packsaddle

For one thing, it was Spock's grandson who committed suicide. I've gotten this thing in the past from a couple of relatives who insist on spamming me with assorted emails. I wonder...do we naturally become obsessed with conspiracy theories and facile ideas as we age? If that is the result of loss of cognitive function, I do not look forward to the next 20 or so years of public discourse. Thanks, epalmer, for the snopes link. I'll send it back to them. Probably won't make much difference to them though.

LongHaul, You must have channeled part of the section I deleted from that response, Thanks. Brent, I have a comfortable grasp of right and wrong. Sin, is something else and indeed I have a poor grasp of that concept. If you think you understand where I don't, I'm glad for you. I hope that when I say 'should', there is a logical argument supporting the assertion. If not, I hope someone can show me the error. And I am comfortable that you are there to provide that service, if needed. Likewise, if anyone can demonstrate that any of my myths are actually real, I'll be delighted. As for that sleeve thing, I haven't been in your neighborhood for many months. That would more likely be the spirit of Cynthia M or something like that.

Last question first: I don't know. I am aware of the pro- and con- arguments. Yawn. What does it matter to you? You will believe what you choose. Ahem, I am also aware that this amounts to a 'no' to really, really true believers, or so I've been told by people who informed me they are "really, really true believers". Don't stand too close...lightning, you know. On the other hand, we could use the rain. Sorry, off topic. Next, still working backwards (appropriate, no?): Oh, I just toss a coin, or maybe raise an ax over my son's neck hoping I'll receive divine inspiration or something. I don't (any more) often think about what is or isn't true in the Bible. I do consider much of it to be myth. You know, the stuff about coming back to life, the afterlife, the rapture (oops, that already happened), the Noachian flood, transubstantiation, etc. Regarding Jesus and the temptation: I am tempted by mint/chocolate chip ice cream. MCCIC is real - but tends to have a short half-life in my presence. I have no idea what really happened to Jesus, but I could just as easily believe that he got into some ergot-laden grain or maybe did some 'shrooms. Maybe he was shacked up with the neighbor girl in some hut surrounded by sheep and he needed a cover story. Maybe he was a victim of alien abduction and they looked like Satan. And are we sure it wasn't 39.4 days or maybe 40.7? H'mmm, nah, better not go there...Given his surroundings at the time, I am certain he was 'tempted' by many things...why the need for Lucifer? Like I wrote, I don't know, maybe it is just a better story that way. (that alien abduction thing was a good one, though, right?) Next: OK, if you read what I wrote carefully, it says "should" know, not "do" know. If you think Christians can't be Christians unless they believe in Satan, I'd say they have some common ground with Satanists. Come to think of it, while I am the one who rejects Satan, reducing Old Hobs to cartoon-character status, you seem to be obsessed with Satan's reality. It seems to be very important...I wonder....

Exactly, Gern. There are plenty of views in which the Jewish God is NOT in fact the same one as claimed by Christians. And that, as they say, is just the tip of the 'distinctions'. And one reason for my earlier request for clarifications. I couldn't begin to make any sweeping statement for all the ideas about 'God'...only my own - and here, in these forums, I won't. Also thanks for noting the logical problems of linkage or complementarity that arises from a simpleminded literal/absolute interpretation of the Bible in which doubt for any part reflects similarly on the other parts. A truly omnipotent God would neither need Satan as a 'foil' nor would the existence of such a deity require or depend on some balancing existence of a personification of evil. As I understand, 'hell' is not part of Jewish religion. This would, to me, imply a certain diminished standing for Satan as well, heh, heh, maybe into Gonzo1's closet. And correct me if I'm wrong here, Dan Kroh, but pagans also do not recognize Lucifer (whatever). Of course, as noted by Erickelly65, the very concept of any particular 'God' is highly variable, even if viewed outside linkage to or dependence on corresponding existence of 'Lucifer' or personification of evil. Anyway, ....so I have determined in my mind that Satan/Belial/ Devil/Lucifer/God of this world/Beelzebub/Asmodai/Old Nick/Iblis/Old Hob/Abaddon/Old Scratch/Apollyon, yes, as well as Urian or Mephisto (which, BTW, is a great name for any black dog ) are simply myths of human invention, common to many cultures and religions. So what! I have long maintained that myths do have value (if you want to know what that is read Edith Hamilton) and they're fun as well. But they ARE myth. And yes, Ed, you can believe all of it if you want to, I have no problem with that. I just don't see why anyone should get bent out of shape if I don't. BSA included.

