NJCubScouter

Bob says: NJ if you were a scout leader... If I were? Why don't we just assume for the sake of argument that I am, just like I assume for the sake of argument that you are, ok? ...what significance would you put on the fact that you take an oath to do your Duty to God, and to be reverent to God and that atheists by the very definition of their name, are incapable of meeting these requirements specified in the BSA program. The significance would be that avowed atheists (real atheists, not just kids who are confused) are not permitted to be members of the BSA. I don't think I've ever questioned that policy, in fact I have made clear that I don't oppose it. The language of the Scout Oath and Law, and the Declaration of Religious Principles is pretty clear, though you think it's ok for the BSA to obey the latter only when the majority of the national board feels like its a good idea. I wasn't talking about the BSA policy anyway, Bob. I was talking about YOUR need to analogize people you don't like, but who are not breaking the law, with criminals. And by the way this thread was about race not religion please refrain from continued hijacking. Um, excuse me, I was the THIRD person to use the word "atheist" in this thread. The second was, wait, let me check my notes here, yes, the second was YOU, Bob. So who are you to accuse me of hijacking? (Not that that's a capital crime last time I checked, anyway. I'm pretty sure most of the threads I've started have been "hijacked" in one way or another.)

Bob, I notice that in another thread, you analogize gay people to thieves, and in this thread you analogize atheists to pyromaniacs. Isn't it significant that thieves and pyromaniacs (at least those who have set fire to property of others) are criminals, while atheists and gay people are not? (Or in case of gay people, not any more?) That seems pretty significant to me.

Rooster, I was pointing out that your statement was completely irrelevant to the thread, and I think everybody else understood that.

A couple of days ago, boleta said: Maybe, like the atheist that mouths the words, "duty to God" and the homosexual who says "morally straight", those that do not respect the beliefs of others may continue to participate in scouting for other reasons- service to community and youth and so on. But they are still hypocrites. There are several things going on in these sentences, but I want to pick out 2 things that I think you (boleta) are saying: One, you seem to be saying that a "homosexual" member of the BSA who recites the Scout Oath including the words "morally straight," is being a hypocrite. I don't see how they would be a hypocrite unless they believed that a gay person cannot be "morally straight." Many people, both "gay" and "straight," believe that a gay person can be "morally straight" -- or not be -- just as a heterosexual person can be "morally straight," or not be. So, yes, a gay person who thinks being gay is immoral but is gay anyway, and is a member of the BSA and takes the Scout Oath, is a hypocrite. I suspect that that group of hypocrites could probably meet in a phone booth. By the way, whether they are a hypocrite or not, they are only breaking a rule if they are openly gay -- and if they are openly gay, they probably aren't around to break the rule. Two, you seem to be saying that an atheist who recites his (or her which I guess would apply to female Scouters; I don't know what Oath or Law Venturers follow)... that sentence is getting out of hand. You seem to be saying that an atheist who recites his or her Duty to God and a Scout is reverent, is a hypocrite. True, as long as the person is really an atheist, meaning they are really sure there is no God, under any name or number or configuration or attributes or whatever, and they are pledging their duty to something they are sure does not exist. I get a little sensitive about this for reasons I have mentioned previously, but I guess this is a good place to repeat it. I think there are a fair number of teenagers who in rebelling against their parents, the "establishment" (I'm from the 60's) or whatever, decide that "God doesn't exist." I was one of them. Probably around the age of 16, I didn't think "God" existed, and therefore assumed that I was an "atheist," though whether I ever actually told anyone I thought I was an atheist, I don't recall. And by the way, I was a Boy Scout, reciting the Oath and Law on a weekly basis. Whether the contradiction occurred to me is another thing I don't remember; in all likelihood, in my mind I subconsiously added "if any", after "God." And what I slowly came to realize, probably in my early 20's, is that the "God" I did not think existed was the only one I had been exposed to, that is the God depicted in the Bible (specifically the Old Testament.) As a teenager, it didn't really occur to me that I could believe in a "higher power" or "supreme being" or "force" or a "God" that had the attributes that I thought God has, unlimited by what may appear in a book. It is my understanding from various articles that these days, when a Boy Scout decides he is an "atheist," he is "counseled" to determine whether that is what he really is, and if he can acknowledge a belief in a "supreme being" or "higher power" of any kind, then he is not considered an atheist, and can continue to pledge his "duty to God" and be considered "reverent." Some in this forum have said that that sort of counseling invites a Scout to be deceptive and "make up" a belief in God just to remain a Scout. From my personal experience, I'd say that while that might happen, it also might happen that the boy discovers that he is not actually an atheist. Though I can't prove it, I think that if today's attitude had prevailed thirty years ago, I would have taken the second option. As it was, it took until I was out of Scouting to get my confusion resolved enough to where I realized that I was not, and never was, really an atheist. Was I a hypocrite? Maybe. But I think that in order to be a hypocrite, you need to be clear in your own mind as to what you actually believe, and in my confused teenage years, I don't think that was the case. I do know that I believe in something "higher" now, but it still isn't really the "God" I was raised to believe in.

