Prairie_Scouter

In a sense, BSA already has a "fracture" in it. The LDS units are allowed to run a program that is "kinda/sorta" like "regular" BSA units. This was covered in quite some detail in other threads and it's clear that the LDS units are different.

The reference to NAMBLA was, of course, ridiculous, and I'm assuming was just a joke. I hope.

Now, there's another point of view of what would happen if BSA were to allow gays in their membership. Of the people I know in Scouting, and it's not like I know everybody, but I know a good number, the vast majority have kind of a "so what?" mentality about gays in Scouting. Not for, not against, just "so what?". There are a few, a minority, who are very against gays in Scouting, and say so. My gut says that if gays were allowed, there might be some grumbling, but if gays joined and it was a non-event, as I suspect it would be, the grumbling would stop, and life in Scouting would go on. I agree that some number of units would be dissolved in the process and possibly join another organization. Maybe those people would join the LDS units and form "Christian Scouts of America". I think after a drop in membership as these folks leave BSA, there would be resurgence as more middle of the road thinkers bring their kids into Scouting; those that stay away now. In the long run, it could be that BSA prospers more than ever before, as it becomes a more moderate institution that doesn't just reflect the views of particular religions, while still instilling the same strong character traits it always has, only better. Meantime, the "CSA" formed from the people who left BSA could pursue their own belief system. I suspect that they would be the ones that would be marginalized, and become the lesser for it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a 1st Amendment problem here. It doesn't look to me like Berkeley came up with their rules specifically to target the BSA. They created a set of rules for access to free boat berths, and BSA doesn't qualify. That's all there is to it. BSA isn't being "punished", or being prevented from pursuing their policies. They just can't do it for free when it comes to using the Berkeley public facilities. They're just being required to pay the going rate; it's not like Berkeley said the BSA units have to pay more than anyone else. This sounds like another case where BSA proclaims their right to make up their own rules, but expects everyone else to change theirs to meet what BSA wants to do. You can't have it both ways. If BSA wants to have a certain set of rules, that's fine, but they have to be prepared to live with the consequences. They can't make up their rules and then whine when those consequences come about.

I dunno, Kahuna, seems like the Repubs are doing their share of ranting as well. Like I said, seems like many of them are spending their time running for re-election. Of course, they don't have to ask any questions, they've already got the votes. I'm wondering why we're wasting our time. Once the Dems say they're not going to filibuster, we might as well just wave the guy thru, because the we know both parties will vote as blocks and the Repubs have the majority. I guess the Dems figure they're just wasting their time asking questions, since Alito isn't really answering anything anyway. He's been well coached. Example. Alito apparently wrote in about 1985 that he thought that the Constitution didn't protect a woman's right to choose. One Dem questioner spent most of his time just trying to get Alito to say whether he still agreed with that or not. He absolutely refused to answer. As a result, I have no idea whether he'll be a good justice or not. We'll just have to hope. The man does seem to know his stuff; it's not like we're looking at another Clarence Thomas or anything.

Bush will get this one, but I think if he stays on the current track, he might be in for some surprises at the mid-term elections. The situation with the bribes seems to be getting worse every day. DeLay is out (he was known to be a jerk, anyway; I doubt that many in his own party will miss him). There's about a dozen more in the House that I bet are holding their breath right now. And then you've got that deal with the wiretaps. If that ever gets to court, it could get really ugly.

What really struck me about the opening remarks is that pretty much ALL of the committee members were making speeches to their voters; it's early re-election season, I guess.

I got to hear about 2 hours of the inquisition this afternoon. About what you'd expect. Democrats throwing iceballs and Republicans lobbing in softballs. Except for one Repub who spent most of time pontificating about whether Roe V Wade was a "precedent", a "super-precedent", or a "superduperprecedent". And then, he didn't even ask a question about it!

One of the Dems yesterday made a pretty interesting point in regards to Harriett Meiers (sp?). I guess a Repub had made some comment in response to the possibility of a filibuster (unlikely, I think), and was making a speech about Alito deserving an up/down vote. Basically, the response from the Dem was that Harriett Meiers probably thought she deserved the same thing, and she was forced out by members of the same party as the President. So, I think *anybody* on that committee who says that this isn't about putting someone of their own political persuasion on the bench is just blowing hot air, and lots of it.

