Prairie_Scouter

Acco, If you were responding to my last post, I wasn't stating that LDS units discriminate against blacks. That was established earlier in the thread, along with a discussion about LDS correcting this recently. I was asking, if this assertion was true, how did BSA allow this to take place in the first place if it violated BSA policy? Kahuna, I'd have to agree with you. The "business side" of BSA would probably not like to lose the 400,000 or Scouts that are in LDS units, and seem to have given them a certain amount of flexibility in how to implement their program. Whether it's effectively the same program is open to discussion, I suppose, but I was surprised that BSA might allowed discrimination by race to be allowed in any of its units. If that's true, then that's quite a bit different than what you usually hear here, ie, LDS units were allowed some "considerations" in how they implement the program. This would seem to be more a serious diversion from BSA policy. If it's true. Greying Beaver provided some really interesting information. The thing to do now would be to hear from others on its accuracy. GB, please don't take that personally. No matter what we say here, someone will probably disagree , so it's always good to hear something from two different sources. What you stated, tho, is what I've also heard in these forums. (This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

And, Fuzzy, to add to the mix, many threads contain all of the types of responses you mention, at the same time After you've been here even a little while, you do get to learn something about the people you're corresponding with, even tho you never see their faces. And it's a pretty good mix, I think. You learn who's talking "to" you, and who's talking "at" you after awhile. There are certainly some people who don't like each other, as far as I can tell, but that seems to be a minority. And there are some people who just won't entertain an opposing view. Mostly, tho, good folks who enjoy a good conversation, even while disagreeing at times. As I've said, this would be a pretty boring place if every topic had to be "Scouting is nice", and every response was "I agree" So, definitely, a nice place to visit.

If we can go back to the original post for a moment, I was wondering if anyone in this discussion knows why BSA allowed the LDS units to discriminate as they seem to have done if this was against BSA policy? Perhaps "allowed" is not the right word, but hopefully you'll see what I'm asking. I'm not clear on how this happened.

Most troops that I know of gauge their new scout activities to the crossovers at Blue and Gold. So, their schedule is laid out to begin new scout activities at that point. We tell Webelos Scouts that as soon as they turn in an application to us, they are welcome to attend out outings with a parent, but our troop meetings are laid out to begin new scout activities after the normal graduation dates. So, a Scout could join earlier, but many troops probably don't have their program set up to start supporting those Scouts earlier.

I would imagine that there are some number of Eagles out there who had as their goal simply something to put on their college admission forms; I suspect that these kids were probably pushed by their parents (I don't know that a teenager is able to think that far ahead ) In those cases, they are probably "gaming the system" to their own end, but I don't think you can blame the system for that. So, IMO, most Eagles, even those who Eagle out early, are well-intentioned and really do want to help their Troops going forward. But, as with all things, priorities change. I don't see that as a failure of the program.

Oh, BTW, we had the parents of the Webelos Scouts pay for the supplies, and then I did the woodworking to make the awards, and added the arrows. I can send you a pic if you're looking for ideas.

There's a place in Montana that has Native American craftsmen who make replica arrows that are very nice. Because they are replicas, they aren't very expensive, relatively. We used them last year for our Webelos AOL awards, and everyone really liked them. I think they go for about $15, but because the owner like Scouts, I was able to get them for about $12 each. This is more than the arrows at the Scout store, but depending on how you're using them, the Scout Store arrows look more like toys. They have a kit for a more realistic arrow, but I found it to be kind of "ok". The ones I found have cedar shafts, real turkey feathers, and bone arrowheads. If you'd like me to dig up the link, send me an email and I'd be happy to do so.

Well, there are several definitions available for "creationism" if you take a look around. Common to them is a general belief that a God created the Earth through some unique event. There are "new earth creationists", who take the literal interpretation that the Earth was created in 6, 24 hour days. There are "old earth creationists" that believe that a God created the Earth, but that the Earth is very old. Old earth creationists can find a somewhat comfortable fit in some aspects of the theory of evolution and the Big Bang. New earth creationists have something of a problem in that the word for "day" in the Bible, from what I've read, has several different meanings, including "day", "week", and "a long time"; also the geologic evidence does not seem to support a "new earth" theory. Further, some definitions of Creationism assert that the Biblical interpretation of creation can be verified through scientific evidence.

