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 were trying to verify that it was really him, as well as make sure they had him in an absolutely secure location. (I am not positive about the timing, I was driving back from a camping trip in the snow, around 11:30 a.m. EST, when I heard about it on the radio.) Second of all, I am not sure about the logic of a decoy allowing his appearance to change, or going into hiding. If the decoys were still running around, you would figure they would occasionally leave a trail somewhere in a different part of the country, both to make people think Saddam was plotting a return to power, and to throw us off the trail of the real guy. Also remember the decoys and the rest of Saddam's apparatus were not doing their jobs for free, and when we succeeded in separating Saddam from sources of money, I suspect the enthusiasm of his people to keep doing their jobs declined rapidly. FOG also says: If it is him, what now? Will he come to America, be tried and get to spend his life in Club Fed? I am pretty sure that, contrary to popular belief, there are no murderers in "Club Fed." (If by Club Fed you mean the minimum security places where the inmates are treated like hotel guests, which is somewhat exaggerated in the media anyway.) For that matter, people convicted of violent crimes and most drug offenses aren't there either. A higher percentage of federal than state prisoners tend to be in for things like embezzlement, tax fraud and counterfeiting, and are therefore more suitable for mimimum security, and I think that is where the "Club Fed" reputation comes from. I have been to one federal facility that was not "Club Fed," and while it was not "Attica" either, believe me, you wouldn't want to be there. The idea that Saddam would be placed in minimum security is too cynical even for me. Will he be handed over to the Iraqis who might be like the citizens of DC and put him back in power? Or will the Iraqis stone him with pieces of his statues? My guess is that he will be handed over to the Iraqi provisional government -- which, don't forget, was appointed by the president's (our president's) representative -- and eventually tried and executed. I have already heard rumblings that if he is placed in "international custody," some of the other nations involved may not wish to return him to the Iraqi government because Iraq has the death penalty. The same thing happens to us sometimes when someone is in custody of Germany or Sweden or somewhere and they don't want to send him back to the U.S. because we we have the death penalty. In any event, it will be interesting when the provisional government is ready to hand power over to an elected government. You are right, FOG, there will be an issue as to whether some in the elected government wish to follow a different course regarding Saddam. I have a feeling that we are going to keep some people within the Iraqi power structure to "help" them as they become a democracy, and one of the ways we will help is to make sure that if the new Iraqi government starts to make moves in Saddam's favor, he will be on the next plane to somewhere more under our control. If not shot "trying to escape." Not that I'm knocking that in this case.

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 was a big brouhaha over it. I think the original plan was to sell it for development. Both the local neighbors and a group of leaders and other adults who had camped there as boys protested the plan. So the council ended up selling it to the county park commission, which now runs it... as a camp. So troops can still use it, you're just sending your reservation form and check to a different place, I suspect the check is for more money, the council probably got less $ than it would have from a developer, and probably the signage is different. None of which will affect our boys this weekend.

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 troop all the way through the moment of their 18th birthday -- and who did not make Eagle, a large portion -- probably a majority and maybe a large majority -- were Life. Most of the rest would probably be Stars for Life. Below that, it seems to me that people would have quit before reaching that point. Sometimes when I see adults wearing the Eagle knot, I say hey, where's the Life for Life knot. I am just kidding, of course -- the knot is for the highest accomplishment, not the second highest. There is no knot for being the Red Sox. (Ducking fast.) But sometimes I wonder, a bit more seriously, whether there should be a knot for those of us who were Senior Patrol Leader, especially if certain training and "quality" requirements were met, similar to the requirements for the adult leader training awards. It's just a thought, and I know it would be a lot more difficult to come up with requirements and enforce them than it is for the other "knots." Maybe it could be a half-size knot.

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 become the basis for their decisions, as opposed to the law. Can you prove otherwise?

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 it, and what are they doing? What religions are these people members of, who are trying to subjugate the majority religion? And, do they have the power and the resources to do it?

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. There must be one den leader for each of the three "levels" of den (Tiger, Cub Scout (Wolf/Bear) and Webelos,) so if there is at least one boy at one of these levels there must also be a den leader for that level. And I don't believe that a den leader may "double" with ANY other position, including a different kind of den leader. Not on the charter, anyway. One other thing I have never been completely clear on in this general area. If an IH decides to personally represent the organization without a separate CR, does he/she have to register as CR? Or can he/she simply be the liaison as IH? I guess another way of saying this is, do you actually need someone designated as CR on the charter, or can the IH fulfill that role as part of his/her leadership of the CO, without the additional title on the charter? (Now that I read what I wrote, I am guessing that IH does have to register as CR, because the "liaison" role is considered a "leadership" position and the BSA probably wants a registered adult (which the IH position is not) in that position. But if someone could clarify that...)