Bob, you are responding to something I did not say. I was not talking about anyone being denied membership based on their religious beliefs. Read it again, and I'll give you a little help this time. If your religion happens to believe that God does not want us discriminating against those of his children who happen to be gay, then in fact the BSA does not allow you to be a member and at the same time be reverent to God in the manner of your own choice and custom. I'll even help you out some more, and rephrase it: If you are a BSA member whose religion happens to believe that God does not want us discriminating against those of his children who happen to be gay, then in fact the BSA does not allow you to be reverent to God in the manner of your own choice and custom. There, I don't see any way you can twist that. The point is not about denial of membership. It is that among members, the BSA is not even-handed, because it has an Official Religious Belief (homosexuality is immoral and avowed gays should therefore be excluded because they are role models for immorality) that is in conflict with the religious beliefs of some of its members. Therefore, to beat the dead horse again, the BSA violates its own pledge to be absolutely nonsectarian in matters of religion. Or, the way you phrased it earlier, the BSA "allows each to be reverent to God in the manner of their choice and custom." It's not true, on this issue. If you are from a religion that does not preach the immorality of homosexuality, you are getting a conflicting message from the BSA. You are being told that your religion is wrong, under official BSA policy. That's what I object to. And this also answers boleta's comment to me. And, boleta, I was not necessarily talking about a religion that the BSA has banned as a CO. I assume that you are talking about either the Unitarian Universalists or the Wiccans or both, though I have never seen any actual evidence that the BSA has banned either other than the postings of BobWhite. There are other religions, denominations and factions of religions, and individual churches, that share the same belief but have not been banned by the BSA, at least not yet. These would include most Reform Jewish congregations, some Episcopal churches and at least one Presbyterian church that I know of. If you come from any of these, the BSA's position is that your religion is wrong. So officially, the BSA is saying you and your religious practices are "welcome," but at the same time one of your religious beliefs is wrong. That "welcome" is not worth much.

Personally, I find it to be one more example of the progressive thinking that is destroying our country. "Our country"? Rooster, I never realized that you live in Norway.

TP, sometimes when I read what you write, I wonder if you are some kind of agent provocateur left-wing white-wine-sipping Barbra-Streisand-admiring hybrid-car-driving Hanoi-Jane-adoring friend of Ed Asner and Fidel Castro Commie pinko hippie freak, whose aim is to make conservatives look ridiculous. Whether that is your aim or not, you do a good job at it. I re-read the story a couple times to find out where we learn that the accused man is an atheist, but I haven't found it yet. As for homosexual, it appears from the story that in fact he is "avowedly heterosexual," with a wife and everything. In fact, whenever eisely posts one of these stories (and I personally appreciate that he does, I know that his ideology and mine are not the same but I think he does provide a service to the forum), I can't help but notice that there is either an explicit or implicit (as in this case) statement by someone that "we had no idea that he would do anything like this," or more accurately in this case "he would never do this and he didn't do it." Never in any of these articles have I ever seen a statement like "Oh yeah, well this guy was an avowed homosexual and it was only a matter of time before he did something like this." It's always "he was such a good family man." Uncleguineau, I agree with the others, it is routine for police to release, and newspapers to print, the names of adults charged with crimes, at the time of the arrest and charge. (And juveniles whose cases are transferred to criminal court, commonly referred to as being "tried as an adult.") Sometimes there is a "sealed indictment" but usually in that case the newspapers don't even know anyone has been charged with anything so there's no story, until after the person(s) are arrested and the indictment is then unsealed. Victims' names are generally released as well, the big exception being sexual-assault-type cases, of which this would be one, as well as some other types of crimes, usually involving juvenile victims.

