Prairie_Scouter

Good morning, Tort, >>Let's run with this. Let's say Religion X requires human sacrifice. Are you okay with that free exercise of religion? Ok, I'm probably going to get myself into some sort of "debate hole" with this, but let's go ahead. I'll say no, I wouldn't be ok with that because human sacrifice is murder, which is against the law. The next step would then be for that religious group to try and get laws passed that say murder is ok, because it is in line with their religious beliefs. And, the People should say "no". Isn't that pretty much in line with what I was saying? Regards George W..... The strange thing is, I kinda like the guy. I just really, really don't like what he's doing. And I don't think he's actually doing what HE thinks is right, I think it's more like he's doing what Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowicz think is right. To Schleining.. Jerry, Jerry, what are we gonna do with ya? Ok, if we want to go down this line... "Thou shalt not kill"....well, unless you have really strong religious beliefs and think that blowing up medical clinics is ok. "Thou shalt not steal"....well, unless you really, really need the land to let your country grow, in which case the God-fearing USA is within its rights to exterminate native Americans and appropriate their lands. "Honor your Father and Mother"....Well, unless you're in some mainstream religions, in which case we want the Mothers to stay in the background and out of the way. So, you see, you can have groups that put their own "spin" on things to make what they're doing seem right. That doesn't mean it is. So, voting against gay Marriage is the American thing to do? I suppose you're right; it's right up there with those one-time fine "American" institutions of slavery and racial discrimination, which, oops, share some underpinnings in that at least part of the argument in favor of those was based on your friend and mine, the Holy Bible. I hope that one day discrimination against gays will go on the same scrap heap that slavery and racial discrimination find themselves on.

Just a coupla things, Saying that acceptance of gays means that we are "introducing sexual perversion as normalcy" is just an opinion, although it's stated as if it were a well known fact. It's not. Trying to connect homosexual behavior to incest just seems to be an effort to stir the pot. Incest is illegal because it is an act of power and violence, just like rape. Trying to tie homosexual behavior to, I don't what to call it, "consentual cannibalism?", is equally provoking. In regards to the whole line of reasoning about the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't cover all eventualities; it provides a construct under which legislation can be created that further details the broad brushstrokes of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Laws have been written that prohibit discrimination against a variety of groups, including prohibitions based on sex, race, etc., as well as "sexual preference". In a sense, then, the PEOPLE, speaking through their representatives, have said that such discriminations do not meet societal norms. And, through history, laws change, and in some cases, so does the Constitution, through amendments, to meet what is hopefully our better understanding of each other and the world we live in. As I've said other times, within the context of their own religious beliefs, people can rightfully believe what they want. What is wrong is when they try to legislate their religious beliefs into law to impose their belief system on everyone else. Regards what the Founders thought when writing these documents, many of them thought that slavery was a swell idea, too. We have hopefully learned a thing or two in the intervening years since the Founders did their original work. It's all stood up pretty well, all things considered, although that doesn't make it perfect. BSA has taken the subjective view that homosexuality does not meet their interpretation of "morally straight". If they were to change that view, I would happily stay in an organization that would then be interested in getting the best possible leaders without regard for particular religious beliefs. But, I'm not going to hold my breath while I'm waiting

