Rooster7

...if you have a collection of square knots that makes you look like a five star general returning from a major conflict - OR maybe I should save that one for the Scouters who take themselves too seriously?

Rooster, what no diatribe about accidents being the work of God? I venture to say that most accidents are probably not the work of God. Why would you assume otherwise?

Grace and peace to all. To my Christian brothers and sisters, remember to keep "Christ" in Christmas - He's the reason for the season.

Not making an argument pro or con for the safety patrols, but I understand why people react as they do. We want to believe that these kinds of horrible accidents dont arbitrarily occur. We want to believe that if we put the proper controls in place, no other boy (or girl) will suffer this fate. For the most part, it is very well intended. I say for the most part, because there are many folks running around in government and in the corporate world who re-invent safety to justify their positions. As an aside, ISO9000 and TQL represent two other occupations where this occurs. Be that as it may, I dont automatically dismiss new ideas pertaining to safety, but I do understand FOGs skepticism. Also, while many safety efforts are well intended, we need to ask ourselves as a society what are we willing to give up. Do you realize that if we required every boys and girls club to provide chest protectors for their youth, about a half dozen deaths in little league baseball would be avoided each year? At first glance, some say This is a no brainer, make it happen! However, if the law required this, hundreds of thousands of boys and girls would no longer have organized baseball available to them. Many clubs would fold because they cannot afford to provide this equipment. Furthermore, the enjoyment of the event itself for the boys and girls would be significantly hindered. These chest protectors can be restrictive and hot to wear. Being informed of this, many others would say So what? Its worth the sacrifice! Perhaps it is indeed, but we should seriously consider the consequences of new safety requirements. Prior to new technology, which made equipping automobiles with airbags an economic feasibility, a law requiring all automobiles to be so equipped would have made the purchase of a new automobile cost prohibitive for many if not most Americans. This reality would have severely impacted the automobile industry, not to mention the millions of families that need dependable transportation. Some people discount economic consequences such as the one I just described. They argue, and rightly so the health and safety of others, particularly our kids, is more important than the almighty dollar. However, this is a simplistic reaction, which does not consider the harm done to others due to economic hardship triggered by such regulations. For example, what happens to the children of the automobile worker who is now unemployed? How are these childrens needs being addressed? Are they getting food, shelter, and safety equipment? What happens to the family of the guy who loses his job because he was late to work again after his used vehicle broke down one last time? Safety is important. I understand and agree that when horrible accidents occur, we need to do a root cause and analysis. It is wise to make sure all that could have been done, was done within reason. Yet, we should not forget the last part within reason. As mere men, we do have our limitations. And as reasonable men, we need to look at consequences carefully. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

