NJCubScouter

First of all, it's great that they got this guy. What I think it may do is to prompt the "ordinary Iraqi citizen" to fight back against the insurgents, now that they know that Saddam is no longer in the background waiting to take over again. I do have to admit that my first thought was the same as FOG's, how do they know it's him. He did have many decoy Saddams while he was in power. (I don't think it was "hundreds," I always thought it was about 5 or 6.) However, first of all, I think that is the reason why "we" did not find out about this for about 20 hours after it happened, they w

ScoutParent: Nice way to avoid answering my questions. But you're right, I probably haven't changed all that much in the year or so since you were last posting regularly on here. I still try not to make statements I cannot defend, and then when someone questions or challenges me, laugh it off as a joke. How about you?

TwoCub, as it happens, tomorrow I am going on a camping trip with the troop to a camp that almost shared a similar fate. Until about two years ago, it was a council camp. Four councils (not including mine) had merged and ended up with something like 11 camps (some being a "second camp" in upstate New York, used as high adventure bases, and some having been inherited from still earlier merged councils; from my knowledge of the area, I suspect that the territory of this one council could have at time contained 9, 10 or even more councils.) They decided to sell off one in particular, and there

According to usscouts.org, OA troop rep. was added to the Eagle POR list effective 1/1/2000, and to the Star and Life lists during the year 1999 as clarified by a letter from the Boy Scout Division Director of Advancement. See for example http://usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsrank6.html

Life for Life, hey, I thought I came up with that. One day I got tired of always seeing people say you are an "Eagle for life" (to take nothing away from the accomplishment of those who are), and thought (and maybe posted on this forum somewhere) I guess that makes me a Life for Life. In speaking with many of the fathers in my son's pack and troop over the past few years, I have met a lot of "us." Of course, there are also many who stopped at Star, First Class, etc. but I'd bet if you limited the statistics to those who literally aged out -- were still registered and active in the tro

Thanks, Hunt. It's always nice to be able to base a discussion on actual facts, instead of things someone just made up.

So Rooster, exactly which judicial nominees were asked about their "faith" by Democratic senators? And what exactly were they asked? When I have heard of questions posed to judicial nominees about religion, it was based on some statement or other indication that the person might use the judicial office as a forum to promote his or her religious beliefs or that the person would undermine the constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion. So as far as I know it really has nothing to do with someone's religious beliefs, it has to do with whether their religious beliefs would

ScoutParent says: and today in the U.S. the minority religions would like to relegate the majority to "second-class citizenship". That's a pretty broad statement there, ScoutParent. All minority religions would like to do that? Or just some of them? And if it's just some of them, which ones? Or is it particular individuals within certain minority religions, and if so, which ones? And, more important than what anyone would "like to" do, is it your opinion that anyone is actually doing anything to relegate the majority religion to second-class status? And if so, who is doing

Bob, you say that a CR is allowed to hold two positions, which I was aware of, but just to clarify, my understanding is that while the CR may also be either the CC or an MC, the CR may NOT be the SM, right? (Nor for that matter may the CR be an SA (right?), but once we are talking about assistants we are beyond the minimum number of required leaders anyway, which is what the thread was about.) And although it wasn't asked, an interesting trivia tidbit is that if the same "minimum number" question were asked about a Cub pack, you would have to add between 1 and 3 to the minimum number

Congrats to the new SPL. I think, in retrospect, that SPL is the best position to have in Scouting, if you do it right. Though, I'm not sure I appreciated that fact at the time, nor do some of the boys I see doing it today seem to fully understand it. But the one who was elected by my son's troop about a month ago at least seems to have the capacity to get it before his term is up.

OGE, that sounds like a pretty together, happening crew you have there. I mean, that you serve. You know what I mean. Already sounds like OutdoorThinker may be President someday. (And I don't mean of the crew.)

There is probably something in the Cub Scout Leader Book and perhaps in Program Helps about the Blue and Gold Dinner (known by some as Blue and Gold Banquet, but it's the same thing), but here is what I know, and believe: (Now that I have finished this, I see it has become a small pamphlet.) The mandatory ingredients of a Blue and Gold Dinner are very few, and they are: People -- at the very least, that would be the Cubs -- ALL the Cubs, including the Tigers; their families; and all leaders (including the Charter org. rep.) Beyond that, it is up to the pack. It's not a bad id

FScouter: Wow. Juvenile prison, huh? It does raise some issues. Not that Scouting cannot benefit those youths, but it would seem to be something more suited for Learning for Life, doesn't it? But that doesn't give anyone membership or unit numbers... I think the "drive for numbers" can be a good thing, if it matches the right program with the right kids. This wouldn't seem to be an example of that, though.