Aw, Jerry, there's probably a lot of things that we'd agree on; this just won't be one of them Now, I didn't say anything about physical attacks, and legal attacks are the only thing that the ACLU can do. My point was that I don't think that the ACLU has taken on the Boy Scouts directly, that's all. I don't think that ACLU attacks the concept of "God" in America. What they will do is attempt to connect seemingly inocuous acts, such as a nativity scene in a city hall, to the concept of the founding of a state religion. Personally, I think that they're somewhat over the top with that argument. On the other hand, if I'm a member of a religion that doesn't use the 10 Commandments and I'm being tried in a court room that prominently displays them, I might wonder if I'm being tried based on the concepts of a religion, rather than on the rule of law. They've probably got a point. Anyway, I can't accept an argument that the ACLU is trying to remove "God" from America. I've never seen that in any of their court cases. There's a difference between acting to stop the preferential treatment of any single religion and trying to remove God as a concept from the country. I just don't see that the facts back that up. You're right that the majority of people who said that they voted based on faith based issues voted against Gay Marriage and choice. But, here's my problem with legislating those views into law. Gay Marriage is opposed by many conservative religious groups and many mainstream ones as well. But not all. If you pass a law outlawing gay marriage, aren't you prohibiting some people from exercising their religious rights? If, say, the Catholics prohibit gay marriage, they can easily say that gays cannot partake of the sacrament of matrimony. Why can't that be enough? Why do they have to force their beliefs on everyone else by trying to get laws passed? Is it fair, do you think, that if you had a "Grey religion" and a "Yellow religion" that the Grey religion should be trying to pass laws that force the Yellow religion to live by the beliefs of the Greys? Hey, I vote, too. I even vote for Republicans once in awhile when they're not too wacky. I kinda liked George the Father, actually, but George the Son, well, those opinions are better left unsaid

Pack, In such a situation, I think the proper procedure is to quickly fill out a Scout transfer form, moving the Scout to a Troop that is a part of another Council. Remember, in leader training they always tell us to do a count to make sure we come back from an outing with the same number of Scouts. I don't remember them saying anything about it having to be the same Scouts, only the same number Sorry; anything having to do with medical and liability coverage just drives me batty........

Pack, oops, you're right on the public schools; I mis-spoke, er, typed. You know, I may not have any vintage cars in my yard, but I've got a great supply of vintage building materials in my basement that my wife seems to think are for some sort of project. I try to explain to her that some people collect stamps; I just happen to collect 2x4s and drywall. Just doesn't get it

Sorry, I stand corrected on the "Akela" for Webelos. If your Cubmaster "doesn't want to get involved", you've got an additional problem in addition to your Webelos Leader. One, I'd probably ask the Webelos leader what exactly is deficient for getting the signoff on an activity. "It doesn't meet my standards" or some such answer doesn't cut it. If the Scout completed the activity, it gets signed off. period. Even if he built, say, a birdhouse and no self-respecting bird would come near it; doesn't matter. Two. A Cubmaster who doesn't want to get involved is a big problem. That's basically their job.

Pack, It'd be interesting to see if the BSA is the sole target of the ACLU's actions in this area or if they've taken on other groups as well. My suspicion is that if, say, the "Mormon Youth Club" or some such organization was using public facilities in a similar fashion, the ACLU would be all over them as well. The ACLU, I think, provides a valuable service to the country by keeping these issues in the public eye, whether we agree with their actions or not. It makes my stomach turn when they defend the right of something like the American Nazi Party to meet and display their views in public, but that's because of my feelings about the ANP, not their right to meet. Personally, I don't have a problem with a Boy Scout unit meeting in my local school. But, if you allow that, then you also, I think, have to allow for the possibility of the American Nazi Party or some other organization demanding equal access. I wouldn't be so happy about that. Not sure where you draw the line.

Schleining, >>We is We the People.... The People that decide and as of the last election continue to decide that God is important in America. Wait. Are you saying that if the Democrats had won the last election, their position would have been that God is no longer important in America? You Know, OldGreyEagle once accused me of making what he considered to be the second most outrageous statement he's seen on the forum; I think you've just replaced me. Ooooooh, boy, you know us Democrats/liberals. Just a bunch of old devil worshippers waiting for our chance to run the country to ruin. Just curious, but when has the ACLU attacked the BSA for "unconstitutional acts"? I don't dispute that they might have done that at some time, but hasn't the ACLU activities regards BSA actually been against organizations supporting BSA in conflict with their own non-discrimination policies? I didn't think that they had taken on the BSA directly. Be interesting if they did, I guess.