How could Lill, being the kind of scouter and person that she is, separate herself from scouting in order to play this game? How could YOU do it? By appearances, she used her scouting background and the uniform to gain peoples trust. It seemed to me, she was having her cake and eating it too. I dont mind her playing the game like everyone else. I dont mind her publicly embracing Scouting. My problem was or is - she wanted to do both. She played the game like everyone else. Then, at the end of the show, she tried to disassociate herself with Scouting noting that she happened to be wearing the uniform when they were marooned. Thats all fine and well. However, in those early days of the show (or even much later), I never heard her say Hey, I know Im wearing this uniform, but I intend to play the game like everyone else or anything close to it. In fact, while I dont have the show on tape, I think she made several references to her Scouting background to gain peoples trust. With the temptation of winning that kind of money, going thru that extreme kind of situation, hardship and difficulty, would YOU really have been able to ALWAYS live by the Scout Law? No, I cant say what I would have done. I may well have done exactly as she did. However, if so, I think I would have been wrong for doing it. she didn't lie to hurt people, she didn't steal, she had no plans to sabatage those left behind if/when she was voted off.... When dealing with people who admitedly have NO scruples at all, and knowing that this IS a GAME and that no one is going to be permanently harmed or hurt, would you have been able to take the 'high road' and be scouting's shining example and loose early? or would you also be tempted to 'bend' your high values a little for the game? First, there were only one or two players who fit that description of NO scruples at all. So, it wasnt like she was the only one trying to remain honorable. Second, from my view, Lill wasnt any more virtuous than most people that played the game. That was the issue. She staked claim to Scouting, but played the game like everyone else. Remember, she has kids in college to pay for, too! Yes, I can relate I have two in college. But, I still say While Lill played the game well, I didnt see anything about her behavior on the show that as Scouters we can proudly point to her and say, Well, look what she did. She played the game pretty much like anyone else. The only difference is, I think she exploited her Scouting background and uniform to gain the trust of others. She may not have conscientiously chosen her uniform to wear (had she known they were going to be marooned), but I didnt see her protect the reputation of the BSA or Scouting. She could have accomplished that end by doing one of two things 1) by simply making a quick statement early in the game that she intends to play the game like everyone else, or 2) by embracing Scoutings values. if it were YOU - what would YOU have done? I like to think I would have done one of the two things stated above. Could/would YOU deny that scouting is a huge part of your life in order to play the game? or would you live your Scouting life and end up bending like Lilly did? If Lill really lived the Scouting life, she would not have went as far as she did. Thats the point. Up until the last show or two, she wanted people to believe that the two were inseparable. Yet, she could and did separate them she managed to lie and deceive others when it was advantageous to do so. Having said all of the above, I want to point out what I already conceded several posts ago. The producers of the show may have edited some of Lills better moments out. That is to say, perhaps she did make a quick disclaimer early in the show, but the producers chose not to show it. If so, then I think Lill was done a great injustice. I would have respected her much more had I heard such a disclaimer. If she never made such a disclaimer, then I think she deserved to be scolded by her island mates, just as she was. Its one thing to be deceptive or even to lie when playing a game show. Its quite another to present yourself as one person and then to be another. Just like Johnny Fair Play pretended to be a grieving grandson, Lill pretended to be the Scoutmaster. At least Sandra was consistent. She was the person she was.

How many boys registered? ~60 How many boys active? ~50-55 How many Patrols? 5 Does your troop go to summer camp in or out of Council? Out Does your troop go to Dist/Council Camporees? Yes Does your troop support FOS? Yes Does your troop sell Popcorn? If not, what are your fundraisers? No. Christmas wreaths and Recycling Does your troop use NSP, FCFY method? FCFY informally. NSP No (mixed) Does your troop have a Venture Patrol? No Does your troop have a feeder pack? Yes How does your troop recruit non-Cub Scouts? They dont Has your troop seen your Unit Commissioner in the past 6 months? Probably but dont know Is your Unit Commissioner helpful or a pain? Dont know Does your troop leaders attend Roundtable? Yes How many members are on your troop committee? ~8 Is your troop boy led? Yes but it varies somewhat depending on what adults are actively involved for a particular event

I will say this - I think there are people on both sides of the aisle who do not live up to their public persona. Some fall prey to temptation, and thus are unable to live up to a standard that they truly believe in. Others never really believed in the standard, and thus get caught in their own mess. I have more patience for the former than the latter. As Adrianvs pointed out unless one is willing to bare his soul and reveal his own hypocrisy, only God truly knows who they are. So, I dont want to label Byrd as a hypocrite But likewise, I dont think its fair to label Thurmond as one either. On balance, they both have made statements, which seem to indicate a hateful heart towards blacks. Some say Byrd has changed because hes renounced his past. But can you trust public statements, which claim repentance when ones political career is in jeopardy? Some say Thurmond has not changed because hes remained relatively silent on the issue. But can you judge a persons heart for what he chooses to keep private? I dont like Senator Byrd because hes made many statements, which have infuriated me. Nevertheless, concerning this matter (race), I really dont know what is in his heart.

I'm sure there are some Republican hypocrites. How about Senator Jefferies of Vermont? ;-)

NJ, You call it a "bag of tricks". I call it simple facts. And the fact that you knew your post would provoke someone into bringing up Byrd, is more of an indictment against the obvious bias in your post than it is against Republican trickery (as you might call it). As for my "partisan points", I was just attempting to keep things balanced. I never claimed Thurmond was guiltless. I just pointed out that if Thurmond is a scoundrel for his so-called hypocritical behavior, then Byrd should be mentioned with the same breath. Furthermore, I maintain - if you want to see excellent examples of hypocrisy; then study the Democrats on Capital Hill. Their condemnation is very selective.