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 idea to invite the head of the Charter Organization; anyone else who has rendered substantial assistance to the pack in the past year, even if not a registered leader; and other people who might be considered to be part of the "pack family," an example off the top of my head might be the Scoutmaster of a troop chartered to the same organization as the pack. Perhaps a member of the clergy to do an invocation and/or benediction (though those were done by Webelos in my son's former pack.) I seem to recall that when I was a Cub Scout the pack really went all out with this, and had people like the Mayor there as well. In my son's former pack we usually had our District Executive there, but his actual role was primarily as a Friends of Scouting presenter. I am sure we would have fed him even without the presentation which was never a big hit with the boys (or the parents for that matter), but it was the best time to do it. Food -- Of whatever type and mode of acquisition that suits the people in the pack and the funds available. Catered, potluck, what I call "organized potluck" which I guess is an oxymoron but I think you know what I mean, or prepared by the parents as a group, or quite often some combination of some or all of these, or whatever way you can think of. In my son's pack, traditionally a group of parents would prepare a large amount of something to be the main course (usually involving pasta and some sort of chicken or sausage or whatever), and the rest (salads, side dishes, deserts, etc.) were potluck or "organized potluck." Sometimes the soda etc. was bought in bulk by the pack, sometimes parents brought a bottle or two. There would be a charge to cover whatever the pack was buying (whatever food, plus paper plates, cups, plastic utensils, napkins, etc.) Then, after a couple of years of record-breaking popcorn sales, the pack was rolling in dough so we decided to go "fancy," keep the fee the same (actually I think we lowered it) but had the dinner catered, with the caterer proving a "theme" and cheap promotional items to go along with it (like Spirit of the West with cowboy hats, Spirit of America with a lot of red white and blue all over the place, etc. Sometimes I wonder whether Cub packs in Wyoming or Utah celebrate the Spirit of New Jersey at their dinners. (A little humor there.) And if you want to guess which year in recent years we had Spirit of America, you'd be right, it seemed a fairly obvious choice.) Program -- There has to be something, minimally it would include an opening ceremony including a flag salute, and some sort of statement by someone (the Cubmaster or Committee Chair usually) about why we're all here, thanks for coming, enjoy the meal. Obviously the speech(es) can go beyond that, and include sort of a "state of the pack" report, recognition of the leaders and other dignitaries, announcements, or whatever. If the head of the Chartered Org, the mayor or someone from the council or district or other dignitary are there, it might be customary to invite them to say "a few words." But I mean a few words, and everybody who is speaking needs to remember that long speeches and 7-year-olds -- not to mention younger (often much younger) siblings -- do not mix very well. (Not that the older Cubs or many of their parents are going to sit still for a lot of speechifying either.) Everything else is a matter of what you want to do, and that can mean what has been done in your pack for the last 2 or 10 or 50 years, but it does not have to. You can have advancements and recognitions, but you do not have to. If you do, anyone who has earned a badge up to that point and has not received it, should receive it, with their parent called up to stand with them. (I do not want to get into a thing about prompt recognition, advancement as a group, and other such issues here; they are indeed issues raised in cs4wc's post, but since opinions and practices in this area vary so widely I am just not going to get into it. I will say that advancement was a significant part of the B&G in our pack, but it was not the main reason for being there -- it just seemed like a good time to do it.) On the related issue of crossover to Boy Scouts, again, you can do it at B&G. Traditionally my son's pack did not and does not, probably because to do it right, it takes some time and can detract from whatever else is going on. On a practical level, if a Scoutmaster and Scouts are coming to set up a bridge and do a whole ceremony, they shouldn't have to sit through a whole dinner with a bunch of little kids, who sometimes got a bit noisy. The one exception was the year when we had a den that had collapsed over the years to the point where my son was the only one crossing over that year. (And it wasn't my fault, it was already down to three kids when I became the den leader, and both of the other kids got too involved in sports to stay interested.) I suggested, and the other leaders agreed, that since a one-boy crossover would be relatively short, and my son did not really want a full-length crossover focused solely on him anyway, we would do a somewhat expedited version at the dinner. Other things: You can also have presentations of other things such as Pinewood Derby trophies (as my son's pack did.) You can have some sort of entertainment and some sort of participation by the boys, and you probably should. Our pack had a skit by each den (and since our regular pack meetings almost never included skits, the annual B&G skit was a big deal. When we found ourselves with an embarrasingly large balance in our treasury, we brought in paid entertainment (in the low-to-moderate three-figure range), like I remember with the West theme we had a couple of cowboy-entertainers with bullwhips and that sort of thing. Again, I don't even want to guess what the corresponding theme in Montana might be. In other years, maybe we had a clown (other than the Cubmaster), I forget.) But we still had the skits. (That was another joke, the Cubmaster being a clown. Someone once told me that the most important qualification for being a CM is an inability to become embarrassed in front of a group of parents and kids, so I thought of the clown thing.) We also tried to have something for the small kids to do, such as coloring books or placemats or maybe just covering all the tables with rolls of white paper, giving the kids crayons and letting them (and their uniformed brothers) go to town. Table decorations are another issue, and there is no reason for the boys not to make them; usually we had the boys do some sort of craft to be used as centerpieces, etc., at den and/or pack meetings leading up to the dinner. I am sure I have forgotten a few things, but the basic point is that once you have the essential ingredients, the "options" you add are up to the pack. Advancement is one of those options. It should not become the tail that wags the dog.