Slouchhat, I hope you realize that there are a number of BSA members in good standing who, while in a minority, disagree with many of the policies you have noted and support changes to them. If find your analysis sound and your questions to be thought-provoking. Thanks.

Scoutmomma, That conversation with your son will indeed be a classic. He sounds like he's developing great skills of critical thinking. We need more like him. As my Thanksgiving coffee cup says, "Don't Let the Turkeys Get You Down".

"Is God just a myth?" Brent, I have tried to get you to clarify by asking you nicely. Twice. You refused (a scout is helpful, courteous). Therefore to the above idiotic question I answer, 'no'. And you have no idea what the answer really means...although you might think you do.

Brent, I'm sorry, I'm still trying to understand your reasoning. Please explain in a little more detail. It is not simple...unless you think God is simple. 'God' means many things and is manifested in many ways for different people and faiths. Your first question simply can't be answered in a meaningful way without more detail - hence my request for the list and your reasoning. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Brent, I'm not sure why you ask. What connection in reasoning are you making with your questions? Without going into my personal beliefs I think I can answer the second question simply with a 'no', although there are much, much longer ways to answer it. For an answer to the first question, and on the assumption that BSA would be satisfied with any of them, please list all the alternatives that people, someplace, believe. One more question for anyone reading this, does anyone think I am an authority on this, whose opinion should be accepted simply on the basis of that authority? (Hint, the answer is 'no'.) But you already knew that, didn't you?

Yawn. More power to him and the other execs. If the market will support them then they deserve to take it. If not, there's always McDonalds. When I left industry to go to graduate school, they couldn't comprehend my decision. They insisted it was because I thought I wasn't paid enough. Actually, I liked the pay and the job. I just wanted to go for the other degrees (kind of like going for Eagle). But they told me, as if to explain, as I left, "In the American economic system, you are paid according to what you contribute". I have never forgotten that quote. It IS a mindset and in the market economy, who is to say it isn't true?

GWD, that was a GREAT movie!

I earned my religious award as a scout. I was the first scout ever to do that for that church. And perhaps the last. I chose to do it. Back then there was never any promotion of this sort of thing by the unit, the church, or by BSA. I guess those Presbyterians considered these things to be deeply private and perhaps I inherited that view from them. When he first took this unit, the SM was fired up about getting ALL the boys to earn the religious award. Then we noted to him that his son was the only boy who shared that faith. And that it wasn't a BSA award anyway. And that every faith had their own award. With different requirements. He fussed about this for a while but we merely asked him how he would manage that level of diversity. So he talked to some of the parents. Heh, heh, I knew what would happen. He decided to leave these matters to the boys and their families. Around here most parents want to be the primary source of guidance regarding matters of faith. They might be members of a church of some flavor but THEY choose which flavor. This has not changed from the days when I was the parent of a scout. I had no problem with my son talking about matters of faith with other people, but he almost never did. I had no problem with him attending rituals unique to different faiths, indeed I encouraged it. If he had questions he came to his parents for guidance. But I and other parents made it clear, consistently, that there was a line not to be crossed. That line was where anyone tried to promote one particular faith in any sort of manner. Especially if that person had no more theological background than the usual strongly-held personal opinion. I'm no longer a scout parent but the parents of the scouts I know mostly still feel the same. And I continue to respect their wishes with the greatest possible sensitivity. THEY and their families are the primary source of direction in matters of faith. If the unit provides a neutral place for the boys to talk about things, that is fine. But we absolutely do not push faith onto the boys. I'm not sure how to "improve" on this. I am very sure we won't.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gonzo1, heh, heh, you don't run a crematorium on the side do you? Trev, ahem, she was fictional too, right? You knew that didn't you? I heard that recently some exorcisms were being performed in this region. Unfortunately I arrived too late.