Eamonn, (not to open another debate but, Goldens, ahh, the best big ole dogs on the face of the earth, bar none. No matter how bad my day might be, good old Buddy (my Golden) is always there having a good day and happy to share it with me) I've been involved in the running of a non-profit in the past, and believe me, I feel your pain. Priorities can get pretty painful. But I agree with your assessment 100% that there's no point in having a healthy endowment if there's no one left to endow it to. Have to keep a balance, of course, but it sounds like you guys have some long range talking to do. I don't envy you that. Maybe you should bring Rory along. At least everyone will be in a better mood.

I agree with jr56. Seems like you're doing the right things. Also seems like the pack committee is overreacting at this point. If the ADHD Scout is the instigator of a problem on several occasions, you should have the parent attend pack functions, including meetings. You are not a babysitter, and most likely not a specialist with special needs kids. If you think that the boy is doing his best, and the problem is mostly the other Scouts response to him, then it is THEIR problem, not his. Your committee shouldn't remove a Scout because the others don't happen to like that he's different. On the other hand, if he is difficult to control to the point of being disruptive, and the parents can't do so either even if they attend pack events, then you have to consider the best interests of the unit at some point. My own den policy when I was in Cub Scouts was that any Scout who started a fight had his parents called and was sent home. In 4 years, it happened once.

Madkins, To paraphrase the late, great Mayor Daley I of Chicago... "We are not here to create confusion, We are here to preserve confusion."

Very good post, Hunt. Thank you. Ed, It was I who mentioned the concept of "injecting the soul". It was in response to one of your posts, and I was just commenting on the difficulty of determining when life begins since you can't really prove when a soul enters a being (or a cell, or group of cells, or however you want to define it). This was followed by a question about using a heartbeat; I answered that a heartbeat isn't necessarily indicative of the beginning of life, and this answer was then expanded to begin a discussion on whether, in general, a heartbeat was an indicator of life, which is a fine discussion, but not what I was originally responding to.

This being the 21st century, and with the wide breadth of knowledge available on the Internet, I would think that BSA would have long since provided all of this information through their website, but it doesn't appear that they do. Bob, while all of that information you provided is certainly worthwhile, that is the kind of information that IS publicly available. Trying to dig up information on BSA national structure, how decisions are made, etc, that I mentioned above, doesn't seem to be readily available. I'd have to think that if it's some BSA publication, you would have said so. BSA management doesn't need to be a "black box". There's an old concept in customer service that if your customer thinks something is wrong, something is wrong. It's the responsibility of the organization providing the service, in this case BSA, to make sure that they provide information in an easily accessible way. But, ok, I'll take your word that it is available someplace. On the offchance that they've simply not done the job of making it visible on the Internet someplace, I'll give my DE a call tomorrow and see if he can point me towards that information. I'll report back what they say.

Bob, You're right that the "beginning of life" thread didn't start in an exchange between you and me. I was actually responding to something Ed had said that included the comment on "the injection of the soul", and this thread was clearly about the "beginnning of life" and not about heartbeats in people in general. That is what you had originally responded to. So, in response to your questions, I'll say... Living people without a heartbeat? Well, there's the Cowardly Lion. And then, there's my mom's old boss. She always said he didn't have a heart, so I suppose that means he didn't have a heartbeat, either. The first thing I usually check in an unresponsive person is to see if it's one of my kids. They act like I'm not there most of the time, but that could just be a teenage thing. So, as a heartbeat is related to a being after birth, I'd say absolutely yes, a heartbeat is a sign of life. Not the only indicator, and not a definitive indicator in and of itself, but definitely a sign. In a fetus, the heartbeat is a sign of development; at some point that development is to a point such that the fetus could be birthed and live on it's own. I've said before that once that point is reached, abortion should cease to be an option. Why I draw the line there is just a matter of personal choice; you might call it my belief.

