Prairie_Scouter

IMHO, I'd rather have them wear as much of the uniform as I can get them to wear, and use that as a position to encourage them to wear more of the uniform. Giving them an ultimatum to either wear the whole thing or nothing, well, I can be pretty sure what a typical teenager is going to choose

Tortdog, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, and that's fine and good; it's what open discussion is about. >>The ACLU has fought to build a wall between God and society. I would say, rather, that the ACLU tries to maintain the separation of church and state as required by law. I think that they've been overzealous in the effort in some cases, but I suppose I could say the same thing about other, more conservative groups, as well. In regards to your feelings about judges, you might be targeting the wrong people. Judges only act on cases brought before them; they don't get to just make up things. The job of the judge is to interpret law; do some of them overreach? I'm sure they due, and I would bet that there is pretty much an even split between conservative and liberal judges who do that. And, judges aren't quite "unelected". When it comes to federal judges, at least, there is a process of review and then a vote by the Senate, who are our representatives. Regards the filibuster, it has been widely reported in the media that, while not a popular tactic, the use of the filibuster in this situation is not without precedent. The Democratic Party, I would guess, sees the judicial committee as a group simply rubber stamping the judicial nominations, and is doing what it can when it sees nominees that it considers to be clearly unacceptable. You'll see that they've done this with only a very small number of judges, while passing on many, many more. It's one thing to let the President have his "team". While Cabinet members, for example, do get scrutinized, more often than not the minority party will vote the candidate on to a full vote in the Senate. Judges, because they are lifetime appointments, should have further review and care, and extra efforts are made to try to stop those that are too extreme in either direction. Rules allowing the minority to block a vote aren't "hiding" in some "penumbra" someplace. They are rules that were created by the Senate and have existed and worked just fine for 200 years. Doesn't require an amendment to the Constitution, and they needn't be changed just for the convenience of the party in power. I'd have a hard time painting the Democrats as the "evil" party here. Both parties have gotten to the point where the political battle is more important than the process of government. The Democrats use unpopular tactics to block judicial appointees; the Republicans have a member in trouble with the ethics committee, so they just change the ethics rules to get around the problem. Tit for tat down the line. I've got a button around here someplace that says "Re-elect Nobody". Sounds good to me.

Tortdog, Sorry, I just don't see how the ACLU is "removing God" from society. They have raised issues in court over groups who have allegedly overstepped Constitutional grounds in their displays or use of public facilities. Those are issues of law, not morality. And the ACLU is presenting their case in court, and there is an opposing side; a judge or jury makes the final determination, not the ACLU. Saying that the ACLU has a seat on the Supreme Court is a bit of stretch, don't you think? Since Republican presidents appointed the majority of the Supreme Court, does that mean that the Republicans own the majority of seats? As far as other judges supporing the ACLU, the majority of judges in the higher courts were appointed by Republicans. Unfortunately, I guess they sometimes have a nasty habit of being independent thinkers. Not to get too OT, but since you brought up the filibuster issue, we should remember that so far the Democrats have blocked 10 of the Presidents judicial nominees, while passing along many, many more. The Republicans blocked, what, 170?, during the Clinton Administration. And now the President, knowing that these candidates have been rejected before, is submitting them again in the full knowledge that this will cause a fight in the Senate that is nothing but political warfare. Who's being brash?

Mollie, First of all, congratulations to the new CC for taking on this challenge! Sounds like a lot of work needs to be done to get this Pack back on track, but it can be done. Number 1, I'd suggest that the CC get his committee formed, and get them on board with the idea of getting the Pack to a point where it is "scouting correct". Same goes for getting a CM on board with the same attitude. They should understand that they need to give it some time; if the pack has been operating on its own for awhile, you probably just can't "flip a switch" and fix everything without alienating many people. If you can't get people out to training right away (although I think it's really mandatory that they get to it as quickly as possible), at least go to your Scout shop and pick up copies of the leader materials. Those can get you started down the right path. Then, get everyone trained. Most programs get into trouble, I think, because they're not aware of the resources that are available through the Scouting program. Nobody has to go it alone. Start going to your local Roundtable meetings. That will put you in touch with other Packs that you might be able to visit to see how others get it done. I wouldn't go back and review what the older Scouts have already done with the idea of taking away badges and the like. It's possible, of course, but I really don't think that that will work; that's just my gut feel. Going forward, tho, everyone should understand that the books describe the requirements, and the DLs should expect those requirements to be met if a Scout is going to earn an activity badge, a rank, or whatever. You'll have a certain amount of "crossover", I suppose, where you'll hear a certain amount of "how come those guys didn't have to do that", but you'll just have to work through that. Use the program guides to start with to help plan the monthly activities, and if you don't do anything else first, make it FUN! Take it a step at a time, be flexible where you have to, not to change the program, but to make sure you get there; sometimes the quickest path between 2 points isn't always a straight line. And remember, as volunteer leaders, it's only AN HOUR A WEEK! Hahahahahaha