I'd agree with Ed that if a Troop felt a need for by-laws, it'd be the Troop Committee that would be responsible for their upkeep. Considering that you probably wouldn't need many, my suggestion would be to review them once a year as a part of your annual planning. We only have a few, for example, and I don't even know that I'd call them "bylaws" exactly, maybe more like "guidelines" and I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are already covered in some Scouting publication. In that case, I think what we're doing is just centralizing them in one spot rather than having to do a search of the vast Scout Publication-base; there is an awful lot of information available. Example. We have a couple of guidelines for moving money among our capital, high adventure, and Scout accounts, and handling funds for Scouts that have left the Troop.

NIScouter, That is a common misprint in the volunteer materials. What BSA actually meant to say was "one hour per scout per week"

And, Schleining, I suppose that the inevitable question about your comment to "KEEP God in our nation as we see God" is, "who's "we""? As long as "we" is big enough to take in all interpretations of some sort of higher being or beings as well as accepting those who don't believe in a supreme being, then in my mind, at least, that would seem to be ok. One problem I see today is it's not enough for religious groups to have their beliefs and be happy with that, they have a need to legislate their beliefs into law so that their beliefs apply to everyone else. That, to me anyway, is a much bigger problem, and comes much closer to the establishment of a state religion, than worrying about a 10 commandments display or a nativity scene.

Tort, Maybe there was a filibuster Schleining, You're asking the wrong person. I've said that that was what I think was the position of the ACLU, not my own personal position. I don't think putting a Nativity scene in the city hall lobby violates the Constitution, for example. (Well, mostly I've seen the ACLU take these on after prompting by atheist groups......). I also don't have a problem with the government providing support to religious groups per se, as long as the support is provided freely to any religious groups that ask for it and there aren't any "favorites". The danger is that some religious group starts getting preferential treatment, and at that point I think you start to get on shaky Constitutional grounds. However, I don't think that the ACLU has taken action against BSA on those grounds, have they? Sounds to me that those cases aren't about religion. Those cases seem to be about some government entity providing support to BSA in violation of their own non-discrimination policies, which in many cases would define BSA as a disciminatory organization under the terms of those town's policies.

Whitewater, Of course, the 10 commandments isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and I agree with you that much of these actions are based on an interpretation of the Constitution. Whether that interpretation is correct or not depends on a person's ideology, I think. Regards the ACLU's actions in such areas, I think you'd find that they are concerned about the "slippery slope", ie, if you relent on a small issue regarding the separation of church and state, bigger issues could follow. I can't say that I agree with that in this case, but it is what it is. If nothing else, maybe you need extreme views on both sides in order to be able to figure out where "the middle" is supposed to be.

When I was with the Pack as CC, we handed out the advancements and awards earned at each month's Pack Night. Our B&G is our big event for the year and is timed to coincide with crossover and AoL. We do other advancements as well, but the Web IIs are the "stars" of this particular gettogether. We have a dinner and entertainment, so yes, it's a pretty big whoopdeedo.

I thought it was kind of odd that the Dems chose to threaten filibuster when I'm told that they had other parliamentary mechanisms that would have had the same effect and not have been so controversial. But, it is, what it is, I guess. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. Thanks, Tort, been a pleasure.

Tort, Well, I've actually got some work I've got to do today , but quickly... Regards the ACLU, that's their position. Like I said, not my position. Regards your other questions, I don't know. Maybe it's just further down their list... Regards judges.. I should have said that you don't "always" get the best minds using the methods currently being used. You're absolutely correct that there are many good minds out there today, on both sides of the issues. I would personally prefer that we not be selecting judges who have preconceived notions about particular legal issues. To take a "hot" example, abortion is currently legal. I'd rather not have a judge being appointed who is a known abortion foe who says that he/she would use his position to support that view, because I think it's unlikely that an abortion case coming before that judge would get a fair hearing. I'd rather just have a judge who will interpret current law, and turn it back to Congress to make legislative changes, where necessary. My rules? I don't set any rules. I'm not trying to twist the Constitution. I think the current system works ok; I just wish there was a way to take some of the politics out of it. The filibuster should be rarely used; Committee chairs shouldn't be blocking candidates from getting a hearing. You don't think the Republicans are selecting judicial candidates who support their ideology, and just looking for the best minds? Do you think that they'd support, say, a brilliant jurist who happened to be, say, pro-environment? or pro-choice? The Dems picked these 10 nominees to go the wall against. I suspect it's politically motivated. Bush decided to re-nominate these 10, knowing what would happen. I suspect it's politically motivated as well. So, we don't agree. That's ok. I'm enjoying the discussion. Gotta run. Have a good day, Tort.