BobWhite says: The BSA is only concerned that the Scout or Scouter have a belief in God and gives service to God. The BSA accepts the fact that those beliefs come in many different forms and allows each to be reverent to God in the manner of their choice and custom. Well, most of the time, but not all the time. If your religion happens to believe that God does not want us discriminating against those of his children who happen to be gay, then in fact the BSA does not allow you to be a member and at the same time be reverent to God in the manner of your own choice and custom.

FOG says: However, many members of BSA do see you for the godless destroyers that you are and we take comfort in the thought that when you die you will discover that there is a hell. FOG, when you say things like this, I just have to laugh. I mean, Bible-thumping and fire and brimstone do not exactly match the "personality" that you have developed for yourself over hundreds of other posts. I would not say this about just anybody. After all, when BobWhite says he does not allow atheists in his home, while I might have a momentary glimmer of amusement, I am absolutely certain that he is serious. In fact I have a strong compulsion to stay out of his home simply because I used to think I was an atheist. Even that sort of second-hand diluted atheism might make the sensors in Bob's doorway go off. And then there are Ed Mori and Rooster, who I do not doubt for a minute, actually do see their religious faith as being a matter of absolute, positive fact, truth and knowledge, backed up by evidence, rather than mere beliefs or opinions. When either of them thumps the Bible, whatever I might think of what they are saying, the sincerity is unmistakable. I can hear the "thump" right through my computer. But you, FOG? Goodness gracious, "godless destroyers." It just doesn't ring true. The flames of hell do not leap off the computer screen. It just comes across as a joke.

Jason, About your comment about "closing the discussion," next one in is a rotten egg, etc.: I speak only as an individual member of the forum, but one who has observed past attempts by various individuals to say "Let's not talk about this anymore" or "Let's not talk about this anymore in this thread" or "Let's only discuss this subject in a certain way" or whatever. It almost never works, and that is true regardless of whether the person making the "request" is the person who started the thread or not. The one exception to all this, of course, is Scouter-Terry, the man who owns the place, but in the past he has taken action to close a discussion only in what I would call "extreme" circumstances, and this thread hasn't even gotten halfway to "extreme" yet. I and I think most of appreciate the "firm but gentle hand" he employs in allowing us to discuss just about anything we want, in the way we want, acting only when things are really getting out of hand, such as someone basically monopolizing the forum in an abusive manner. (Not mentioning any names, of course.) Other times he takes more "measured" actions, such as moving this thread (I believe it was this one) from Open Discussion to Issues and Politics, which was a good move for which I thank Terry.) So in other words, if your account name is not Scouter-Terry, you can ask and beg and plead all you want for discussions to be limited in some way, but experience suggests that you (or anyone else) will basically be ignored by the group as a whole. It's nothing personal, it's the way things work.

