qwazse

So the servers working now? Here's my original reply [cut and pasted from "Debugging "]... The by-laws are easily found here: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...AndBylaws.aspx They seem pretty unambiguous to me: "God" being a surrogate for the wordy "prime mover, who may be known or unknown to us mere mortals" or whatever the missionaries to the Celts were trying to use to communicate what they were trying to say about the Semitic deity adopted by the Roman empire. I'm not sure how this is distinguished from "Supreme being", as the notion of "God" in the original language, although not Semitic, conveyed every notion of supremacy, perhaps more than even the Latin "Deus".

I guess Merriam Webster & Co. wasn't one of those?

First, congratulations, Mom! And thanks for all the hard work. Second, advisor's wife, eh? I'm so very sorry. Third, our boys generally prefer to say the oath and law as a group. Most boys do the eagle charge, along with all other eagles in the audience, who are asked to come stand behind the boy. Forth, our community is pretty much white-bread suburban, so I tell my boys that they'd better give their moms more than that fleeting peck on the cheek that those pathetic WASP's pass for kiss!

I tried to comment on DWise1_AOL's post in the "Non-sectarian" thread, it threw an error, I logged off and back on, now I can't find the thread! I'm on the verge of taking the name of someone's supreme being in vain.

Most? Really? How do you know there weren't dozens of replies to this fine scouter, but only yours got through?

Yep, tried to post a reply to DWise1_AOL's post that Pack fed through: The by-laws are easily found here: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Appendix/CharterAndBylaws.aspx They seem pretty unambiguous to me: "God" being a surrogate for the wordy "prime mover, who may be known or unknown to us mere mortals" or whatever the missionaries to the Celts were trying to use to communicate what they were trying to say about the Semitic deity adopted by the Roman empire. I'm not sure how this is distinguished from "Supreme being", as the notion of "God" in the original language, although not Semitic, conveyed every notion of supremacy, perhaps more than even the Latin "Deus".

Lest we hear groans of "Oh no, not again!" from senior members, let me refer you to: http://www.scouter.com/forum/open-discussion-program/6952-to-edge-or-not-to-edge http://old.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=312067&p=1 http://old.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=311705&p=1 http://www.scouter.com/forum/working-with-kids/9559-wanted-scholarly-articles-on-edge FWIW, although I think EDGE is an abysmal rubric for kids (especially those with English as a second language), when my SM wanted to waste a meeting on it, I granted him that with absolutely no complaint. I suggest FrugalProf go and do likewise.

I think SN hit the nail on the head. Parents need to show solidarity and respect. For some folks that does not come easy. (I hate pulling the suburban middle class card, but I am afraid it applies to that demographic more often than not.) Smoort has been shoveled a heavy dose of disrespect. The moms might not feel that way, but nothing hurts an Eagle scout's feelings more than a bunch of people saying "Yeah, sure you can set up a camping agenda, but don't expect all of us to sign on!" So then everything else, ... the cookie sales, the camps they go to, etc ... becomes colored by that experience. Now granted, when one of my venturers called for a day at the spa during a brainstorming session, I "deep six-ed" that card after the meeting. But if she would have continued to be enthusiastic about it, promoted its benefits, made it cost-effective, and brought others on board, I would have knuckled under and got that pedicure with the rest of the crew. That's kind of the point, the Good Book says we should be encouraging one another into "love and good deeds." When that happens in scouting, it infects the next generation. When it doesn't, the kids see the parents' frustration and won't have anything else to do with it.

I should have replied earlier: 1. Thank the SM for not wasting the boys' precious time learning the false religion of EDGE. 2. Congratulate the SM for letting the boys endure a bit of the standard chaos of boy-led units. 3. Get him the district award of merit for thinking up the dish washing method as an applied leadership skill. Otherwise, follow BD's advise (it might have been to Christian of him omitting all of the expletives that may have been in the subtext of his reply).

Click on today's topics: Invalid response. Cling on issues & politics: no items found. I could go on and on. I am not sure that all of the supposed features of vBulletin are worth the amount of failures to display the data that people want to see.

It looks like it took (twice), but my reply in that forum did not work.

Now, why can I post here without any errors being thrown in my face?

I wanted to reply to AZOw's post: Agreed. Matthew 19 is pretty clear that the only sexual expressions Jesus approved of were heterosexual marriage, celibacy, or voluntary castration. Diminishing Pauline statements will get you nowhere since Paul's authority was sanctioned by the risen Christ and St. Peter. Don't ask a fundamentalist to discount scripture. You're better off affirming his view and admitting that we are all caught up in a culture war. I would suggest that by dismissing an entire unit of boys, his congregation is demoralizing boys who would rather not be forced to declare their sexuality. They would rather just hike and camp (maybe fish). Then ask if he can find room in his heart for just one more kind of sinner or publican?

