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 t

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 t

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 alienat

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 r

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'

>>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

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

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 l

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 "untr

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 t

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

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 singl

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

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?