ScoutNerd, There are probably a lot of opinions in regards to the ACLU. Most here will probably see them in a negative light because they have been involved in actions against the BSA. I don't know a whole lot about their history, really. Personally, I see them kind of like some defense attorneys, that is, some defense attorneys will take on really unpopular clients because they think that everyone deserves their day in court. The ACLU has taken on really unpopular issues because they think that somebody has to. Do I like it, for example, when they support the American Nazi Party's right to publicly meet? No, because I despise what the Nazis stand for, but the ACLU isn't supporting what the Nazis stand for, only their right to freely display their beliefs. From a legal standpoint, you can't distinguish the rights of the Nazis from the rights of the NAACP or any other group that is acting lawfully. I hear all the time that the ACLU supports liberal causes over conservative. That could be true, but I haven't researched their case history enough to know whether that is indeed fact. I don't know if they get government funding or not. How does the ACLU get to call itself the "guardian of liberty"? It's marketing. On what basis do you think that the ACLU is "tearing down morality"? Contacting them? No rabbit holes, just click on the "feedback" button on their homepage. On what basis are you saying that the ACLU holds sway in the courts?

Ed, This link should take you to the portion of the Scouting for All site that explains their views on BSA and atheists... www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/atheists.shtml

This happens pretty regularly with the Scouts in our Troop as seasonal sports come around. Sometimes they're able to make meetings, sometimes not, sometimes they'll come to part of a meeting. I encourage you to have your son come to the Troop meetings as often as he can, even if he might miss part of them. You might check with your SM as well to see if there are meetings that might be easier for him to miss, if he has to miss one. My experience is that that's a better approach than leaving Scouting for the whole season. Of course, you have to strike a balance as well so that your son isn't just running from one activity to another; it's not an easy thing to do.

>>They even theorized that the Creator did it in this manner to test the faith of man in the written word. Maybe God just is just a really great practical joker? (OK, now, before you start saying, "How DARE Prairie say that?", c'mon, you gotta believe God has a sense of humor. After all, he/she gave us the platypus, right? Have you ever SEEN one of those things? It's like a "spare parts" animal....).

I took a quick look around and found the following... The Episcopal New Service is reporting 2004 growth in the Catholic Church at 1.28%, which contradicts a report I heard during the papal election. The Catholic News Service reports that in both 2003 and 2004, the Catholic Church maintained their membership at 23% of the population, which would seem to be in agreement with another report I heard saying that U.S. Church membership is "stable". A report on a PBS website noted a concern among U.S. bishops about a steady decline in church attendance in the U.S. A report on an NBC website noted a concern about the falling number of priests in the U.S. while the Catholic population is growing, although the body of the story doesn't clarify, or mention, the growth figures.

I heard reports of U.S. Catholic membership either being "stable" or "falling" during news reports on both NBC and CNN during coverage of the selection of the new Pope. Same for the growth of membership in the Southern Hemisphere relative to everywhere else.

This whole discussion about forcing a boy to do something or using some notion of "tough love" is, I think, way off base as it relates to Scouting. Force someone to go to school? Sure, but Scouting, as much as we all might like and support it, is still an extracurricular activity, one of many available. My sons can leave Scouts if they want, as long as they have some other meaningful activity to replace it. I will try to cajole them into staying, but if it's clear that they are not enjoying the experience, it's not a good idea to make them stay. My advice to Bald Eagle... I think all boys go through periods when they consider leaving Scouting, for a variety of reasons. I don't think it's our job, as parents, to force them to stay in Scouting. We may like them to, but it should be their decision. Try to guide your son as best you can, point out the really cool things you can do in Scouting that would be really difficult to do anywhere else, etc., but the final choice should really be up to him. Some compromise might be available to take some time off, the same as we know some Scouts will miss meetings in order to participate in some seasonal activity, like a sport. Learning how to think through these kinds of decisions and the consequences of making those decisions, is an important point in maturing into a successful adult. Forcing your son to stay will only make him resist, enjoy it even less, and tell him that his decisions, and the thought process that went into it, don't matter. Not a good thing.