But, BP, when I was making tiramisu for our desert when during our patrol dinner, it was incredible! As soon as I emptied a bowl, before I could turn around to look for it, those cub moms had it cleaned, dried, and ready to use for the next step (of which there were many).

Last night, I went to an Eagle court of honor of a boy whose troop is sponsored out of the Catholic church. Talked to the priest about being a scout in his country (Vietnam, in the '60s) -- the boys got some very impressive wilderness training. Point being, the parishioners worked hard to get their troop off the ground, the new membership policy is not going to stand in their way of keeping it going.

6t, The requirement becomes superfluous if you open every den meeting with a flag ceremony. So, forget the book, just raise colors until it is second nature and new boys pick it up automatically. This is not a trivial request because it has downstream repercussions. My observation of venturing crews throughout my area is that they are weak on flag protocol. (Yes NER-A4, I'm calling you out. At summit, we had an awesome set-up and plenty of talent, but nobody organized a color guard!) Part of it, I think, is my boys in the troop take it for granted and the non-troop youth are a little embarrassed that they don't know it. Anyway it's something that I'm working on starting last week (when I made my president and vp-admin open with the pledge before placing flags graveside). My point: you are preparing your boys (and maybe their sisters) for the day they'll lead their community in just a few short years, so drill, Drill, DRILL!

Oh jeepers, I love the responses in both threads. If you could move the replies there to here, that would make you a really super moderator. Otherwise, let's leave things as they are.

Thanks sr540b! I had no clue this one took and was humming away. You are a super moderator!

I first tried to post this in I & P and got one of those server errors. Then I tried in Program, still errors. Then I closed my browser, flushed cookies, restarted, and retyped my post here. (I forgot that my clipboard would be flushed.) So, here it stuck! And seriously, this is not I & P. We already have some pretty good threads on that. This is about how people really are talking to youth about this issue, and how it is playing out in various "necks of the woods." They general advice is good, for now, and I plan to incorporate it. But, hopefully we will get some good vignettes of in-the-field stuff. (Assuming the server accepts their posts )

Brew, although very true, I'm not entirely sure a home-school kid would get that. (Although most who I've talked to seem to have a better grasp of public opinion than you would expect.) We adults make compromises pretty routinely. So, yes, that would definitely be a key point in, say, a scouter-to-parent discussion.

Thanks 2C, That's my plan. I'm generally of a conservative ilk, so I guess my friend thinks this kid wouldn't feel like I was trying to foist an unwanted agenda on him. I had a crew member talk to me about this issue last month, but I don't think he was planning on making a move. So, I have the talking points down if I need them, I think. Just posting here in case someone beats me to the next conversation and has something worth my borrowing.

Because gay youth are allowed in. But, if you're dealing with a youth who objects for the other reason, it might help us to hear about it.

A dear friend came to me about a scout (age 17, on track for Eagle) who wants to quit the BSA because of the new membership policy. I offered to meet with the boy. If it transpires, I'll let you know what happens. If you've had to handle a situation like this (youth of any age or sex), how did you do it? Results?

I was kinda hoping I wasn't the first to post along this line, but it has to be someone ... A dear friend approached me about a scout (age 17, on track for Eagle) who now wants to leave the BSA because of the changes in membership policy. I made myself available to talk to the boy. Being of the conservative ilk, I figured I could share with him (as I have with members of my crew who asked) why I'm not making plans to leave the BSA. If the meeting actually transpires, I'll let you know. In the meantime, I thought I would open a thread for anyone else who is now dealing with this. If you are now facing youth (of any age or sex) who have strong objections like this, how are you handling it?

If you're tryin' to tell me I can't trust Christians as far as I can throw 'em, I'm with you on that one! For that and other reasons, I intentionally steered my kids away from pledge campaigns. Abstinence vows in the context of evangelical Christianity is an abstract ideal at best, a diabolical hypocrisy at worst. Keep in mind that the birth rate disparity by state may be partially offset by abortion rates. But the availability and reliability of the latter is questionable. So we may be talking about a values choice. Also note that your CDC reference indicates that the most stable marriages are the ones where first birth was 8+ months after marriage. Now, it may be that those are all folks who use condoms until the license is signed, but logic dictates that this group is comprised of all of those who did not initiate sexual activity until after marriage. Abstinence (irregardless of religion) remains the "cleanest" strategy. It is also seems to be the hardest to implement -- especially among protestants. So sure, the "discipline of latex" is a necessary fallback, and it is possible to build "safety nets" (e.g. HPC vaccine) that take up some slack. Maybe it is easier to promote that. However; ease of use, in itself, is not what defines the morality of a particular choice.