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 opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I love the part about soon having the opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I wish more people had the attitude toward religion that Franklin had.

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 one goes, it becomes increasingly difficult to get mom and dad's signature anyway. And there may be family circumstances that make it difficult. It becomes even more difficult to understand if you don't need a parental signature at age 14 to join, but you do need a parental signature at age 20 plus 364 days to go on an activity, after you've joined. Seems a bit backwards.

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 is something that should be consistent. This just looks like a mistake to me.

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 reasonably in dispute? You do touch on that issue when you say: But, I will speak up if I see an interpretation that is an obvious corruption of God's Word. In other words, you will speak up when you disagree with someone else's interpretation of what you believe to be God's word. Nobody's stopping you. But using words like "obvious corruption of God's Word" doesn't change the fact that it's just a bunch of people's differing opinions and beliefs. Some people don't even believe the book you claim is God's Word is really God's Word. Some of them are members of the BSA. Why should they be forced to comply with religious beliefs they don't agree with? I said: I wonder how God will feel about that, when and if the time for divine judgment comes? And Rooster says: So, God will judge me for being confident about what His Word says - But he'll passover me if I'm having sex with everything that moves? Yeah, I'm sure you have a point. First of all, I didn't say it was you. Second of all, I didn't say what God was going to do. I just said I wonder. I personally don't presume to know what God is going to do. Third of all, who said anything about the morality of anybody "having sex with everything that moves"? How does that even come into the conversation? Let's just say - God will judge us by what's in our hearts and who we claim as our Lord and Savior. OK, everybody's entitled to their opinion. I do agree with part of this. If God does judge us individually -- and I really have no basis to know whether he will or not -- but if he does, what is in our hearts will be part of the evidence. Other parts of the evidence will be how we have treated the other parts of his creation -- our fellow people, and the plants and animals and the rest of the stuff here on Earth. There's probably something in one or more of the Testaments of the Bible that supports that statement, but of course, that does not really matter to me. It seems logical. But Rooster, how about dealing with the parts of my post that you don't think are about you personally. It's up to you, of course.

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 one of them, and there are a number of others who post in this forum, but it's their book, not mine. When it comes to the Old Testament, I believe that the words attributed to God are an interpretation of the word of God by the believers who wrote the book. In so interpreting the word of God, they necessarily filtered it through their own cultural understanding. In that way, all of the condemnations of homosexuality in the Old Testament could be regarded as the words of man, and not necessarily the word of God. But let's say that the Old Testament is, in fact the word of God. Do the passages that are pointed to by those who wish to punish homosexuality or discriminate against homosexuals, in fact mean what they are claimed to mean? First of all, those of us who read the Bible in English are reading a translation at least once removed, and sometimes at least twice removed, from the source language. Things can, quite literally, get lost in the translation. Additionally, I have tried to educate myself by seeing what interpretations people give to these passages. One can find, on the Internet, interpretations of all of these passages (and maybe the ones in the New Testament also, I am not sure) that demonstrate that God was condemning only certain practices existing at that time, such as "temple prostitution" by males, and not homosexuality in general. By these interpretations, the notion of two males living together openly but calmly and quietly, in a monogomous relationship prompted by their own orientations, simply was not considered by God, or the human writers of the Bible, and therefore was not condemned by them. So why can't everybody just choose their interpretation and let others choose theirs? Apparently, not everyone is able to do this. There are those on this board who insist repeatedly that their interpretation is the only correct one and that anyone who does not agree is not a true believer in the religion they say they believe it. It seems to me that some of these people are setting themselves up as God's exclusive spokespersons. I wonder how God will feel about that, when and if the time for divine judgment comes?