I don't know about Alito yet. He wrote and said some things I really wouldn't agree with, but a lot of that was a long time ago, and in a different context than the job he's currently "applying for". My guess is that he's more of an idealogue than Roberts, but that's just a guess based on Bush's need to placate his base with this nomination. I think with Meiers, he tried to pick someone more middle of the road, but his own party would have none of it, and I think that with Alito, he has someone more acceptable to his base. At least, that's my guess. I gave up a long time ago thinking that these selections had anything to do with picking the best jurists. That's just a "nice thing to have" along the way.

Rantings aside, NAMBLA and the general gay population are not the same thing. To equate the two shows a basic lack of understanding, and basically makes a caricature of the gay lifestyle. Yes, I'm sure that there is some crossover, but my gut tells me that NAMBLA has more straight members than it does gay members. And, I'll bet it has its share of church going members as well.

Well, I used to do catch and release every once in awhile. I'd cut the barbs off the hooks and file them down to try and do the least amount of damage. Then, one day, I wondered about the whole idea and why I was there. If I was going through all this trouble to try and not harm the fish, why not go the next step and just not drop the line in the first place. Mostly, I just like the idea of sitting around and relaxing under a nice shady tree near the water. So, I got myself a little radio control sailboat. I can sit in the the same spot on the lake, relax, and the boat hardly makes a ripple and doesn't bother the guys who want to fish. On the other hand, if they catch something good, I'm happy to help them eat it

PETA does some nutty things to play on the emotions of people, but they also have identified legitimate concerns over the treatment of animals in a variety of venues. Experimentation on animals for medical research can be acceptable if done in a humane and respectful manner. But as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to things like testing of new cosmetics and other non-essentials, not a single hair on a single animal should be harmed.

And the point is.....

Girl Scouts might be able to recognize better what are real moral values and what could be seen as contrivances to appease particular religious groups.

DanKroh,

That's an interesting question. Suppose a project was proposed to do some needed remodeling work at a church that was well known for supporting the gay community. That'd be interesting. I suppose if the Eagle counselor wasn't aware of the connection, the project would go along just fine.

While I wouldn't doubt that there are councils and districts that do things like that because the compensation of the paid professionals is so tied to things like this, I'd still say that the majority of units are getting these awards legitimately. Personally, I still think it's pretty cool to have a unit that's met all of the requirements.

Well, I dunno. I climb, and when I'm done climbing a mountain, it's still there for someone else to climb. If we want to compare hunting to climbing, I suppose I'd have to blow up the mountain after I was done with it

It's unfortunate, I think (and my opinion only), that BSA hasn't found a way to get past its homophobia, while the Girl Scouts have done so in such a wonderful manner.

Hmmm, so how do we know Jesus didn't fish for fun? According to some theories, it might have been a fun thing to do with his kids

OGE, no, I don't think that humans are outside the natural world. I used the word "nature" in the context of those things we have been given "dominion" over. I'll stand by my comments that if the Creator were to come down and pay us a visit right now (and who knows, maybe he is), I don't think he'd be too impressed by how we treat nature around us and, for that matter, our own species. But, maybe that fits right in with the "circle of life" idea; we treat everything equally badly.

We do use the program features as a starting point each month. The PLC will then tailor the feature to fit what resources and time we have available, and to pick and choose what activities they think they'll have some fun with.

We've been doing a lot of reorganizing this year, and with the program features as a guide, our meetings have been more "filled" than made up on the fly. Before, a lot of our meetings had plans like "rank advancement" with no details as to what was going to be done. One thing I've been emphasizing this year to the PLC is that they really need to provide the detail for what's going to be done at a meeting. It's slowly taking effect, with the emphasis on the slowly

Yeah, but Merlyn, they balance off the Bible stories with Koran stories (oh, wait, I guess they don't), and Mormon stories (oh, wait, that's not there, either), and Hindu stories (oops). Well, at least there's a whole collection of....oh, I guess there isn't.

I guess I don't really care that much, but don't you think that people of other faiths that are in Scouting might be a bit bothered by not getting equal time? It's almost like some religions are more equal than others in BSA. Nah

Seriously, it wouldn't be a bad thing for BL to maybe rotate the stories in order to provide some exposure to the legacy and history of other faiths.

