NJCubScouter

I guess I haven't been in this thread in awhile. I guess it's too late to discuss this for this year, I know our sale ended Oct. 15. (Our pack share will be over $2,000 for the second year in a row, yay! We had one kid sell over $1,000 which I don't think we ever had before.) But when I went to the Trails End site to look at the tracking system, it doesn't look like the council really has to do much to set it up. It looks like the council is provided with user names and passwords (or the ability to make them) by the company, and all the unit has to do is ask the council. Did you ask? I never get tired of asking questions of my council office, though I suspect sometimes they get tired of me.

ScoutParent says: I can say, in good conscience that Evolution is an engine of evil because I see that God tells us anything taking the glory for his creations is evil. Let's see if we can take this idea a few steps down the road and, at the same time, try to relate this thread back to what this forum is supposed to be about. Scouting, remember? So ScoutParent, let me ask you this: If evolution is "an engine of evil," is a person who believes that evolution takes place, an evil person? And if a person who believes that evolution take place is an evil person, should Scouting permit that person to be a leader? And on a slightly different note, please answer me this. If a person professes a belief in God, or what they call God, but also believes that the Bible is of entirely human origin, and that it is, in whole or in part, allegorical and/or fictitious, should that person be permitted to be a Scout leader?

Ed, unless I misinterpreted SCOUTER-Terry's post in the other thread, nobody "rid" us of anybody, except possibly for yaworski himself, and maybe not even him. Terry said: I'd rather not enter into a childish and time consuming game of blocking IP addresses from participating in the forums, so I'll leave it up to the forum members to understand the source of the message when reading. So it does not seem like anyone was "banned." Terry has simply informed us that 2 "people" who have drawn a great deal of attention to themselves appear to be violating the forum's policy against "honesty in posting." Or more simply stated, one person is pretending to be two, for whatever reason. Terry leaves it to us to use or not use this information when we read and evaluate the posts for ourselves. That truly is the epitome of freedom of speech -- though Terry, as the owner of a private service, has no legal obligation to do so. We should be thankful that he does so anyway. And, while it is true that 2 people could share an IP address, I have not seen either yaworski or Zorn deny the statement that they are the same person, in the 24 hours since it was made. That says something.

Rooster, I see what it says for the first day. But I also see what it says for the fourth day: God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. Isn't the "greater light to govern the day" the Sun? It couldn't be anything else. So what did God do, create the Sun twice? I don't think that's what it means. But the only way it could not mean that is if "light" is being used to mean one thing on the first day and another thing on the fourth. "Light" means both the actual light, the shiny stuff, and the thing that produces the shiny stuff, like a flashlight or a Sun. On the first day, it just refers to light, not a source of the light. On the fourth day, it is clearly referring to specific sources of light, the "greater light" (the Sun) and the "lesser light" (the Moon.) So if I have to pick one of these descriptions as being the creation of the Sun, it is the one for the fourth day. Now, you might ask, where did the light come from on the first day if the Sun was not created until the fourth day? It's a good question. But it's one I don't have to answer, because I think the whole chapter is a pre-scientific parable written by ancient man to explain creation. It's really not consistent, either with itself or with the known facts, but it doesn't have to be consistent -- it's poetry. And no matter how hard you try, now matter how big a font you use, you can't prove otherwise. You can believe otherwise, but your belief does not give anyone else a reason to share your belief. I, on the other, do not care in the slightest if anyone believes what I believe. And it has nothing to do with what God CAN do, the issue is what God DID do. I prefer the answers given by science to the answers offered by conflicting translations from an ancient text -- however great and important that text might be.

And by the way, while we're at it. Genesis 1 also says that God created the Earth, and plant life on Earth, before the Sun was created. Do you really believe that? And if so, what scientific evidence is there for that?

DeMann says: The above quoted verses are to show (when you take them in the context in which they are written) that time is irrelevant to God. OK, if time is irrelevant to God, then why can't the "days" in Genesis 1 be a million years? Or a billion years? Or, I suppose, a second or a split-second? Point is, once you accept (as most people do) that the "days" are representational rather than literal, you are then free to look at the actual evidence, which suggests to most scientists that the Earth is somewhere between 4 and 4.6 billion years old.

DeMann, I just love that term, "evolutionist." There's no such thing. There are people who refuse to see what's in front of them because it does not conform to a literal reading of a particular book, and there are the rest of us. It reminds me of when I used to participate in a politics forum where there were a couple of people advocating the complete ablition of all government, and because I didn't agree with them, I was called a "statist." As young people used to say about 5 years ago, "As if."