Hula, As an SM, I'd have to say that the actions of the adult leaders in your troop are, well, reprehensible. But, to be fair, we're not all like that. Yes, there are leaders out there who shouldn't be leaders, but for the most part, they do the best they can and try to treat all of the Scouts fairly; I think it's pretty safe to say that we consider all of our Scouts to be part of an extended family. In most troops, I think you'd see a flurry of activity as a COH approaches to help those Scouts that are "close", to finish their requirements for the next rank, not try to delay them. The actions you're describing are really abnormal. So, here's what I would suggest..... First, if you think your SM is approachable, talk to him/her, and tell them your concerns. It's just possible that the SM is just being kind of dull-witted about this whole thing. You might explain to them how this all "looks". If you don't think the SM is approachable, how about the CC? Typically, the CC doesn't get involved much in Scout-related matters, but if you think that the SM is hurting the troop, then the CC should be interested. I think you need to try one of these routes first, but if all else fails, you can call your district office and talk to them. I'd avoid that if you can, but if you think your troop is treating the boys unfairly and won't correct their actions, the district should know about it. Personally, if I were to find out that they were knowlingly delaying the advancement of other Scouts to keep their own boys "ahead", I'd lower the boom on them.

Hunt, Yep, you're right. I wasn't thinking about specific safety training like Climb on Safely; you're not allowed to go on those kinds of outings unless you have trained leaders in that area of activity. I'd expect BSA would question their need to cover a trip if something happened and the leaders didn't have specific safety training where it was required.

J_P, >yet we aren't free to display our religious beliefs unless we are in the minority Where did you get that idea? Did somebody knock down all the churches, mosques, synogogues, etc, in the U.S. while I wasn't looking? The ACLU's position (not mine, their's) is that you're not supposed to have religious displays on public property. That's not the same as publicly announcing your religious beliefs; I haven't heard of any cases where they ACLU has tried to prevent that (although that doesn't mean it hasn't happened). And, I happen to agree with you that many of cases brought by the ACLU in regards to support for religious groups are somewhat "over the top". Of course, the BSA is not a religious organization, so that's not really germaine here, right? Your comment on forcing education in regards to Islam in California sounds really wacky (not you, but California), but then, that's California for you, I guess That seems really inappropriate, unless they are teaching it as part of a comparative religious curriculum or some sort of tolerance training, as in "live in their shoes". Did the article say if it was in that context or not? Sorry, but teaching the big bang isn't anywhere remotely like teaching atheism. The big bang doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of some sort of intervention "at the top". That's a matter of debate and while there are many opinions, nobody really knows. Of course, we could save a lot of money on science textbooks if we could answer every question with "because God made it that way". Tort, So, are you saying that it's impossible to be brilliant and unbiased in their legal views at the same time? I would love to be safe in the knowledge that those sitting in the courts are those with the best legal minds. But that's just not the way it is. Let's face it. There's a certain amount of laziness in these selections. Rather than looking for the best mind, both parties just look for candidates that fit their ideology, which is exactly what you DON'T want in a judge, who is supposed to be completely impartial. Instead, a lot of judicial candidates, especially those in high ranking positions, are selected because they fit the ideology of the party in the majority, and nowadays, I think that they look for candidates that they can count on to NOT think independently, but just toe the party line. You're not getting the best minds by doing that, either.