I agree with you, Ed. That's entirely possible. Those I know who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible don't make that distinction, however. They usually tell me that the world was created in 6 days, and the geological evidence that indicates a time span of billions of years is either wrong or being misinterpreted. I've taken that to mean that they consider the "day" to be an "earth day". I don't know if that's a prevailing view of those who believe in a literal interpretation, or just those I happen to know.

schleining, The reports I heard on Church growth, or lack thereof, all came from several sources during the selection of the Pope. They said, (1) the Church is only growing in the Southern Hemisphere, primarily South America, and (2) membership in the Church in the U.S. is either stable or falling, but definitely not growing. Regards John Paul and Vatican II... Participation by the Laity, marriage of priests, etc, as you said, were not primary to the content of Vatican II. However, the ability to discuss these issues was made more "open" as a result of Vatican II, if not by rule of law, then by just being more willing to have the discussion. I believe that John Paul was a part of movement to squelch this kind of discussion in favor of more conservative views. Clergy who thought otherwise and expressed their views were removed from their positions. Vatican II emphatically did not make "anything and everything right". It did try to make the effort to allow the Church to exist successfully in the context of the times it is in. That doesn't require any change in the basic dogma of the Church. The Church didn't collapse when it agreed that the world was not flat. The Church didn't collapse when it agreed that the earth was not the center of the universe. The Church didn't collapse when it became ok to eat meat on Friday. The Church will most likely not collapse if women are allowed to be priests. The Church will most likely not collapse if priests are allowed to marry. They may, in fact, make the Church stronger as a result. If the Church didn't allow itself to change in the context of the times, ie, if the Church still taught that the world was flat and the center of the universe, taught that charging interest was immoral, etc, do you think it would be as successful today as it has been, despite its sometimes problems?

Trevorum, I stand corrected. In my thinking, I was referring to the mechanisms of evolution as being theory, which they are. I think that most people, looking at the evidence, would consider evolution to be a "fact" as much as anything can. Creationists will probably think otherwise, of course. Even when defined as "fact" there is some margin for error of course. Being a "fact" doesn't make something inherently "true", only "true" to the extent that most reasonable persons would consider it so based on available knowledge. That is, something that is so unlikely to be proven to be "untrue" that the possibility is far beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean it might not be proven "untrue" at some point. Even things considered to be "fact" are only considered so within the context of our current level of understanding. Let's take as a further example the creation of the world. The vast majority of scientists believe that the earth was created several billion years ago, and this is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Is it possible that the Bible is actually correct that the world was created in a few days? Yes, it's possible, but all available evidence says otherwise. So, as a matter of available knowledge, most would agree that the world was created several billion years ago. Could that be wrong? Sure, but based on our current level of understanding, it seems unlikely.

Ed, I agree that evolution is a theory. It is believed by scientists to be correct within the context of what we know. That is, of course, subject to change as our knowledgebase increases, and this increased knowledge will either cause us to update the theory or further confirm its validity. I'm unclear what you meant when you said that "the Bible does stand up to science". Could you expand on that a bit? Thanks.

All, Even in the Webelos, isn't still the "Akela" who can sign off on requirements? The Akela, as I remember it, is either the den leader or the parent/guardian.

OGE and Unc, As I said in my followup post, I meant no disrespect, and do apologize to anyone who might have been offended. OGE, I honestly don't think that my comment resembles any of the examples you provided, but if you interpreted it that way, please know that that was not my intent. "Dark Ages" does have a negative connotation in addition to identifying a particular period of history, and I should have used a more neutral descriptive term. Unc, comments made about the expectations of Pope Benedict are based on his actions during many years working at the Vatican. He is known to be very conservative. His tone more recently has been more conciliatory; I can only hope that he continues down that path during his papacy. Blade, What you are talking about when you mention "morals" are matter of dogma. I haven't seen anyone here talking about making changes to basic beliefs having to with the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. What I have seen discussed are matters having to do with participation of women in the Church, marriage of priests, etc, which are not matter of dogma but rather rules created by the Church hierarchy in times past. Just as with the rules on meat on Friday (changed in the last 50 years) and the rules on charging interest on loans (changed in the 17th century, I believe), these are matters that were created by "man" and can be changed by "man", I think.