NJ, Your second bet (i.e., that someone would mention Robert Byrd and make a partisan point out of that) was a self-fulfilling prophecy, which you accomplished by attacking a conservative politician for a crime that you knew a well known liberal politician was guilty of, yet failed to even mention his name. This race (no pun intended) was rigged. That would be like if I created a thread on sex scandals involving President Clinton, but failed to mention Rep. Wilbur Mills, Rep. John Jenrette, Rep. Gerry Studds, Rep. Barny Frank, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. Gary Hart, or President Kennedy. Oops, Im sorry those are all democrats! ;-)

NJ, When I mention my faith, or if I draw out examples that include my faith, it's not a pretence designed to irritate you. It happens to be a part of my everyday life. Its not something that I keep in a box and pull out for special occasions. I believe my comments were relevant. Im sorry if you do not, but perhaps they werent written specifically for you. While one can argue very effectively that such policies were harmful to this country, most specifically towards blacks, the fact that Senator Thurmond once embraced segregation does not, in and of itself, make him a racist. In regard to race, there was more than enough ignorance going around this country in the 40s to lead many folks astray. You claim Thurmond changed his ways to gain political advantage. It could be trueI dont know. Nevertheless, you have no way of knowing that to be true, anymore than I do. Hunt claims that we know Senator Byrds inner thoughts because hes offered them for public viewing (i.e., hes publicly renounced his Klan membership and his past behavior). Am I to conclude that his change of heart was real and not politically motivated? This sounds like another double standard to me. Lets look at one of Senator Byrds quotes from his youthful days when he made a mistake. Read it. Then tell me what life experience what influenced Robert Byrd, to do a 180-degree turnaround: "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds," Hmmm. Do you have a quote attributed to Thurmond that even comes close to being this racist and hateful? If so, how come Byrd (who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act) is credited with having a change of heart whereas Thurmond is discredited as posturing for political gain? Again, I see a blatant double standard. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Im not attacking or defending anything that Strom Thurmond may have or may not have done in his life. Frankly, while I know of him, I havent followed his career or studied his past. Even if I did, there are probably many other things about the man that cannot be known except by God. This is but one of many reasons I imagine that God tells us not to judge others. Although, I maintain we are free even encouraged - to acknowledge sin when we see it. In short, there is a difference between judging an individual and judging his behavior. Having said the above, I do take issue with some peoples definition of Hypocrisy. Adrianvs gave good examples of what hypocrisy is not. Its not the inability to live up to an acknowledged standard. If so, then every Christian is a hypocrite. It does not escape me that many non-Christians believe this to be true. It also doesnt escape me that many non-Christians (and Christians for that matter) do not understand the faith. Many seem to believe that embracing the faith has more to do with Christs teachings (i.e., his standards) then Christs work (his atoning sacrifice on the cross). Certainly, we should embrace both. But if we are to be judged on our own works (i.e., our ability to live up to the standards set by Christ), then we will not see the kingdom of God. It is Christs sacrifice, his work on the cross that reconciles us with God. Hypocrisy is overtly embracing a standard for one group or individual, while covertly embracing a different standard for another group or individual. Interestingly, I see another example of hypocrisy involving Senator Thurmonds legacy as a politician. However, in my example, he is the victim of hypocrisy not the perpetrator. Legions of democrats have often criticized Senator Thurmond and labeled him a racist for his segregationist views, which he abandoned in the 60s - decades ago. Yet, these same liberals purposely ignore the fact that Senate Byrd, a democrat from West Virginia, was a former Klan member. Those that dont ignore it, explain it away as a mistake made by a very young man. Yet, they dont extend this same courtesy to Senator Thurmond. Not so surprisingly, Senator Thurmond didnt incur much criticism until he switched to the Republican Party in the 60s; which happened to be about the same time he abandoned his segregationist views. Now, this is a prime example of twisted logic, if not outright - hypocrisy. While I dont know what the inner thoughts were of either Senator, the Democrats are definitely guilty of establishing a double standard. Certainly, if Senator Thurmond is to be labeled a racist for his past segregationist views, consistency demands that Senate Byrd be given the same consideration for his membership in the Klan.

