like, F: Against Tortdog's attempt to write new rules for the BSA.

Rooster says: And YES - I consider Maxim and other magazines like it to be pornographic. They cater to our base humanistic desires. I wouldn't know. I only read it for the articles. But seriously, Rooster, how far do you take this? The COVER of these magazines is pornographic by your definition as well, isn't it? So are you required to stay out of the magazine aisle when you go to the store, for fear that otherwise you might see a picture of a woman in a skimpy bikini on the cover of a magazine? Or do you just cover your eyes as you walk further down the aisle to where you know they keep the Sporting News? And what are our "base humanistic desires?" Is that just sex? I suppose I could argue that overindulgence in food or wine falls into the same category, and there certainly are magazines that cater to that. (Cater, get it?)

Ed says: NJ, Don't over think it! It's an easy question based on the definitions given by tortdog. Um, yeah, except the definitions were not in tortdog's post when I asked my questions. He edited them into his first post later, in response to my questions. Personally, tortdog, I do not think that is a very "polite" use of the editing function since it gives the reader the impression that I did not read your post, when in fact I was responding to a different post than the one that now appears at the top of the thread. (You did acknowledge the editing in the next post, but I don't think that completely fixes the problem.) You (Tortdog) could have answered my questions in another post, not changed the first one. Now, in response to version 2.0 of the first post, first of all I do not agree that any depiction that "features nudity" would be pornographic, but using your assumption that it does, no, I do not think that looking at what you define as "softcore pornography" necessarily violates the Scout Oath or Law.

Tortdog was asked: >Who is right and who is wrong? And answered: I am. You are what? Both right and wrong at the same time? See, Tortdog, you are a moral relativist and you don't even know it. (Unless you mean "I am" as the name of God in the book of Exodus, or was it Leviticus, but presumably not since He is never wrong, only right.) Seriously though, I think we are all moral relativists, it's just that some of us admit it while others choose to think of our relativistic beliefs as absolutes so we can call other people names. Well, not "we" since I am not in the second group. Tortdog also says: Sounds like you don't like laws made by the will of the people if they infringe on YOUR view of right and wrong. You have defined right and wrong, yet deny me the ability to do likewise. I merely suggest: Let the People decide. What's so wrong with that? The PEOPLE wrote the Constitution. The PEOPLE prohibited discrimination based on race. The PEOPLE protected the freedom to worship. Every right that we have was recognized by the PEOPLE. If the PEOPLE have not recognized that right, then the government (formed by the People) has the right to legislate on that issue. Without discussing all of the implications of this (because I think there are some implications of it that are clearly incorrect), I would point out that the People of my state, and about half the other states, have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well. So, in those states, it is morally wrong to exclude gay people, because the people say so, right?

Well, I don't know if you will get a unanimous answer, and from me you may not get an answer at all, at least not until you answer a few questions of mine... The main question is: What are you defining as pornography? (And don't try, "I know it when I see it," Justice Potter Stewart already used that to "define" what is "obscene," which is something different than pornography, starting with the fact that "obscene" material is not protected by the First Amendment, while material that is "merely" pornographic, is.) Is "Playboy" magazine pornographic? Is "Maxim" magazine pornographic? And since neither you nor I have, of course, ever viewed either of those magazines nor any material that could ever be remotely considered pornographic, let me add these questions: Is a photograph of a woman without any clothes on, with no effort made to "hide" anything, pornography? Is a "tasteful" photo of a woman without any clothes on, pornography? Is a photo of a woman with very little clothing on, such as lingerie, pornography? (I apologize for the sexist nature of these questions, but if someone else wants to ask about "Playgirl," or photos of unclothed men, they may of course do so.)