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 to restrict the religious practice of others. However, I think the article still points out a distinction between Saudi Arabia and Israel. In Saudi Arabia, the restrictions are official, established government policy. In Israel, only certain rabbis and other officials are trying to impose these kinds of restrictions, and sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Hopefully cooler heads will ultimately prevail. And this again underlines the distinction between this country and many others, including Israel, in that this country bans establishments of religion. Even a nation like Israel, which I believe shares a great deal of culture and law in common with the U.S., falters in its treatment of some of its inhabitants due in part to its establishment of religion. I personally believe that Israel, a tiny nation smaller than almost every U.S. state, does need to exist as a Jewish homeland, but unfortunately there are always going to be tradeoffs in a religious state. Those kinds of tradeoffs are exactly what our Constitution helps us avoid here.

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, one, I know you would not steer me wrong, and two, I had never seen a Venturing application until a few minutes ago, when your post prompted me to find one the Internet and print it out. Sure enough, there is no place for the parent to sign. (Now that I've finished this entire post, I have to put an asterisk here -- keep reading.) My question that remains is, What sense does it make? Why is the signature required on one and not the other? I am not necessarily asking why the Venturing application doesn't require it; maybe the question is why the Boy Scout application does require it. In other words, the real question is, Why are they different? What rational basis could exist for requiring a 14-year-old to have his parents sign for one kind of unit and not the other? I do understand that younger boys can join a troop, and maybe the BSA thinks that 14-year-olds can sign for themselves. (I'm not sure how 14 could be a dividing line when the age of adulthood is 18, but let's say it is.) But in that case, why doesn't the application to join a troop (which I also just downloaded even though I am familiar with it, just to be sure) say that the parents' signature is only required if the boy is 13 or younger? It doesn't say that, in fact it appears that a boy joining a troop at age 17 and 364 days (theoretically, of course) needs a parent to sign, but a boy (or girl) joining a crew on his her 14th birthday (4 years less one day younger than the hypothetical new Boy Scout) does not. I can't see why. And get this. In looking at this Venturing application a bit more closely, I've noticed a few interesting things. There are several references to parents. Maybe this one is picky, but there is the statement, "All Venturing activities are open to parental visitation." I am familiar with that rule for Boy Scouts; but doesn't its presence suggest that the parent knows that his/her son is a Venturer? And how does the BSA know the parent knows that, without a signature? Here's a "better" one: The application itself has a whole section for Parent/Guardian information. It doesn't say Leader Information, it says Parent/Guardian Information, so it appears (to me anyway) that this information must be filled out on all applications. In this section there are several pieces of information that I don't think a boy should be giving out without his parent's permission. The biggie here is the parent's social security number but I'll leave that one aside, because I know there is a question about whether the SSN can even be required, except for an adult leader for whom it is necessary in order to get a criminal background check. But even beyond the SSN, the form asks for the parent's date of birth, business phone number, occupation and employer. With the possible exception of occupation, I don't know what a boy is doing giving out any of those items of information about his parent without the parent consenting. And here's the one that really has me scratching my head. At the end of the application (probably on the back in the "official" version), is the Class 1 Personal Health History (same as for Boy Scouts and Cubs.) I have never been completely sure whether the unit was actually required to obtain this, and I know that it does not go to council. But it says, "To be filled out by parent or guardian" and on the bottom, guess whose signature is required. The parent or guardian! So the parent's signature is required on the health information but not on the application itself?? If the health information is in fact required, then the absence of a parental signature line on the application seems irrelevant, because the parent does have to sign, just in a different place. OK, now that I've beaten this completely into the ground, please, DS, anybody, explain this to me. Is it possible that this is just a long-standing mistake waiting to be corrected?

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.