Speaking of Founding Fathers, in a letter about a month before he died (in 1790), Benjamin Franklin wrote: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an op

OGE, I'd appreciate hearing about whatever information you do get to clarify this. Assuming that 18 is the age of majority in your state (and I know it is), it is difficult to imagine a justification for requiring a person of 18 or over to have parental permission for any activity. The fact that the BSA chooses to call them "youth members" if they are in a Venturing Crew does not change the fact that legally, they are adults. I suppose that the BSA has the right to require it, I just don't get why they would. And as OT points out, after one graduates from high school, depending on where on

DS, I'm light, I'm light. I just have this thing about wanting things to make sense. As far as school clubs and activities go, everything requires some sort of permission slip. I feel like I'm signing a permission slip every five minutes. The school authorities do not care if a 14-18 year old student thinks its cool to get mom or dad's signature. It's required. I can of course accept that Boy Scouting and Venturing have different rules. But they are, after all, all part of the same organization. Something so basic as whose permission is required for a youth to be a member

FOG, what I am talking about happened 30 years ago, and I don't think it lasted very long. I don't think it has much do with word usage of today. I have not noticed the Mens/girls usage in high school sports. I get all the local schedules as a member of the school board, I'll have to check. It's funny though, if "political correctness" really is as much of a force as some people think it is, would the term "girls" really be used so much?

Rooster says, in response to me: I don't see anyone - including myself (as I'm sure you were referring to me), claiming to be "exclusive spokespersons" for God. I said I wasn't responding to anyone in particular. Why do you assume it's about you? Or as you recently said to me, did I strike a raw nerve? I notice that you skipped the really important paragraph in my post, which is the one before the one you are responding to. How about responding to the idea that reasonable people can have different beliefs and that nobody should suffer because of an interpretation that is reasonab

This is not in response to any particular person's posts, but is a general response to the notion that the Bible declares homosexuality to be immoral. I guess I first need to acknowledge that I am in really no position to be interpreting the Bible myself. I have written before on my own beliefs regarding the Bible. The religion of my ancestors includes only what is commonly referred to as the Old Testament. I have no beliefs regarding the New Testament one way or another or the faith expressed therein. There are many people of good will who do believe in that book, and I am married to

Hunt, thank you for providing that information and link regarding some of the actual and proposed restrictions on non-Jewish religious practice in Israel. I have to admit that when I read and think about Israel, I focus mainly on that nation's struggle for survival and I evidently missed hearing about some of the internal issues. I was aware that there has been a struggle within Israel as to how to define who is Jewish, and that is alluded to in the article you linked to. I completely agree with the statements made in that article. It is unfortunate that some in Israel act that way and try

Rooster, right now I am just waiting to see how Hunt feels about your comments on his Biblical knowledge and your statements about who should and shouldn't claim to be a Christian, and whose faith is or isn't built on a "faulty foundation."

I decided not to further send Eamonn's thread, dealing with a very real current problem he is facing, off in a different direction. This is mainly a question for DS, but of course anyone else can jump in. The issue here is, why the Venturing application does not require a parental signature, when the Boy Scout application does. DS, in the other thread, I was not really questioning your statement as to what the Venturing application requires. My questions were mostly rhetorical, except for the last one, which I will get to. I would have no reason to question what you said because,

Rooster, at this point I am just giving you an opportunity to show everyone else what you're really all about, and that's exactly what you're doing.

Adrian, actually I never said I was offended by anything at all (at least not in this thread) and I also never called this a "secular nation." I am not sure what that would even mean. I was reacting to the statement that this is a "Christian nation" and showing why I believe that to be incorrect. I am talking about facts, not my feelings.

OGE, I have heard my daughters (now age 21 and 17) using the term "straight edge" (not "razor edge") on occasion for the last couple of years, in roughly the way you mean -- but not involving a pledge or symbol or anything formal like that -- at least not that I have heard them discussing. They just use "straight edge" to mean someone who does not involve themselves in the things that their parents wish they would not involve themselves. I will ask them about the pledge and symbol, though. And it could be a regional thing, after all, we are in the same general region.