Heh, heh, everyone knows I hope, that Lucifer (whatever name you wish to apply) doesn't really exist? He's (it's) just a myth. Kind of like the monster in the closet that scares the little kids. Just a fictitious being that we invented to personify evil or something. Right?

The big, wily bass eyed the lure with suspicion. The lure wiggled a bit and then something irresistable took over and as the bass rose to get a closer look, it just couldn't wait...gulp! I would have been disappointed if I hadn't reeled you in Trevorum. But I won't trade my southern Appalachians for all the hot, flat, monoculture towering pines you can muster. (the rod bends tightly to play the fish) When I think of boring I think: Abilene, yes Odessa, Houston, the names are so numerous.... Big Bend is great. The hill country is nice. The Aransas wildlife refuge is good. I really like San Antonio and Austin. But places like Lubbock, what can I say?

Gonzo1, His photo is out there but you're not looking hard enough. I can't remember where, though, to help you out. But if you want it badly enough, you'll find it.... Trevorum, c'mon! Most of us are basically a bunch of malcontents. The good thing is that we can find enough common ground to hold it together in spite of the differences. Me, I enjoy the differences...more for some, perhaps, than others.

Heh, heh. I liked that. I must say, I've spent many trips to Texas. And there are a few really nice places in Texas. But mostly...Texas is boring. Flat. Dry. Hot. Boring. Watch the cactus grow boring. But I LOVE New York. I could spend a lot of time in New York and never get tired of it. And I have to mention, though, that I've had a really, REALLY good time when I've been to Russia. OK, their economic system really sucked and Putin may be a dangerious tyrant. But Russian women...I mean they are breathtakingly beautiful. I think I'll stop now and just sit back and reminisce for a while....(and not about Texas, either).

I started as a cub and went all the way as a boy. I guess that's about 13 years. Then I returned with my son as a cub and stayed after he completed his scouting experience. I guess thats another, let's see, 18 years now, making a total of about...Holy Smokes!...31 years. I guess I never added all that stuff up before. My goal is still to be there when a future grandson starts on his trail.

"Those who are judged within the context of this statement NOT to be the best kind of citizens just might be offended by that judgment. I can understand why." Now I was able to find the above quote from what I wrote. I can't seem to find the statement that you said I wrote. Help me out here. You just wrote: "You wrote in response to the BSA statement on the 'Best kind of citizen' I don't believe that statement is meant as offensive. However, I do believe some people might be offended by it." I hope you can see the difference between your version and my quote. I was responding to your statement, "Further, I dont find the use of the phrase The best kind of citizen to be necessarily offensive to anyone." Do I need to clarify this? The above statement is yours, not mine. I think I have not addressed the concept of denigration at all, have I?

"Certainly people can have whatever opinion they like. However, the opinion i find being expressed in this case is pushing for changes to a program that, in my opinion, preclude me from instilling through scouting the beliefs and social norms I find so important." How would a local option preclude you from ANYTHING? It seems to me that local option would actually allow even greater personal freedom...for everyone. "The program can't include a duty to God and a requirement for Reverence for some and not others so what I am hearing is: To bad for you, your wants/rights/wishes are less important then others." Really? If it wasn't a requirement wouldn't you continue your religious practices anyway as a personal conviction? For you, in particular, I would think that the 'requirement' is unnecessary. And if unnecessary for you, then why for anyone? Getting back to that part of imposing one view on another: you already have the freedom to pursue your personal beliefs and religious practices. How does another person's difference in these matters detract from what you do? And If you want to require this of everyone else, why? For matters of faith, why not let everyone have the personal freedom to choose what they think? "I may or may not agree with the above items but none of those changes would require me to "give up" using the scouting program to accomplish the goals I have mentioned in the above posts." How would you be required to "give up" using the scouting program? You would still be free to practice your personal faith. In that respect nothing would change. It seems to me that if you gave it up, it would have to be a matter of choice on your part although I don't understand why. But definitely not a requirement.