Achileez says: For me, religion begins with one fundamental beleif. It's shared by most, if not all religions. The beleif that a force or power greater than our comprehensions of physics is existent and in control. Existent, yes. In control, not necessarily. Some people do not necessarily believe that God is "in control." These people, or most of them, would be considered "deists," though some deists do believe in some measure of "control" by God. (Confused? Me too. Read http://godblessthismess.tripod.com/deism.htm if you want to be even more confused, but the article does confirm my point that some people believe in God as "creator" but not as being "in control.") Just as a side note, Scoutingagain refers to "The Force" from Star Wars as being an acceptable "religion" for purposes of the BSA's requirement of belief in a "higher power" or "supreme being" regardless of its name (or number, as in the case of Hinduism, and if I am not mistaken, some Native American religions as well.) Not only would it be acceptable (as I understand the BSA's position), but in Great Britain those who believe (or say they believe) in "The Force" as a religion, have gone so far as to register "The Force" as an "official religion" (for tax purposes, I assume; remember that the U.K. has no constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion, and in fact has an established state religion, the Church of England.) So, a God as creator but not controller, Mother Nature, the gods and goddesses of the Hindu religion, the non-divine object of spirituality in Buddhism, the "god and goddess" of a portion of the Wiccan religion, Adonai Elohenu of the Jewish people, Jesus Christ, Allah, the Great Spirit, The Force of the "Star Wars" universe and many others, as long as that is the "higher power" or "supreme being" that you believe in, they are all "God" within the meaning of the Scout Oath and Law.

Others have pointed out that the pre- and post-1972 explanations of "Reverent" really mean the same thing where "respect" is concerned, but I just wanted to put the 2 passages together to make it even clearer. (By the way, this is an excellent web page that has ALL the changes to the explanations of the Scout Law, and other information: http://www.troop97.net/ideals.htm) 1911-1972: "Reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion." 1972-present: "Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others." All they did (other than to rearrange the sentence structure) was to change the word "convictions" to "beliefs" and take out "customs" (but actually they just moved it; keep reading.) They really just modernized the language while leaving the meaning the same. "Convictions" (in this meaning) is a word that is probably not heard as often today as it was in 1911; most people today say "beliefs" to mean the same thing. (I suspect that the negative sense of "convictions," as in conviction for a crime, has probably made the positive sense, a synonym for "beliefs," less popular.) So, Rooster, you are incorrect when you say: Once upon a time, the BSA did not require Scouts and Scouters to respect the beliefs of others rather, they required Scouts and Scouters to respect others who may hold different religious beliefs and/or possess lesser or greater convictions concerning the same. Both versions refer to the beliefs (or pre-1972, the convictions) of others, not simply the people themselves, as the things to be respected. In a later post you refer to the "change" as being a result of the "PC crowd" "infiltrating" the BSA's ranks, and of "liberal philosophy," which frankly is absurd. Also, a couple of people in this forum have spoken of "respect" as meaning respecting or recognizing the "right" of others to have different beliefs, or "allowing" others to believe and worship in their own ways. Notice that this concept of "rights" is not specifically stated, but I believe that is because it is assumed to be part of "respect." What I want to point out is that recognizing someone's "rights" or "allowing" them to do something does not completely cover what "respect" means. It is only part of it. Another important part of it, for example, would be not "making fun," ridiculing, making someone "feel bad" or however you wish to phrase it, for having different religious beliefs, or for that matter for being of a different race or ethnic group, having a different "appearance," being from a different country, having an accent, having a disability, being "poor," or a number of other things. All of these behaviors are disrespectful and un-Scoutlike (and unfortunately I have seen both adults and youths, in and out of Scouting, engage in this type of conduct at one time or another. In fact, these days when I or others point out the wrongfulness of this type of behavior, we are often accused of being "PC." It seems to me that part of what some people think is "PC," actually is required by portions of the Scout Law.) Which brings me to another point. In reading the web site that I posted above, I discovered something I didn't realize, that a somewhat similar and overlapping reference to respect appears in the explanation of "Friendly." It did not appear in the original (1911-72) explanation of "Friendly," which was "He is a friend to all and a brother to every other Scout." In 1972 new language was added, and it has since been revised, as follows: 1972 change: (Split existing sentence into 2 sentences and added third and fourth sentences: ) "He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own." (Now, notice "customs," removed from "Reverent" in 1972, was simply moved to "Friendly." One could argue that the entire concept of "respect" belongs in Friendly (or Courteous... or Kind, and keep reading for that one, too), but I think they wanted to have it under Reverent also, as a reminder that while you are being faithful in your own religious duties, just keep in mind that you should also respect the beliefs of others. Also notice that the subject of the sentence is other people ("those") and not their "ideas and customs." Rooster believes that is what the "Reverent" explanation said (or meant) before 1972, which is incorrect, but here in Friendly, it is that way. What can we draw from this? I would say it is that the BSA sees no difference between respecting people with different beliefs, and respecting the beliefs of others, and I don't see any real difference either.) Where was I? Oh yeah: 1990 change: (kept third sentence, "He seeks to understand others", changed fourth sentence to: ) "He respects those with ideas and customs that are different from his own." 1999 change: (Merged and rewrote third and fourth sentences into: ) "He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own." And then there is "Kind." The 1911-1972 version is solely about being kind to animals. However, in 1972 a sentence was added and it is there today, without change: "He treats others as he wants to be treated." I think that includes "respect" as well. The concept if not the exact words, should of course sound familiar. (By the way I am glad I used the preview function for this post, otherwise I would not have put a space in : ) the 3 times it appears, and it would have appeared as