I think that if a Scouter has followed the G2SS guidelines, he'd probably be covered even if he hadn't had training. If training was required in order to be covered by BSA, you'd think that they would make a BIG deal out of it, but they don't. That having been said, although you can always get sued no matter who's supposed to be intervening on your behalf, BSA would most likely be seen as the better "target" in a liability case relative to almost any single individual.

>I disagree that it's just politics. It's the heart and soul of our Constitution. I believe strongly that the President has the right to nominate judges, and that Senate's sole right is to advise and consent on those nominations, and that since the Constitution does not require a supermajority, the vote requirement is a simple majority. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point because I think that this is almost solely a political battle at this point. Both parties are playing to their constituencies. I honestly don't know if the Constitution mandates a simple majority if it doesn't require a supermajority. I'll take your word for it. >By allowing a minority of senators to rule the majority, and for the first time in Senate history block judicial nominations with majority support is to trample on our Constitution. It robs us of the best minds, and shifts power unconstitutionally from the President to the Senate. Clearly this is not the first time in Senate history. Members of both parties have used a variety of maneuvers to block nominees in the past, the Democrats in this election cycle, the Republicans during the Clinton administration. Whether we're being robbed of our best minds, etc., just depends what side of the fence you happen to be sitting on. Regards the high moral ground, this time around, sure. During the Clinton administration, the Democrats were probably saying the same thing when the Republicans were blocking Clinton's nominees. >And...you are playing with numbers The news reports I've read have said that the Democrats have blocked 10 of Bush's nominations, while passing on many, many more. News reports also said that the Republicans blocked something like 170 Clinton nominees during his adminstration. Are the news reports wrong? I'm just passing on what I've read. I'm not necessarily arguing that the Democrats or the Republicans are "playing nice", or that what they're doing is "ok". I am saying that it's good for the minority party to have tools that provide them some relief. If these tools are used responsibly, then the system works. These days, I don't think either party is "playing nice". Their actions are, to my mind, equally ridiculous.

Tort, >When do you draw the line between a valid rule (set up by a majority of senators to govern the Senate) and a rule that imposes a requirement far more burdonesome than the Constitution? I don't think you can draw a line, because it's the same Senate voting both on what you'd consider a "valid rule", and on the more "burdensome" rule. It's really up to them. I agree that they ought to let them vote on the nominees in most cases. The filibuster was created as an attempt to provide some measure of balance in the Senate. It is, in reality, rarely used for any reason, let alone judicial nominees, because it is an unpleasant device to use, and brings up these very arguments of "why not just let the majority have its way?". Some Senate rules and parliamentary procedures exist to provide the minority party methods to stop the majority when they feel it is necessary to do so. Both parties use them. There exist some cases where the minority party feels so strongly about an issue that they feel that they have to use whatever tools are at their disposal to stop the issue from moving forward. In regards to judicial nominees, both parties have used a variety of tactics to block what they see as "bad choices", and I believe that if someone were to count, the Republicans stopped many more nominations during the Clinton administration than the Democrats have stopped in the Bush administration. This is really a contrived battle, don't you think? We're talking about 10 nominees that were blocked by the Democrats during the last election cycle. The vast majority were approved. Instead of just moving on to other nominees with a better chance to be approved, or at least fought less vigorously, the Republican leadership created this "nuclear option" and the President re-nominated these candidates, knowing exactly what would happen as a result.