I could spend weeks writing responses to statements in this thread if I had the time, but I don't. I just have time to make this quick point: The U.S. Constitution does not, indeed, say how many votes are needed to confirm a judicial (or other) appointee. All it says is that these appointments are to be made by the president "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Somewhere else in the constitution it says that the Senate and House make their own rules. Therefore the rules of the Senate govern how the Senate decides whether to give consent, and right now the rules of the Senate permit 41 Senators to block a nomination (or legislative proposal) from coming to a vote. These rules have been used by both parties and by ideological coalitions (like when Republicans and Southern Democrats blocked the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice), to block both judicial and non-judicial appointments. During the Clinton administration the Republicans used "holds" that could be imposed by only ONE Senator (rather than 41) to kill some judicial nominations, so the current conservative talk-show talking point that this has never happened before, is untrue. The mechanism used may be different, but the fact is that both parties have used techniques in which less than a majority can block a vote on a judicial nomination. My understanding of what is being proposed in the so-called "nuclear option" is that the Republicans are going to change the rules of the Senate to disallow the use of the filibuster for judicial nomination. The problem is that the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian has stated that to pass such a measure by majority vote (in the face of a certain Democratic filibuster) would in and of itself violate the rules of the Senate. So calling it the "constitutional option" is very cute but the fact remains that the constitution says nothing about the number of votes required to bring a matter to a vote. In fact, since the constitution does say each house makes its own rules, it would be more accurate to call the "nuclear option" the "UN constitutional option."

Trevorum says: Fuzzy said, "Each religion generally casts all of the others into outer darkness because ultimate truth is thought to be at a premium.". I disagree. Many religions do this, but not all. This is one one the reasons I find Unitarian Universalism personally fulfilling. We believe there are many paths to spiritual enlightenment. As I told Rooster once, "Your path is as right for you as mine is for me". (He didn't believe me.) Diversity without Division. Well then, I assume you find it disturbing (as I do) that the BSA has declared the UU's to be "religia non grata." (I made that first part up, I guess it is what happens when a religion, rather than a "persona," is declared "persona non grata." Who ever said Latin is a dead language?) Some might say, no no no, UU's are welcome in the BSA. Well sure, the boys and their registration fees are allowed in, as long as they profess a belief in a higher power (as some UU's do not.) I wouldn't say they are exactly welcome when the BSA's attitude toward them is, well, when we say the BSA is absolutely nonsectarian, that doesn't include YOUR beliefs. I'd say the UU's are second-class (not the rank) citizens in the BSA, except that isn't really true. The BSA's rejection of the UU religious award and the apparent ban on UU churches being CO's really makes the UU's a third class religion. The second-class religions are those to which the BSA says, your religious beliefs regarding acceptance of gays are not welcome here, but you nevertheless do have an approved religious award and you can be a CO. This second-class group would include Reform Jews, many Episcopalians (like my future son-in-law's church, apparently the deacon or whatever the number-2 guy's title is, is openly gay), United Church of Christ, and various members of various other religions, denominations, non-organized beliefs (Deism), etc.

In my son's former pack, which I visited recently, I'd say about one-third of the female leaders wear the tan shirt untucked. (While I was there, very few of the female leaders would wear a uniform at all, tan or yellow, tucked or untucked, something that I helped change.) My attitude about all this untuckedness? Let them. Ignore it. I think it is much more important that they are there, wearing the uniform at all, happily providing the program to the boys of the community without having to wonder about whether their clothing is presenting a flattering or unflattering profile. In my two years as "official den leader recruiter" for the pack, there were several women who were very reluctant to become leaders because they did not to wear the uniform, or who became leaders but resisted the uniform, and wearing it "their way" was in some cases what it took for them to make that step. I think the boys are better off for it, visible shirttails and all.