Ed, I have stayed away from any discussion of Ronald Reagan since he passed away, because I try to follow the old custom of not "speaking ill of the dead" at least in the immediate aftermath. There is plenty of time for talk later, and history will make its judgment. But I do feel a need to respond to this, because it is not historically accurate. OK the Wall came down but that had nothing to do with him! He just happened to be president when it happened. Actually he didn't happen to be president when it happened. The Berlin Wall came down in November 1989 -- during the administration of George H.W. Bush.

All they really decided was that Mr. Newdow cannot sue on his daughter's behalf on this issue. They did not decide whether the pledge, as recited in public schools, is constitutional. We do know, if we could not already have guessed, that at least 4 of the justices would, if and when the issue is decided, rule in favor of constitutionality. I suspect that several others would as well -- but the really important part will be the grounds on which the court eventually rules. If they decide this issue on grounds of "ceremonial deism," as some have predicted, then the basis of the decision will be that the use of the word "God" by the government in this context (and maybe in others, such as on money) is constitutional because it has no religious significance whatsoever. I wonder whether those who were most opposed to the Ninth Circuit decision will really see that as a victory.

Jason, as others have, and as you now appear to be considering, I would encourage you to give Girl Scouting a try for your daughters. As a former Boy Scout (and an almost-Eagle like yourself), when my older daughter joined Girl Scouts, I too was somewhat surprised and also amused by the "I will try." But is it really that much different from "I will do my best to..."? I don't think so. It's just a different way of saying basically the same thing. The principles on which the two organizations are based, and what they try to teach the youth, are very similar. How they go about it, is of course somewhat different, but even that is not really all that different. I certainly would not let the wording of an oath or law affect my decision. My regret is that my daughters did not stick with Girl Scouting -- one stayed in until about the seventh grade and the other only stayed in until the second grade (and the older one's decision influenced the younger, since they actually dropped out right around the same time.) So I think it would be good to see if your daughter(s) would like to give it a try. Then you need to decide whether to devote your "free time" to Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts -- or both. (My wife became a co-leader of each of my daughters' Girl Scout troops, my role like many of the dads was "driver.") I did not get involved in Boy Scouting again until my son joined Tigers, and in my son's Boy Scout troop now, all of the leaders are either fathers of current or former Scouts, or recent "graduates" from the troop. However, this does not necessarily have to be the case and it is not the case in many units. I know several people (including my father) who were Scoutmasters before they had any children at all or while their sons were years short of joining the Cub Scouts.

Jason, I think that if you look around, you will find units where religion is as much a part of the program as you remember it from your youth, and some where it isn't. My guess is that in your part of the country, the first group will be well-represented. Personally I think that some variety in this area is a good thing. A Scout is Reverent... but the number of and type of religion-related activities that occur in each troop is up to the troop (or the CO, but that is a discussion we need not get into.) I also agree with boleta, "respect for the beliefs of others" is an integral part of the meaning of "Reverent" and it is right in the Scout Handbook. From what I have sometimes read in this forum in the past, some people don't take that part seriously enough.

I wasn't surprised. I've mentioned this before. Several times in the past, people have asked why the ACLU never represents people challenging restrictions on their freedom to practice their religion, only people challenging religious practices by the government. The answer is, they represent people in "free exercise" cases all the time. I've pointed out that a number of these cases are listed on their web site. But I guess that's an inconvenient fact for those who try to demonize the ACLU, so they just ingore it.