Gern, thanks a whole lot. It's been a while since I heard that but a few years ago, on a football weekend, I caught one of the beer-soaked superannuated fanatics relieving himself on the door to my building. I may have said some regrettable things. But I nearly doubled over when his sphincter slammed shut and he nearly neutered himself with the zipper. He yelled at me, "Why don't you go to Russia!" I still get a chuckle when I think of it. Never saw him again though. But your old saying is a classic. I have rephrased it and I use it to needle the talk show types around here when they complain about something involving money or taxes, "That's the American Economic System, Love it or leave it." And then I run...fast.

erickelly65, I regret that my message wasn't as clear as it should have been. The second part of that was intended as a conditional statement and really not meant to be specific to you in particular. Rather I intended it to be applied to anyone who would apply their religious views (expectations, whatever) to others, a practice that I observe people doing rather frequently. To be clear: I don't do this to other people and I expect the same in return (that Golden Rule thing, you know). "I dont find the use of the phrase The best kind of citizen to be necessarily offensive to anyone." By itself the phrase has little meaning and is therefore benign. Now, if you are saying that it SHOULDN'T be offensive, that is one thing and we can discuss that. But I am not sure your sample size is large enough to make that conclusion for ANYONE else - unless you have an omniscient source. But in context the phrase is a value judgment that is applied to people. The phrase is used in the context of a larger statement which distinguishes between those who are and those who are NOT...the best kind of citizens: The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Those who are judged within the context of this statement NOT to be the best kind of citizens just might be offended by that judgment. I can understand why. In no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denominations or faith be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to that organization or church. This statement by BSA is much clearer and closer to the personal view I maintain. "I am hearing people tell me there is no room in society for a group like this I find that unacceptable." I am curious as to why is it unacceptable for someone else to express an opinion different from yours?

OGE, bite your tongue! OK, I'll bite mine. I would LOVE to fall in with a gang of wild Jesuits! Rabbi Saperstein comes to mind immediately. Oops, have I made a religious faux pas? I would have mentioned William of Baskerville but he was a Franciscan. Oh well. In response to Merlyn's assertion, I think there are more persons who agree with him on that point than deeply religious folks might think. I know I do and I know many families who, while they may not draw a conclusion about morality, definitely disagree with the BSA policy. erickelly65, I think it is good and proper for you to feel the way you do on behalf of yourself and your son. I think it is improper for you to think your view should apply to anyone else. And that is, in effect, the result of the BSA policy. I have not been in scouting as long as you but I have personally witnessed numerous times when gays and atheists both were denigrated by both volunteer leaders AND professionals. I also remember as a boy when both volunteer leaders AND professionals denigrated people on the basis of race. Fortunately, I don't experience that stuff anymore. I agree with Trevorum on this and I think his approach is a fair one.

This unit only has one boy from the CO. The flavor doesn't matter. We have minimal presence of religion during meetings and outings. I can't remember a prayer at a recent COH. At the same time keep in mind that the SM is deeply religious. He just seems to understand the highly diverse nature of the unit. To me, religious faith is something that is deeply personal. I am uncomfortable with public displays by other people of their religious faith and I tend not to participate if given the option. I never discuss my own current beliefs and I don't respond if someone asks. I guess this is a bad character trait but I suppose it kept me out of gangs as well.

This is difficult. At some point the concept of 'honor' has to be trusted. If a parent is so inclined, they will be able to 'cheat' or beat the system and there is almost no way to stop this. I did the 'weigh in' inspection for years for the District and saw a huge range of these things, only a few were intentional. There is no good answer to your problem. If the parent has plated the axles and they are installed, unless they confess what they did you have to trust them. My approach, if there was some suspicion, was to complete the superficial inspection, and then ask the BOY if the axles were the official ones from the kit. Or if they had been modified in some way. Or if they had used liquid lubricants, like silicone. Etc, etc, depending on whatever suspicion I had. If there was some hesitation and there often was, maybe the boy was shy, I would turn to the parent and ask them the same question directly. There is a tendency for people who are NOT pathological liars to resist telling a lie in front of a family member who knows otherwise, especially their child. If the parent admitted something that broke the rules, I informed them of this. If the boy indicated no problems I passed the car. A pathological liar will likely go undetected. But honor still works for the rest of us.