packsaddle

Fuzzy Bear, I'm in the same boat with you on this and I think most others are as well. I see a huge amount of variation for agnosticism. I intended my statement to make the point that few if any of us meet the 'absolute' criterion for true faith. Likewise, few of us have 'absolute' knowledge regarding these matters...we're still searching. In my approach to this, when a person doesn't 'know' something it represents, to some degree, an agnostic view. Therefore most of us, within that huge range of variation, are agnostics. And I'm skeptical of anyone who claims they DO have absolute knowledge, or absolute faith. Edited part: Department of Redundancy Department (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

All this food stuff...is a bit distracting to someone like me who is perpetually hungry. I must have missed the part where someone said that BSA is a political organization. I always understood that BSA claims to be a religious organization. What gives? And although Eamonn has partly clarified things in his answer to NJ's question, I see some wiggle room regarding the issue of wiggle room. I hope that no one is suggesting that there can be no dissention by members of an organization. No one is suggesting THAT are they?

I was merely responding as to whether or not agnostics see the need. To follow up on Vicki's comment, it is a fine point, but maintenance of a view that existence of a higher power can't be proven does not automatically reject the possibility that there IS a higher power. And agnostics know this. Such a view is merely an admission of an inability by the person holding the view. It is the essence of the difference between science and religion - one of the reasons that Huxley coined the term to apply to himself. As far as helping others learn reverence...what better example than an adult sincerely trying to do the same thing? Helping others to learn is not the same thing as telling them what to learn.

Actually, many agnostics DO see the need to walk the path (assuming that 'the path' is a metaphor for seeking some spiritual meaning). They simply are uncertain of which path or how to walk it, and yes - possibly questioning whether there is a path, but they are open to the idea.

Fuzzy Bear, this is just a difference in points of view. In my view, faith is either absolute and unquestioning or it is less than true faith. Neither of us knows what Huxley would have done in your hypothetical but I think most skeptics and many agnostics would be believers if they had been there personally for the crucifixion and resurrection. I could be wrong but I think someone who witnessed it personally would find it difficult to refute.

Welcome to the forums Marge.

Rixkidz, Please enlighten us as to just what are the "religious beliefs of the organization"?

jkhny, I'm curious about one thing you wrote. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood you to write that the cost of living is less up north than in GA, specifically: "But he's still living up north where it's alot cheaper and he's still making one big increase over what he was being paid in GA." While I would personally be pleased to bring in $135K, it isn't an outrageous salary. And interestingly, I was surprised to learn that the lower cost of living for the South was a myth. Let's see, all of my utilities combined max out in the worst month at less than $200. My relative with a smaller home in NY...$1200 per month for heat alone. I'm not sure it's a myth, the South seems to cost less to me. H'mm, wonder about those taxes.... Also in an earlier question you asked, "Why is it that Paid professionals are held in such low regard?" As much as I enjoy the critical view, I believe you may be stating something that is not in evidence. What makes you think they are held in low regard? By whom? By how many? Every time I have observed this SE, he is surrounded by people who seem quite friendly and supportive. In order to answer your rhetorical question, a large sample of opinions must be gathered and assessed statistically. Has this been done? I would be interested in the numbers. While I think it would be interesting to see the actual compensation packages for everyone in the BSA, I probably won't waste the time running to the web site. I have almost no influence over these packages and if Ronald Reagan's "magic of the free market" works, any salaries that are out of line will eventually be corrected by that market. I just hope the boys remain OK in the process.

nldscout, I believe you are still waiting for a response. In one sense, the outing is a single troop outing and two-deep may be satisfied, as a legal technicality. The problem I see is that the scenario has the two groups separated by a significant distance. "These campsites may be 2 to 3 miles apart depending how far they want to hike." It would be derelict for either group to be left alone so the effect is that each group only has the benefit of one-deep leadership. If there was an incident of some sort, only one adult would be witness to it and able to respond immediately to an emergency, and in response either the other group would be left alone while their leader responded or the entire group would have to hike over with the adult. Either way, there are serious deficiencies that impact safety. I stick with two leaders at each site.