Tort, Thanks for the insightful reply. I don't agree with all of it, as you might expect, and don't have time right now for a line by line response, so let me try the following... Regards the separation of church and state, you might visit this website.. members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpids.htm It seems to have a pretty good discussion of the historical background behind the separation of church and state. Also, I've "Yahoo'd" "constitution separation church state" and gotten some pretty interesting hits. Regards judicial filibustering, the example I've heard most often is the Abe Fortas nomination in 1968. Regards your definition of liberal and conservative, I'd more or less agree, but at least theoretically, a conservative judge could limit the effects of a law passed by a liberal Congress by using court cases to do so. That wouldn't fall into your definition of conservative judges protecting the status quo, correct? You're right that the Constitution doesn't specifically mention ethics rules. But, the Constitution does allow the Senate to set its own rules; the ethics rules would fall into that category. I can't speak to the Thomas nomination directly; I don't remember the politics behind it in enough detail. I can't delve into the minds of the Senate, but I'd suspect that the Congress as a whole has become so contentious over the past 20 years or so that perhaps the minority party feels the need to take steps it normally wouldn't have taken in the past. Regards facts... Yes, the President has the power to nominate judicial candidates. I don't believe the Constitution specifically says 51 votes are needed to approve a candidate. 61 votes are needed to break a filibuster, not to approve the candidate. It's a fine point, yes, but I think it's important to separate the two. The filibuster, in reality, has only been used in rare occasions for any reason, let alone judicial nominees, and was put into place by the Senate, I think, to protect the minority party from being steamrolled by the party in power, giving them no say in the governing process. During the Clinton administration, didn't Senator Hatch block a number of Clinton judicial nominees by not even letting them get a hearing in the judicial committee? How right is it to have a minority of 1 effectively deciding who the full Senate will get to vote on? Point is, this isn't about who's "right"; this is really just about political gamesmanship. In the end, neither party is right; as I've said before, both parties are at the point where the "game" is more important than governing the country.

Don't get me wrong, Bob. I'm not against wearing the whole uniform. I've read the leader guides, and have no problem with them at all in regards to uniforms. All I'm saying is that as a matter of practice, if you're trying to get Scouts to wear the whole uniform, and your Pack and Troop have a history of not wearing the whole uniform, I'd rather start from a position of "partial compliance"(and yes, I realize that "partial compliance" can be seen just as "non-compliance", but nonetheless....) and work up from there, rather than telling the Scouts not to wear anything of the uniform unless they're going to wear all of it.

>BTW, wouldn't ACLU lawyers argue that they're just freedom fighters standing up for the disenfranchised and those whom are discriminated against? >Of course they would. And wouldn't Osama Bin Laden and his ilk argue (and doubtless believe in their heart of hearts that they are) exactly that? Kahuna, By that logic, wouldn't groups such as Focus on the Family have to be lumped into the group you've formed with the ACLU and Osama Bin Laden? They also think that they are protecting a group that they feel is discriminated against. The ACLU probably is left leaning, but I'm not sure how you could support an argument saying that they are anti-Constitution. They are anti-religion only to the extent that they usually oppose actions that they see as violating the separation of church and state. "Evil" has nothing to do with it. J_P, So, are you saying that the ACLU remains a Communist organization? I think that most would find that, well, hilarious. The fact that the FBI investigates some individual or group doesn't make them guilty of anything. In fact, the FBI, in its past, had an unfortunate habit of investigating individuals and groups for strictly political reasons. Remember the McCarthy hearings? Not exactly a bright spot in American history. As far as the ACLU being against most things this country was founded on? How, exactly? The founding fathers left a country that had a state religion that descriminated against other faiths. The U.S. was founded on a separation of church and state for this reason, and the ACLU has defended that. The founding fathers left a country that suppressed freedom of expression of opposing views. The ACLU supports that every time they defend the KKK or the Nazis against towns that try to stop them from parading their views. We may not like the groups and what they stand for, but they have as much right to air their views as anyone else. As soon as you start picking who can and who can't enjoy these freedoms, you have to wonder how long it is until other groups are denied their freedoms as well. The ACLU isn't at war with the BSA or the Girl Scouts or anyone else. They do bring action against groups that they think are violating the law of the land. To my knowledge, no public schools are allowed to teach the Koran or any other religion, except in the context of something like a comparative religion class. Private schools are able to do this and meet this need. In this country, the majority accept the teaching of evolution as science; Creationism is considered a "belief" more than "science". There's nothing wrong with teaching Creationism in and of itself, but in this country it's not accepted as a component of a "science" curriculum. At least, I think that that's true. If you want your children to learn a particular religious view of the world, including such things as Creationism, there are any number of private schools that contain such curriculums.