Wow, in one post (9:55:58 AM today), Rooster manages to bash almost his entire "hit list": Atheists, evolution, science, homosexual activists, abortion rights advocates, the feminist movement, Democrats, "most liberals," and really, anyone whose religious beliefs do not match his. I say that last part because many of the statements that Rooster seems to believe are integral to a belief in God (in other words, to not be an atheist), are not. They are simply what he (and in many cases, a majority of people who believe in God) believe. But they are not true of everybody who believes in God. Like: After all, if there is no God, then whos to say what is right or wrong. People. I personally believe people decide what is right and wrong. I believe that God created the Universe, and directly or indirectly gave mankind the ability to decide what is right and wrong. I think that in our society at least, we do a pretty good job of deciding what is right and wrong, though individually we obviously don't always do a good job of following the rules. Now, I recognize that a majority of people believe that God intervenes more directly -- but you don't have to believe that in order to believe in God. Rooster also refers to a "fixed definition of good and/or evil." In reality, ideas of what is right and wrong are not always fixed. Certain things will presumably always be considered wrong, like murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. But if you look back at history, some ideas of what is right and wrong have changed. I won't get back into the old debate over whether slavery is condoned in the Bible, but just look back say 60 years in this country. Racial discrimination was not considered immoral by many people, in fact some looked to the Bible to support discrimination. Now racial discrimination is considered wrong. (I think the recognition that other types of discrimination are wrong, is following along as a natural result of the civil rights movement, but I won't get into any of that specifically.) Business practices are another example. For centuries the rule was "buyer beware," now there is a recognition that business should be conducted by a higher standard. That is a moral issue too, in my opinion. And then there's this: 3) Mankind is not capable of creating anything that is truly good without God. First of all, I don't even know what that means. If God created the Universe, then man does not exist without God. But you don't have to believe in God or any particular version of God to be a good person or to create something good. I think you sell mankind short. By definition, God is not just a superior being, but rather He is the Supreme Being. Indeed, so supreme that I don't necessarily think he (using the conventional pronoun) really gets involved much in what we do. Again, I do not mean to argue about religious beliefs, and I know that many of the people here with whom I agree on many issues, do believe in the Bible and do believe in a more "active" God than I believe in. I have no problem with what anyone else believes. I am just making the point that belief in God does not necessarily mean all of what Rooster thinks it means. Why do human beings, one of His creations, think that they can comprehend his ways? Good question, but I find it curious that you are the one asking it. You seem to know a lot of specifics and details about what you think God wants and doesn't want. And I know where you get those ideas, you get them from a book. But that book is one of the things that is not essential to a belief in God.

Last night and this morning I listened to 1190 AM (Air America in New York) for short periods of time. Since my drive from work takes me from the far end of the New York radio reception area to the outer edge of the Philadelphia area (with a lot of overlap in between), and 1190 seems to be a somewhat less than 50Kw station, reception was poor most of the way. But what I did hear sounded like a mix of NPR and local radio, which is not all that surprising given that it has only been on the air for a few months. I remember that WABC, the main talk radio station in New York, went through a tremendous number of changes and short-lived hosts after it switched from music to talk in the early 80s. (It is now the NYC station that has Limbaugh, Hannity, and a bunch of local hosts who (with one exception) agree with those two on almost everything.) I have not heard Al Franken's show. I was, however, disappointed when I heard that he had named his show as a parody of Bill O'Reilly's tv show. I think the important thing is for the "progressive" hosts to put their ideas out there and see what happens. Making fun of some conservative on tv is not what the public wants (in my opinion); of course, given the ratings reported by Merlyn, I could be wrong. Who knows what people want anymore. I guess we'll find out in November. And, since they are still on the air, despite the wishful thinking of some, it will be interesting to see if the presence of "both sides" on talk radio, instead of 99 percent one side, will make any difference in the presidential election. Though, I wouldn't assume that all the "progressive" hosts would be enthusiastic supporters of John Kerry. During the 2000 election, WABC had 3 "progressive"/"liberal" hosts (2 regular and 1 weekend host), of whom 2 supported Ralph Nader and 1 sort of wavered between Gore and Nader, finally settling on Gore when it was clear how close the election was going to be. Meanwhile all the conservative hosts were in lockstep being the Republican ticket. So we'll see where the Air America hosts line up this time.