By the way, DNA is yet another person who could not join the BSA Ya gotta explain this one! Ed, didn't you read the next line of Merlyn's after the reference to DNA, the one that is a link to "americanatheist.org"? Click on it and it takes you to a page with a picture of Mr. Adams standing in front of a big banner with the word ATHEISTS on it. Then if you click on the link under the picture, it takes you to an interview in which the author states that he is a "radical atheist." I am just guessing that THAT is why Merlyn thinks Douglas Adams would not have been welcome in the BSA. Wouldn't you agree? I myself did not know Adams was an atheist until following Merlyn's link, but I am not surprised. There are passages in some of his books that certainly suggest an "irreverent" attitude. One is the "Great Prophet Zarquon" sequence in "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. And then there is the debate between the philosophers and the computer programmers in the first book, which ends with one of my favorite lines in the whole series: "You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"

Acco says: To earn a merit badge, a Scout needs to satisfy his merit badge counselor that he has met the requirements for that badge. Therefore, the burden of "which" requirements fall on the MB counselor, not the Scout. That said, as a MB counselor, I know that the official requirements for each MB (and rank for that matter) are listed 2005 in the requirements book. Therefore, I buy it each year. You do, because you are that kind of guy. I wonder how many MB counselors do not and therefore work with outdated requirements. Instead of that, wouldn't it make sense either for (1) the BSA to send a copy of the book to every MB counselor in the country every year, for free; or (2) the councils/districts to send each counselor the requirements for the merit badge(s) in which he/she is registered, every year? I don't mean financial sense (although as I look at my two options, #2 would be way-way cheaper and on BSA National's part would require only sending a carefully worded partial waiver of copyright to each council, and on the council's part would just require a day or so's worth of photocopying.) And I don't mean, is it going to happen. And I don't mean, should it be necessary. I mean wouldn't it make sense because it would be best for the boys?

OK, I found it, and in my opinion it is both funnier than I remembered, and more to my point (being, words are only what we make of them) than I had thought -- although, as you shall see, I had the details completely backwards. I think that since I am posting this for an educational purpose, this very brief excerpt constitutes "fair use," as long as I say that it is copyright 1979, Douglas Adams, all rights reserved. The Estate of Mr. Adams should actually pay me since my posting this now can only boost ticket sales for the forthcoming film, of which they hopefully get a percentage. It is a curious fact, and one to which no one knows quite how much importance to attach, that something like 85 percent of all known worlds in the Galaxy, be they primitive or highly advanced, have invented a drink called jynnan tonnyx, or gee-N-N-T'N-ix, or jinnond-o-nicks, or any one of a thousand or more variations on the same phonetic theme. The drinks themselves are not the same, and vary between the Sivolvian "chinanto/mnigs" which is ordinary water served at slightly above room temperature, and the Gagrackan "tzjin-anthony-ks" which kills cows at a hundred paces; and in fact the one common factor between all of them, beyond the fact that the names sound the same, is that they were all invented and names BEFORE the worlds concerned made contact with any other worlds. What can be made of this fact? It exists in total isolation. As far as any theory of structural linguistics is concerned it is right off the graph, and yet it persists. Old structural linguists get very angry when young structural linguists go on about it and stay up late at night convinced that they are very close to something of profound importance, and end up becoming old structural linguists before their time, getting very angry with the young ones. Structural linguistics is a bitterly divided and unhappy discipline, and a large number of its practitioners spend too many nights drowning their problems in Ouisghian Zodahs.

God exists on a level that we cannot comprehend. Perhaps it's a world of triangles with angles equaling 175 degrees. This reminds me of the passage in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books where someone visiting another planet (because his own has been destroyed) is offered a drink called "Ouisghian Zoda." I think it turns out that by sheer coincidence, almost every civilization has a drink that is pronounced something like "Ouisghian Zoda," including the planet that had been home to the traveler in question. The thing is, though, none of the drinks taste the same or are made from the same ingredients (I hope I am remembering this correctly, if not, apologies to the late Douglas Adams, who presumably knows more about the nature of God at this point than any of us.) So our traveler may drink the Ouisghian Zoda, but it is nothing like the Whiskey and Soda he remembers from home. In other words, words are just words, whether they are "triangle" or "Whiskey and Soda." (I believe on another occasion he is offered a Jynnan Tahnix or something like that, but let's not go there.) As collections of letters and sounds they are useless. It is our common understanding of what they mean that gives them their value.