Kinda sounds to me like LDS units are "kinda" doing the Scouting program.

Well, I know that there are some football players in Texas right now that are considered higher in the food chain than some others.

Ed, "real life events that really happened"? You're kidding, right?

You know, I flip through BL when my boys get it, and I honestly don't remember seeing Bible stories in every issue. Doesn't matter. If BL is showing a preference to one religion over another, than I would think that it's violating the "non-sectarian" nature of Scouting. But, Scoutldr is right, BL, and "Scouting", for that matter, regularly carry ads for things that seem to be frowned upon by BSA. It's been pretty clear for years that the magazines have a Christian leaning to them in a subtle sort of way, but I just chalked that up to the obvious leanings of the powers that be at the national headquarters. (but, this gets into my theory about BSA just being used as a pawn by the religious right, and we probably don't want to go there again ). I don't know that they purposely aim the magazine that way, or if it's just a matter of them publishing what they get that seems interesting and ads that bring in income. It could just be that they're not inundated with stories based on other religions ("Hi, Scouts, today we're going to talk about the Book of Mormon and polygamy. Oh, boy!" )

Ok, the holidays are over and it's time to dive back in.......

Ed, comparing catch and release with hide and seek makes a lot of sense if your kids play hide and seek with a meat hook.

We shouldn't make the mistake of painting groups like PETA with too broad a brush. PETA began as a group that brought to light inhumane testing of animals. Things like testing new cosmetics by squirting them into the eyes of rabbits to see how much it took to blind them. In one study, dogs were held under water to see how many times they could be dunked before they drowned. These examples go back probably 30 years or so, but do point out the legitimate problems that PETA identified, and had some success in stopping. Should they be throwing colored dye on people's fur coats? No, but that is just one facet of their organization. (Much the same can be said about the ACLU; while we have regular detractors of them here, while they have done some work against BSA policies, at the same time they have been working in Chicago to protect the rights of homeless children). PETA serves a legitimate purpose, and their tactics aren't really all the different from people who make posters out of human fetus pictures to fight abortion. It's all in the marketing and public perception. Their extreme positions can be seen as a political stance aimed at working towards a more realistic middle ground.

Now, about this thing about man being given "dominion" over animals. When I have the time, I'll have to check if that's a "translation" issue that depends on your version of the Bible, or whether it is common among all versions. Regardless, I don't think that when God made us the stewards of nature, he had in mind the idea that we could do whatever we wanted because we are the supposedly "superior" species. Throughout history, we humans have shown a remarkable tendency to destroy habitat and wildlife to support our relentless growth. Many religions seem to go out of their way to put animals on a "lower rung"; I'm not really sure why. I remember growing up that we were taught that humans had an immortal soul, but animals did not. Who knows, really? We assume that animals are not as intelligent as us. Look at some of things we do. Are we really that intelligent? Are dolphins, for example, too dumb to communicate with us, or are we too dumb to communicate with them? Whales can communicate across hundreds of miles of ocean using only what nature provides them with (or could until man came along with their machines (and the Navy with the low frequency sound experiments)); can we do the same without having to resort to some "toy"? Take away our technology, and look at us as simply another animal, and we are no where near the top of the food chain. If we are indeed so "gifted" from a Creator that we are above all other life, we should have the wisdom to shepherd and care for the nature around us. Instead, we have a history of plundering nature for simple greed and power. Not a pretty picture. There are exceptions, to be sure, but for the most part, when humans come in, nature suffers.

Could be, Gern, that ALL of those folks are going to be surprised when they show up at the gates to heaven and all the good people from the other 9,999 sects are there to greet them

Beavah,

Some people would consider cutting the corner off a totin' chit to be "hazing". I'd suspect that BSA has a much lower tolerance that what would be needed to qualify as a felony as you've described.

OGE,

Oooooh, we could make fun of the Nancy and George show all day, couldn't we? But, it's the holidays.

My point with the 700 Club was just that even among those that call themselves "true believers", there are those who would judge those who aren't "in the club". Not many, and I suspect that those on the 700 Club are interested in their TV ratings as much as preaching the Word.