Here's a pretty good deal, I think. I just saw 25-degree bags on sale at Bass Pro Shops for $30 each. AND there was a bin full of lightweights for $10 each. At those prices both can be had for a very reasonable sum.

Good one OGE, let the person woh has never mispeled cast the first dictionary at poor what's-his-name, the former vise-president.

Probably giving agnosticism short shrift here, but in the spirit of the thread - the Apostle (later Saint) Thomas...didn't he express doubt regarding the resurrection? Early agnostic as far as I'm concerned. And all those skeptics in Missouri (the 'Show Me' state), agnostics every one of them. T.H. Huxley coined the term sometime around 1870 to describe his own views. 'Logical positivist' didn't do the trick, nor did "rational nonbelief." The term stuck in the language but its use is very broad in application. In the broadest sense, wouldn't anyone who has the slightest feeling of uncertainty about irrational, supernatural things qualify as agnostic? I think, yes.

Now let's see...the original question was a choice between two alternatives. One alternative was "a scout unit with all homosexual scout leaders". The other alternative was "all untrained scoutleaders." Now I admit making the assumption that the first alternative with gay leaders also had training attached to it. This makes sense because the only qualification for the second alternative had nothing to do with sexuality, only training. And given what Trevorum noted, the second alternative could well have been untrained gay OR heterosexual leaders, we couldn't say one way or the other. So I assumed the first alternative had to be TRAINED gay leaders. Without that clarifying assumption, the comparison is impossible because the choice is unclear. But the question does require a choice, "Given the choice, would you rather your son be in ..." And with a couple of exceptions we, the respondents, chose. "Others would take them because they are trained...good for you.. but why aren't those same people as vocal today about the units with untrained leaders that actually exist as they are about a hypothetical situation on a topic they have no control over. How about we fix the problems we actually have first." This one is interesting. We all were, I thought, trying to answer the 'pertinent' question...which asked nothing about our response to other units with untrained leaders. If THAT was the point of the question, then the question could have been crafted much better. And, after all, this hypothetical was created in the mind of the person who posed the question, not by the respondents. Therefore I ask, what IS the correct response by the leader of one troop if he detects that leaders of other troops are not properly trained? Now I'm curious about that answer as well as the correct answer to the original question. We have all struggled to sincerely make something of this, and then, wondering what the point was, we are answered, "I'd be ashamed to associate with either side. Both your politics and behaviors embarrass me." Now is THAT clear enough for everyone? Have a nice day.

Hunt, wyomingi, Good Ones! I did a quick accounting of our CO's assets and, whew, I have to tell you it would be a tempting target. I'd sue 'em all and let the jury sort 'em out. Wait a minute, there's something not quite right about that... The scenario would likely put more boys into our troop. What a beautiful day! We'll keep the light on so the few of you can come back if you change your mind.

Just to clarify, are they male and female married or gay married? And are they atheists?

fotoscout, 1000 miles is a fairly wide radius, just a note. I like Acco40's logic and Trevorum also made a good observation. I have frequently seen troops led by untrained heterosexuals (at least I assume they weren't gay, not all of them...I think...h'mmm, I could be wrong). These troops are usually new, fold quickly, and often the boys who are aware of the other troops transfer to those other troops. I think this most often happens with new troops because without training, a troop has little chance of surviving. The program isn't delivered and the boys suffer the consequences. As Trevorum pointed out, sexuality being irrelevant to the program...I'd take the trained leaders over untrained ones any time. So now, as Hunt mentioned, what is the correct answer?

Welcome to the forum! John88, just a question for clarification: Had you spoken with a merit badge counselor prior to your original post or did you start on this merit badge prior to meeting with a merit badge counselor? Just curious.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Four adults. There are good commonsense reasons to have four even if there were no youth protection guidelines. Anything less is risky business. I suspect you understand this intuitively or else you wouldn't have asked.