It's been real. Well, from what I just read in the other thread, no, apparently it hasn't been real. Toodle oo.

If you are talking about the Cub Scouter Leader Book, chances are that you will not find the text online, and if you do, it probably should not be there. Like many (if not all) other BSA books it is a copyrighted publication, and the BSA requires that you buy it. I think that particular book is about $7 at your Scout Shop, and it may also be sold at your local Scout distributor. As for by-laws, I have seen a lot of discussion about this subject pro and con. Technically they are not required, and some people believe they are a bad idea. I am a moderate on the subject as with most others. My pack has no by-laws, and we haven't had any lawsuits among our members, so if that says anything, there it is.

For that matter, Billy Joel once sang, "I am an innocent man." It's been about 15 years since that album, and he's not dead yet either -- though his career has been reborn a few times.

You know, I hate to agree with Zorn about something, but if saying "I am God" or "I Am" is punishable by death from the Lord himself, then shouldn't the Beltway sniper be dead also? I think he left a message somewhere saying "I am God." Unfortunately, the sniper apparently is still alive. (At least, I think it was the sniper who left that message. It could be that I am mixing up my recent news stories.)

DeMann says: if man wrote them both,then how can we possibly know what God has to say? Excellent question. That's what I often wonder when I read these discussions. I don't think any of us actually knows what God has to say, or indeed whether he has anything to say at all. All I think we really know is that he (since most of us choose to call God a "he") created us and everything around us, though a lot of people (including me) think he actually created something that led to us and everything around us, through some unknown number of intermediate steps. And there's not a shred of evidence in the world for anything more than that. There is belief. There are many different beliefs. But no evidence, and certainly no proof.

Yes Bob, $3 for insurance, and it's council-wide, not something from my pack. Council will not accept a new scout application, new leader application or recharter package without the $7 fee plus the $3 insurance fee. For new applications other than at recharter time, the $3 is pro-rated just like the registration fee. For boys signing up in September, for example, the parents pay $6.30 -- $4.20 for registration and $2.10 for insurance. (That's the month I know by heart, since I end up being impromptu registrar at School Night for Scouting when we get our new Tigers.) Then add $5.25 if you order Boys Life in September, pro-rated from the $9. This is documented on my council's website. See http://www.ppbsa.org Once at the home page, put your cursor over "Just for Parents" at the left, and a menu will pop up, choose any of the top 4 program options (Tigers, Cubs, Webelos, Scouts) and on the bottom of each program page is a list of fees, including the $3 insurance fee.

Zorn says: The fact is that some kids aren't worth the effort. Our society thinks that children are precious but they really aren't. There are children that cannot be saved and will never become a useful member of society. I find that a very interesting attitude for a Scout leader to have. Do you put those ideas into practice in your troop? Are the parents of the boys in the troop aware of your attitude toward children?

I heard about this a few months ago, I am not sure whether it was online or from one of the handouts at Roundtable. Personally I think $10 a year ($13 counting the insurance fee, I don't know if that is increasing also, and I'm not sure whether that fee is council or national, I just know it gets added on for new registrants and at re-charter time) is quite reasonable to be a member of a national organization that provides the services, structure and national facilities that the BSA does. What I also had heard is that the Boys Life subscription fee was increasing, but I have not seen any mention of that on here or anywhere else recently. I forget exactly what the increase was, but it seemed very substantial, like from the current $9 to maybe $15. I am sure printing costs have gone up, but that would be a 66 percent increase if my recollection is accurate. In my pack we do not have a subscription for everyone, each family decides if they want to pay the $9, and I know for sure that this is not going to increase sales. I don't think any of our families will bat an eye at the $10 registration fee, they are used to things increasing. (Of course it helps that our annual pack dues went DOWN by $10 this year, which resulted from our very successful popcorn sale last year, and we also paid the re-charter fees out of the popcorn money as well. Our 2002 sale ends tomorrow and we are all holding our breath, as we would like to continue this trend.)

BobWhite says: The BSA is not for all children. it never has been. It is for any child that meets the joining requirements and not every child does. There are millions of children whose parents are heterosexual who do not meet the joining requirements. This is absolutely correct. Note the use of the words "child" and "children." Also note the use of the present tense. To my knowledge, all "children" will at some point meet the joining requirements, but at any given time there are millions who do not. They are girls below the age of 14, and boys below the age of 7 or who have not started first grade. And of course even the 14+ girls can only join a Venture Crew. That's what you meant, right, BobWhite?