FScouter, If a BOR member wanted to cover that issue, I think your suggestion would be a good way to handle it.

Bob, I didn't say that I thought Christians were actually trying to change the government to be based on biblical law. Using the example of some Middle East countries that have used their holy book as the literal basis for their laws, I said that this was just something that we have to watch out for. I also said that this would be an extreme case and couched it in terms of concerns over other government actions that could be abused if not watched carefully. As you well know, despite your sarcasm, my post on heartbeat was in regards to posts which both you and I made in regards to the beginning of life. You asked whether having a heartbeat was an indication of life. I answered in the context of the thread, not in the general terms you have taken. So, haha, very funny, but not relevent to what I said. Ed, Laws are passed for all kinds of reasons. Some states do have laws that make the killing of a fetus as a part of killing the pregnant woman a "2nd murder". Why were these laws passed? I don't know, but I would suspect that "get tough" lawmakers saw some political capital to be gained regardless of what their beliefs might be. There are also laws that make the killing of a police officer a more heinous crime than killing a child. Do you think those were passed because lawmakers think that the killing of police officer is actually worse than the killing of a child? No, they were passed for their deterent effect unrelated to the issue of which life has more value.

Agree with the above. However, since the membership form states agreement in belief in a God, I think that this has already been established, and there is no need to question this in a BOR, any more than you should be asking the Scout to tie a square knot.

Bob, No, I don't think that the indication of a heartbeat is indicative of life. It is indicative of further development of the embryo/fetus. The loss of a developing fetus through a medical procedure is tragic, but I don't believe it is a loss of life until that fetus could survive on its own in the world. That's where I've drawn the line; your mileage may vary. Ed, Once again, "abortion is murder" is your opinion based on your religious beliefs. Others think differently. The law of the land is that abortion is a legal medical procedure. I do agree that people, not just women, should be more responsible for their sexual activities. Abortion shouldn't be simply a method of birth control, in my view, but as long as it is legal, people will abuse the ability to get an abortion. And, I think that this debate, not just here but in other circles, centers too much on the fetus, as if the woman who is pregnant has nothing to say about the situation. My vote goes to the woman's control over her body until such point that the fetus is able to survive on it's own. As I said, my opinion based on my beliefs. Just saying "don't get pregnant" is a nice ideal, but unfortunately, life mostly doesn't work that way as much as I'm sure we would all like it to.

Didn't we do this a couple of weeks ago? But, ok, Ursula Andress in the James Bond movie "Dr No"

Rooster, I think we're generally in agreement that the voters of the country should be able to pass any law they want that doesn't violate the Constitution. My only concern in this area is that I don't want us to become a nation run by religious laws ala some countries in the Middle East. That would be an extreme condition, I think, but one that we should all be careful of. That's really no different than my concerns about the Patriot Act with its "trust us" mentality. Ed, "For the record", abortion is murder? I think you mean, "In my opinion, abortion is murder", don't you? I'll grant you that some states have passed laws to grant the fetus "person" status, although I question the political motivation for doing so. Beyond that, it's a matter of belief as to when life actually begins. Religiously, I would suppose that the belief would be that the spirit is "injected" at the moment of conception. Impossible to prove, of course, but a valid belief. Medically, an embryo isn't considered a pregnancy until it is implanted in the womb. No implantation, no pregnancy. After that, I think it becomes a lot of personal opinion. In my case, I think that once a fetus has developed to the point that it can live on it's own outside the womb without dramatic technology intervention, it deserves to stand on its own. So, I don't like the idea of very late term abortions. But, that's just me. Generally, I don't like the idea of abortion as a method of birth control, but I think that in the bigger picture, the woman has to retain control over her body. Again, just my opinion.