OGE, Young lady? Where did you get the idea that I'm a young lady? Regards the "Dark Ages", I really meant no disrespect; my comment only referred to the idea that the Catholic Church's rules (not its dogma, mind you) tend to come from times that are "ancient" and sometimes from times that are "less enlightened" than we are supposed to me now. Isn't that more or less correct?

OGE, Can't imagine who you might be referring to! Tortdog, So, that would make the definition of "morally straight" kind of a subjective thing, right?

I guess the question, LodgeChief, is "who gets to decide who is morally straight?".

Backpacker, That's a very interesting statistic. Thanks for passing that on. I know that there were demonstrations in Chicago against what is perceived as the unfair treatment of women in the Catholic Church. And others have expressed strong feelings about marriage for priests and more participation by the laity. As I remember it from long ago, Vatican II was trying to open a dialog about these kinds of issues, with the hope of getting a satisfactory resolution at some point in the future. These aren't discussions about changing the basic beliefs of the Catholic Church in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, or anything like that. Instead, these are more akin the rules about eating meat on Friday, I think, that is, rules created by the Church's ruling body. Staying true to the Church's roots doesn't mean that they have stay in the Dark Ages.

Regards the original topic, ie, homosexual activists and atheists should just go away... Why? This forum was created specifically for these kinds of discussions, wasn't it? How interesting would a forum on "Issues and Politics" be if you could only enter if you agreed with everyone. What would a typical thread be then? "Topic: Scouting is Good". Followed by 4 pages of "I agree"? Regards Merlyn, For the most part, I find his arguments thorough, and firmly stated, but not mean spirited. I can think of a couple of posters who are much more venomous in their posts. Are we to single out Merlyn for his focused, even single-minded, point of view? Should we then single out those who have espoused a philosophy here that basically comes down to "Whatever Scouting does is beyond question" in a similarly focused, even single-minded, point of view?

Rooster, I applaud the strength of your resolve on these matters; it really does make the discussion more honest and invigorating. However, I think that it's possible to have these discussions without having to denigrate those "on the other side". Do you really think that all conservative political leaders always take the high road? I'm inferring this from your statement that liberal political leaders "don't lead, nor do they embrace morals", therefore the assumption that conservative political leaders do lead and do embrace morals. Dick Cheney did take the high road in regards to his gay daughter in the last election, saying that it was a personal matter that should be outside of the political debate. On the other hand, we had a candidate running for senator in Illinois who publicly rebuked his own gay daughter, and he later said that many of his statements were said strictly for political effect. Wasn't there a problem during the 2000 primaries with Bush supporters spreading untrue statements about John McCain when he was the frontrunner, statements which later were retracted (after the damage had been done)? Isn't Tom DeLay in all sorts of trouble right now, even within his own party, because of his actions as a political leader? You can put together a similar list, I'm sure, for liberal political leaders. The point is, it's difficult to make general statements such as you have. Jimmy Carter was a liberal political leader. Do you think there is anyone, anywhere, who wouldn't say that he is a moral man of good character? Regards presidential endorsements, President Bush will endorse the BSA because, I think, (1) he honestly believes it is a good organization, (2) it provides a good photo op, and (3) he knows that in a country so evenly divided on social issues, criticizing BSA is bad politics. I think John Kerry would have done the same thing for the same reasons, should he have been elected.

It's a very nice idea for a Scoutmaster minute. However, I'd suggest a bit of caution; while there may very well be only "right" and "wrong", the definition of what is "right" can vary quite a bit, and I think you'd want to steer away from that for a "minute". A discussion of how right and wrong are determined would then be a good campfire discussion topic.

Rooster, When you made your comments about the methods/activities of liberal political leaders, were you implying that conservative political leaders don't have the same mentality and use the same tactics?