ScoutParent says: OGE's response on an earlier thread concerning another Scouting issue: "I think an excellent solution would be for all the people who think Boy Scouts should radically change its founding principles is form a group of their own." I submit that this logic applies here. Well, even if it did, you seem to be making an assumption about who would have to form the new organization, and I don't agree with that assumption. We've been through this a few hundred times on this forum already, but I'll say it again: There is nothing in Scouting's founding principles that requires the exclusion of a leader solely on the basis that he/she is openly gay. One might go further and say that there is nothing in Scouting's founding principles that permits the exclusion of such a leader. However, the vast majority of those of us on this "side" of the debate have recognized the controversial and emotional nature of this subject, and would favor allowing each unit to choose for itself. Such a solution would be fair, consistent with the BSA's policy that it is non-sectarian in matters of religion, and coincidentially would allow the BSA to put this controversy behind it and regain its positive public image, not just with one segment of society but with all of society. Unfortunately, BSA national has refused to even consider such a reasonable approach.

OGE: Excellent point. (I don't usually do "dittos," but I think you said it all.) Scomman: I agree that polls should always be viewed with great caution. Sometimes the question determines the answer, and in some circumstances respondents tend to give the answer they think the poll-taker wants to hear, or the answer that reflects what they think they should think, or what their neighbors think, as opposed to what they actually do think. Having said that, this particular poll would seem to be less prone to that type of distortion. In this poll, at least the result that was reported, the question was a question of fact, rather than opinion. Presumably the questions were something like, "Are you a member of a gay or lesbian (or homosexual or same-gender or however they asked it) couple residing together, and if so, are any children residing with you as part of your household? Or something like that. It is not like "Do you think we should invade Iraq?" to which there is no right or wrong answer, only opinions. Either you are part of a gay couple with kids, or you aren't. As for the poll about what percentage of people are gay, I do not think that was a poll as we think of it, like a political poll or the kind of poll involved in the gay-parents story. Years ago there was a study that produced the "finding" that 10 percent of people are gay. I am not sure whether that was the Kinsey report or some other report, but whichever it was, it has always been controversial and its methodology has been criticized. I don't think they just called up a random 1,000 people and asked them, I think it was more elaborate than that. There have been other studies that have shown the number is probably around 5 percent.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

I'm not getting involved in the discussion between ScoutParent and Firstpusk, but I couldn't let this one go by: We'll meet at a neutral location with a Biologist and a Theologian, and Psychologist. Isn't there a joke in there somewhere? Do they walk into a bar?

Maybe it's cynicism born of thousands of debates (formal and informal) I have participated in over the years, maybe it's my legal training, but any time I see someone say that something is the "undeniable truth," I immediately question whether there is any proof or even any evidence to support it. That is certainly true with "intelligent design," which is just Genesis creationism under a fancy pseudo-scientific name. I've seen it hundreds of times. Use the word "undeniable" in a legal brief, for example, and the smart judge or law clerk will scrutinize your submissions very closely to see if there is any basis to them whatsoever. It's sort of similar to when I hear a televangelist or "moral advice expert" telling other people how they should live their lives and that they are going to go to Hell if they don't reform their sinful ways, or statements to that effect. The louder and more strident such a person gets, the more and sooner I expect to hear from the tearful church secretary with tales of debauchery, the prostitute with her stories of intimate likes and dislikes, or more recently, the ex-lover with Internet photos of Ms. Morals in all her glory. Talk to me too much about "family values," and I want to see how many times you have been divorced, what terminal disease your first wife had when you left her penniless, and whether your latest chickie is slightly older or slightly younger than your oldest child. Like I said, call me cynical, but I've been right too many times.