FuzzyBear, I agree with what you say. I think that it is possible, however, for a boy not to know BSA policy on these issues - I certainly didn't when I was a scout. And I see how it is possible for the father not to have known the 'policy' when he was a scout. Back then my dominant thoughts were that I loved the outdoors and fun with the troop, that there were requirements I had to meet for advancement, and that rank advancement presented me with a set of goals that I wanted to achieve. I usually started daydreaming if a discussion went to any topic like 'policy' and thinking back on my leaders, they probably didn't discuss 'policy' much anyway. The only paperwork I have any memory of were the blue cards and the check-off pages in my handbook. I continued to ignore important things like that right up to college. I suspect I was not atypical, at least in my age cohort. Edited part: grammatical, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Wow, Acco40, I was just thinking almost exactly the same thing. My wording was that ...when W held the lives of the condemned in his hands, he presided over more executions than any governor in the history of this country, 152 of them. I understand OGE's frustration but I suspect he is well aware of the forces that drive these spectacles. Everyone knew this was going to happen and had prepared for this for a long time. I suggest that neither the Pope, nor any leader can deliver peace. Short of totalitarianism, peace can't be forced. We choose conflict because that is what we want. "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." That accounts for most conflicts and all of terrorism. When we decide, collectively, to have peace then we'll stop conflict and have peace. I spoke well of Reagan (although I disagreed with much of what his administration did) because I have to acknowledge his gift of reaching the collective ear of the people to accomplish his policies. In that respect he was a truly great man. Likewise, the Pope was tremendously influential over vast numbers of people throughout the world. I disagreed with some of his views and agreed with others - but there is no denying that he was a great man. I believe that the Pope, like Reagan, was basically an honest man who sincerely wanted to help people. W, on the other hand, will always be a liar.

Hello sdwill, and welcome to the forums. I guess I'm a Startrek fan too. I watched the original TV series while I was in college and I guess I've seen most of the episodes many more times in reruns. Plus all (I think) of the movies. Some were great fun, others forgettable. But then there were so many spinoff series I couldn't keep up with them all. I'll check out the episode you mentioned. Always ready for another great episode.

Scoutingagain, I see your point. For our unit such a change would have no effect whatsoever on the program, at least if past history serves as a guide. However, if the exclusionary policies were not in place we would not have lost several families in the past - families who left simply because they objected to the policy, not because someone was gay or atheist. It is difficult for me to think of how that was of benefit to the boys. I would go with local option although I'm not sure what legal questions could emerge from such. As I gather from reading these threads, something like that happens already for LDS units. Someone else could probably illuminate that better than I can.

AK-Eagle, I just might take you up on that, except March just left us. Perhaps July? I just read Juneau's climate summary. Not too bad, at least by Charleston, SC standards - you both have the same annual average temperature (55 F). http://www.juneau.org/visitors/junfacts.php I may call if I'm in the area. Do you still have to fly or ferry in?

I continue to face this with our SM. I respond to his thoughts on controlling the rate of advancement by asking him questions. If the boy has completed advancement requirements, how does it benefit the boy not to allow advancement? Where does BSA tell the SM that it is his duty to make additional requirements? So far, he hasn't been able to answer to his own satisfaction. If a counselor or someone involved with advancement signs off a requirement when the boy hasn't actually completed it, then the boy and the program suffer. But the fault is with the adult(s), not the boy. And the boy should not bear the burden of a remedy. Therefore, if a boy successfully completes the requirements, he SHOULD advance without regard to age or maturity. The burden should be on US to make sure the program proceeds fairly and accurately.

I think I am detecting a bias here. I think those of you who live near glacial moraines or at high altitudes need to come for a visit in August and camp out with us for a few days and nights in south Georgia, in a tent, on a blackwater stream. It'll be an enriching experience, possibly religious.