So, here's a thought. There are those that would say that, for example, Merlyn could be the best person in the world, helping others, and leading an exceptional life, but when he gets to the pearly gates, he won't be let in because he didn't do those things because he believed in a "God", but merely because he thought it was the right thing to do. That's not my idea of a "just God". I like to believe that if, for example, Merlyn did those things in his life while professing to not believe in God, then when he passes on and arrives at the pearly gates, God opens the doors for him and yells "Surprise"! Now, THAT's my kind of God!

Well, I guess we should remember that a belief in ID doesn't explicitly require a belief in God, although that's how many read it. It really only requires the intervention of a higher being. That higher being could be "God", or space aliens, or dolphins, for all we know.

I had a biology teacher in high school who chuckled one day when someone answered a question on a quiz, "because God made it that way". His response was "this is science class. Religion is 4th period". What I remember about that is that he didn't say the answer was wrong, just that it didn't fit the context of a science class. On the other hand, it'd be just fine in religion class, where different rules apply.

As I said earlier in this thread, intelligent design isn't bad, or even necessarily wrong. Nobody really knows. But, unless we change the rules that science adheres to, ID can't be considered science and shouldn't be taught as science. Should it be taught at all? I think it should. It's simply another attempt to explain the world around us. But, since it doesn't follow the rules of science, it shouldn't be taught as part of science curriculum. It's better suited as a theology topic, or perhaps a philosophy subject, and it should be welcomed in those areas.

I follow astronomy. The age of the universe isn't given as a "fact"; it is always an "estimate" based on current knowledge. This is true of all science. I think part of the problem may be that those in the scientific community use a sort of shorthand that assumes that all statements made sort of implicitly include the phrase "as far as we know". And this is good for science; no one assumes anything.

Rooster, science does welcome all comers, but they have to be willing to play by the rules that science demands. You can't prove or disprove the existence of a higher being, and so it falls outside the rules that science plays by. That doesn't mean that ID is wrong, just that it isn't fall into what we currently define as science. ID does get a bad "rep" because so many people use it as a "codeword" for creationism, and in the world of creationism, there's only belief, not science.

I dunno, Rooster, those folks on the 700 Club ("true believers") seem to have quite a bit to say about who's going to hell and who's not. Maybe they've got an extra chapter in their Bible that you didn't get or something

I'd prefer not to think about this in terms of "good guys" or "bad guys". The mistake being made, that the court tried to correct, is the impression that intelligent design is science. It's not, and this is corroborated by the expert testimony of scientists who supported the ID side during the court case. Their testimony was that ID relies, at some point, on intervention by a supernatural power; this can't be proven as science, and therefore can't be a scientific theory. Science deals with things that can be proven or disproven based on observable and verifiable natural events. Supernatural intervention is by definition outside of science.

Now, does that make evolution correct and ID wrong? Absolutely not. It just makes them different.

The court found that those supporting ID in that state were acting within a subterfuge to bring creationism into their science classroom. Among the indications of that was the fact that an early draft of the text to be used for that purpose originally used the term creationism nearly 150 times. In the final draft, all mentions of creationism were replaced with intelligent design. The people of that school district must have agreed, since they have since voted that school board out of office.

ID shouldn't be taught in a science class any more than it should be taught in English class or shop class. It is a theological belief that has its appropriate place in either a theology class or a philosophy class, perhaps.

Evolutionary theory may be correct. ID may be correct. Maybe some combination of the two is correct. Maybe the supernatural being that intervenes in ID is a space alien. Who knows? The point is, it can't be proven by the laws of science, and therefore shouldn't be include in a science curriculum.

I think if the wording of the notice about ID that was to be included in the classroom had been a little different, there might not have been a problem. The wording seemed to imply that both evolution and ID were scientifically based theories, and I think that that's what got them into trouble.

We've had that happen in our Pack, and we've gone the route of separate ceremonies. The boys who have earned their AOL come up as a separate ceremony, sit down, and then we do our bridging ceremony. People hardly notice that not every one went up to get an AOL.

Venividi,

Did you see the news about those morons in the north suburbs who got out on their snowmobiles last week and ran down a couple of dozen Canada geese? If I remember correctly, Canada geese are protected, so at least if they get caught they'll hopefully spend some time in the slammer.

Enjoying our Midwest winter?