FOG says: Eamonn, atheists hate anything to do with religion even more than Arabs hate Jews. Leaving aside the Arabs and the Jews... Most (not all) atheists I have known (either in person or on the Internet) do not hate religion. Most really don't care what other people think, unlike many people who are religious, as is proven often in this forum. (I vote with Thomas Jefferson: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." Of course, during Jefferson's lifetime, he was sometimes accused of being an atheist, which he denied.) Now, I am speaking of atheists in general. The most "prominent" avowed atheist in this forum, Merlyn, has at times "crossed the line" in my opinion, by ridiculing religious beliefs. Several religious believers in this forum have done the same thing in the other direction, by ridiculing or otherwise picking on atheists. It's just as wrong in either direction.

I have never heard it, but apparently it is not "gone." I found their web site, http://www.airamericaradio.com and they have previews of shows for today, May 27. I did not know where it was on in the New York or Philadelphia areas, but now I do (on 1190 AM in New York), so I will have to check it out. There is a press release from April 30 with new stations they are adding, and I know that the news stories (which I only heard on a conservative talk radio station, by the way) about how they "couldn't pay their bills" were longer ago than that. As for them paying the stations to air their shows, that is how a number of syndicated radio talk shows have started out, on both "sides of the aisle." I have heard Sean Hannity talk about it, and this was before Air America even existed. He makes the point that it is something he did not do, even though it meant that his show grew in listnership slower than it might have at the beginning.

TwoCubDad, 2 thumbs up, 5 stars, or whatever other rating system you choose, for that post. Oh, and gigadittos (as opposed to megadittos, something I wouldn't "rush" to say.)

I agree TwoCub, how nice to have official info instead of the usual "Well, my third cousin's brother in law knows a guy who knows a guy who cuts the hair of the parking lot attendant at National, and he says..."

Funny you should mention this. About 4 months ago my son was at a troop meeting doing requirement 10b as the last thing needed for Tenderfoot (other than SM conference.) He had not been able to do one pullup at the beginning of 30 days and he could not do one at the end. I heard the ASM who was working with him talking to him about it, and looking at the book, and trying to figure out what to do. I walked away so as to make clear to the ASM that I had nothing to do with his decision about my son. I got the answer later in the meeting when I was talking with the SM and my son came up and asked him for a conference. I think the ASM figured that my son got closer to doing a pullup the second time, and that that was "improvement." I like KS's interpretation of the requirement though I doubt it is what the person who wrote it had in mind. "Show improvement in the activities listed in requirement 10a..." Hmmm. It does not say "each" or "all" of the activities, but I guess I (and more importantly, the ASM who was testing my son) assumed that was what it meant. He just decided that doing "almost" one pullup was an "improvement" over "not even close."

Bob says: They are not a part of the BSA, why are you determenined to make them match each others rules rules? They have different missions and so who they allow as members differs as well. An 11-year-old boy cannot join APO. But how can that be? By your logic since they are based on the same values they should accept the same membership. First of all, Bob, instead of making up things that you say I said and responding to them, you could try responding to what I actually said. If you're just going to invent things and answer them, you might as well just be talking to yourself. Second of all, not all elements of a "mission" involve "values." The BSA accepting an 11-year-old and not a 20-year-old college student as youth members, and the opposite for APO, have nothing to do with "values." They may be parts of each group's mission, but of course in the BSA's case, that detail has changed several times, as the ages of eligibility for joining have been adjusted, and new programs added with different age requirements. I that suppose some might see this as a "cheap shot," but I am not surprised that you can't distinguish between what is a "value" of the BSA and what isn't. The current leadership of the BSA shares your confusion, and that is why the current controversy exists.