ScoutParent, I found your quotations about pedophilia to be interesting and rather surprising, based on my own knowledge of the field. (I am an attorney who has had occasion to read numerous psychological reports regarding pedophiles, prepared for purposes of evaluating whether they are ready to be released from custody. It turns out that they almost never are, so from that point of view it would seem that the "acceptance" of pedophilia by society is extremely limited.) So I did a little research on the Internet and found that your citation is out-of-date. See http://www.narth.com/docs/debatecontinues.html and http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm The first site has a description of the controversy that you are talking about, and I would have to say that it is written from a point of view that is very critical of the American Psychological Association, so you'll probably like it. It explains that the DSM-IV has been replaced by the DSM-IV-TR (text revision), which restores "acting on the urge" as a sufficient basis for finding pedophilia. The second site is an excerpt from that portion of the DSM-TR-IV itself, containing the change. This is all for whatever it's worth, of course. I don't think it's worth very much in the current discussion. Pedophilia, or to be more precise, sexual activity between an adult and a child, is wrong, primarily because of the inability of a child to make a valid decision to consent to it. (Which distinguishes it from homosexuality, which is not inherently wrong if its between consenting adults, because adults have the ability to consent.) As I have suggested, pedophilia is not accepted by society. Plus, even if what the American Psychological Association had not changed its definition back to include "acting on the urge," what the APA says is a mental illness and what society accepts are 2 different things. Homosexuality is a perfect example. The APA removed homosexuality from the "mental illness" list in the early 70s I believe. Societal acceptance has been much slower in coming, and obviously is not here all the way (yet.) I do find it interesting though that the legislature of my state, which in theory is reflective of what the "society" in my state wants, de-criminalized homosexuality in the late 70s and outlawed discrimination against gays in the early 90s, but has enacted only harsher and harsher penalties, including criminal penalties, community notification and expanded (potentially life-long) "civil" committment, against adults who have sexual activity with children.

ScoutParent says: I really don't know why you find my statement absurd or offensive. Then let me explain why. It's because you are using the Holocaust to support your religious beliefs, and to attack a scientific theory you don't like. And you're not even using the real basis for the Holocaust, but rather a theory that has been fabricated to suit your argument. Of course it had a great deal to do with evolution and with creating a "master race". You still have not explained the connection between trying to create a "master race" through selective breeding, and evolution. I don't think you can, because evolution is a natural process. It happens without our help. It's not just my religious beliefs, it's the beliefs of millions of people worldwide. Well, there are billions of people in the world, so if mere millions don't believe in evolution, that's a pretty small minority. Not that being in a minority is wrong, I am part of a pretty small religious minority myself. The numbers don't matter. The facts matter, and evolution (though not necessarily all the theories that attempt to explain it) is a fact. I would ask the same courtesy in keeping your religious beliefs out of the public school systems. Look, I understand that you cannot (or will not) recognize the difference between science and religion. That's your problem. Please don't try to project your problem onto me. I can tell the difference between science, which should be taught by public schools (including instruction as to what a "theory" is), and religious beliefs, which should not be promoted by public schools. And if you kept the individuals in your selective breeding experiment there long enough would they become a different entity entirely? I think not they would still just be taller humans. I agree. But then your statement regarding the Holocaust becomes especially absurd. If "my" hypothetical experiment has nothing to do with evolution, then neither do those of the Nazis. (This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

ScoutParent says: In the name of preserving the myth of evolution, people have committed huge atrocities against each other such as the 10,000+ australian aboriginals that were beheaded so they could be displayed as "living fossils" in museums in this country and throughtout the world; such as 6 million Jews being killed in an effort to bring about "a master race", I'll leave aside the part about the aboriginals since I know little about it, but I do know something about the 6 million Jews (and millions of others) murdered in the Holocaust. ScoutParent, I find your statement to be absurd and highly offensive. My great-grandparents, uncles and aunts were not killed "in the name of preserving the myth of evolution." They were killed because the Nazis wanted them dead. Obviously the Nazis were involved in eugenics, genetic experimentation and wanted to create a "master race," but I do not see what those things have to do with "evolution" -- nor were the deaths of my relatives necessary to bring about these evil plans. I am not even sure what argument you are making. Are you saying that things like "selective breeding" are some sort of experiment to prove the theory of evolution? I don't see how this is so, but if it is, you lose the argument about evolution right there. Unfortunately, selective breeding does "work," in humans as with all other animals. If you took a group of 50 men measuring 6"5" or more, and an equal number of women of 5'11" or more, sent them to an isolated island somewhere (after they all chose partners of the other gender group and married, of course), where there were adequate resources for survival and good health, and came back (say) five generations later, I am pretty sure the average height of the resulting population would be greater than the average in the society in which they originated. It would be wrong, of course. But our new "tall civilization" has not "evolved," they are still human. I personally don't care much who believes in evolution, which is why I have mostly stayed out of this. You can disbelieve in gravity too, if it makes you happy. Just keep your religious teachings out of my public schools.

Hmm, OGE, you must indeed be "Old" to remember that song. (As am I.) Amazing to think that the same guy who did that song had his other big hit with "The Streak." (Don't look, Ethel!)

Slontwovvy, ASM and especially Rooster: Please do go on talking about Clinton, you are just proving the point I made originally.