Rooster, in concept I agree with you, but I think this gets kind of sticky in areas where people might not agree with legislation being passed. I doubt that you'd find anyone who'd have a problem with laws designed to curb underage drinking. These are primarily designed to protect people not yet of legal age. But, what happens, for example, if the U.S. passes a law completely outlawing abortion? Not with the common sense caveats that many would view as essential, but the more extreme legislation that's been proposed by some that would make abortion procedures 100% illegal. These proposals are all based on religious teachings; I have yet to see one that is based on medical issues. What then, do we tell the young husband who's wife is about to die because of a problem with the fetus that cannot be corrected by an abortion due to a law passed in response to a particular religious belief that the husband doesn't share? What happens if the federal government passes a law outlawing gay marriage? What do you tell the partner unable to visit their partner in the hospital because of a "family only" policy, and they can't be considered family because of a law based on a religious belief that they don't happen to share? What if the government passes a law mandating the teaching of Creationism in place of Evolution? Will the teaching of Evolution then have to go "underground" because of the passing of law favoring a particular religious point of view? What about a slightly different issue, but another one where religion comes into conflict with law? Should children of Christian Scientists be allowed to die from easily treatable conditions because the parents don't believe in the use of modern medicine? Yes, in the U.S most of our laws have some sort of religious underpinning. (although we seem to play footloose and fancy free with "thou shalt not kill" all the time, for some reason). I think most of those laws reflect teachings that most religions in the U.S. have in common not only with each other but even with non-believers. We're now heading into areas of conflict, tho, where we're trying to pass laws that favor particular religious views. I don't know if that can be done legally or not, but I expect we'll see a lot of court cases challenging those laws if they do ever get passed. You run into problems when you start dealing with issues where there are differing opinions of what constitutes moral behavior. I don't think it's a simple matter of majority rule.

Isn't that little DVD player in the van on a long drive a real life saver? That might be one of the "Parent's 7 Wonders of the Modern World" Of course, I have a hard time watching and driving at the same time

I doubt that you'd find many people with any kind of problem with someone who is deeply religious, and lives their religion in a devout, pious way, using their example to try and show others the "right" way. Unfortunately, that's not what we see most of the time now. It's not enough that people have a belief in a certain way of living. Those who might be called "activists" want to put those beliefs into law so that we ALL have to live that way. Those who espouse those views in public forums, the leaders of these efforts, all seem to have a public persona that smacks of "arrogance", a belief that "my religion is better than yours, so I'm going to ram mine down your throat". I think that this activist group represents a very small group of extreme conservative Christian elements. But it's there, nonetheless. There is, I think, a vast majority of Christians who look for areas of commonality in their views with others, rather than the minority who only care about impressing their views on others. On these forums, there are several posters who have strongly held religious beliefs. I think it is wonderful that they have that level of faith. There are posters who will simply share what they believe on these topics, and there are those who ask how others DARE to question what the Bible might be saying. Within the limits of their own religious groups, they should implement those beliefs as they fit. But, I draw the line at having those beliefs impressed on everyone in Scouting.

I suspect that the author didn't vote for Bush in the last election. I thought the comparisons to the Hitler youth and Castro demonstrations were somewhat over the top. Was this a photo op for the President? Sure it was. But events like this, where large groups meet to see a public figure, happen all the time. The Pope does them. I would just as soon that the military didn't use Jambo as a recruiting tool, myself. I just get a bad feeling about getting all these youth together at an impressionable age and putting "the sell" on them from their hosts and from the president. Especially since they're only getting one side of the story. "Come and protect your country" sounds a lot better than "the military is sometimes called upon to fulfill political missions that may have nothing to do with the national defense." Reality is, tho, that if the military is going to give BSA the use of one of their bases, they're going to expect something in return (I guess the days of altruism are gone).

I think that there's a balance somewhere that can allow kids to bring along their technology while still enjoying the outdoors. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line, myself. When you think of outdoor activities, you will generally think of hiking, fishing, climbing, etc. But, I like to take along a book or 2 and just sit in the shade and enjoy them. I don't see much of a distance for a kid to sit in the shade and play with his gameboy, really. Yes, there are a lot of folks who will say, "well, you can't do this, and you can't do that" while you're camping, but who's to say? Does every campout have to be a simulation of outdoor living in the 1850's? No, I don't think so. Now, on a Scout campout, the agenda for the outing should be the priority, but, while my own troop doesn't allow electronics on outings, I'm wondering if there's any real harm in it, when kept in balance with other activities. Just thinking out loud.