I find it highly ironic and offensive that people from other nations feel its appropriate to lecture American citizens about the potential abuses of power; when in fact, over the last 200 years, America at great cost to itself, has consistently defended peoples all over the world from power hungry depots and flooded other nations with aid. Given the facts, as opposed to liberal revisionism, American does have reason to feel proud. Those who chose to criticize us will sing a different tune if/when their country incurs a time of need. Until then, they can afford to intellectualize and trivialize our deeds. God Bless America! Senior_Patrol_Leader_T15, I liked the post - but I agree with Hunt on one point - I only worship God. Until the entire world recognizes and embraces democratic principles, continue to take pride in your country and dont trade your allegiance to her for some feel good hype about a world community. Our planet has been around for thousands of years and the world community has yet to bring about peace and harmony. The United States has not acted alone and it does warm my heart to know that there are quite a few freedom-loving nations that will stand beside her. But make no mistake about it; America has led the way for the last two hundred years. If that offends, so be it. We didn't get to be the country we are today by taking a poll of world opinion or waiting for other countries to embrace our ideas about freedom and democracy. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

SR540Beaver, You are employing situational ethics. One of my favorite classes in seminary. Just to play the devil's advocate, do you think that a lie told for any reason can be justified before God? I think God looks at the heart. If I told a lie for profit, he knows it. If I told a lie to save a life, he'd know that too. The Pharisees tried to trap Jesus with such a question. Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. Matthew 12:9-14 So, I believe as Jesus taught. If your heart is intent on doing good, then many things are acceptable. Is not a sin a sin in God's eyes? First, you are assuming that a sin was committed. Jesus did not sin when he healed a man on the Sabbath. Similarly, if I told a lie to protect an innocent man from evildoers, I believe God may choose to view such a lie as justifiable. If so, then by definition it would not be sin. Having said this, I cant say with 100 percent certainty how God would view this kind of lie. I am confident of this - all men have sinned; and all sin separates us from God. So, sin is sin, in the sense that regardless of how heinous the sin every sin prevents us from having fellowship with God - if not for the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross and God's grace to stir our hearts to accept Jesus gift.

Try this, Can anyone give me a situation when the end, the product, the results, justifies the means, the way it got done, what was done to make it so OGE, I was with you until you tacked on, and while the goals were accomplished, the Scout oath and law were always followed? It seems to me, the first part of your supposition disallows the possibility of the latter. That is to say, obviously if I have to point to the end result in order to justify the means employed, then my behavior must have been dubious and un-Scout-like. Be that as it may, I do believe there is a justifiable pretence for such behavior. I believe the end justifies the means when the evil avoided or undone is greater than the evil committed. For example, lies were told to NAZI occupiers in order to prevent the torture and/or murder of innocent Jews. In my mind, a lie is justifiable if it means innocent people will be spared something much worse. Given the above scenario, would I still respect a Scout as someone who embraces the oath and the law? My answer is YES! The spirit of the oath and law is ultimately about serving others and maintaining ones honor. I think telling a lie that could cost you your life in order to protect the innocent is definitely in the spirit of the Scout oath and law and the means would be justifiable.

NJ, Ironically, claiming an opinion is based on "twisted" facts, is an yet another opinion based on "twisted" facts until one can show otherwise. AND I'm afraid you haven't done so. JMHO ;-)

NJ, You must be having a really bad day. I hope it gets better.

I have three boys. The two oldest earned Eagle at 16. The youngest earned his Eagle just prior to 14. I have some observations - 1) I am guilty of parental pressure - to the point that I prodded them to do the next badge or whatever it was that they needed to get done next. 2) While my 14 year-old is not as mature as my other sons were when they earned their badges, he did EARN his badge. No one bent the requirements. No one did the work for him. The troop is not an Eagle mill. 3) So far, all of my sons have remained active in their troops. My oldest (20) is too old to be a Scout, but he works at a BSA summer camp each year. As does his younger brother (17), who is the current SPL. 4) My 14 year-old, one of three ASPLs, may not stay active in the troop as long as my other sons. However, this is not because he obtained Eagle at an early age, but because he prefers to spend his time with the church youth group (which also has a very active program). I understand and agree to some extent that younger scouts, who earn Eagle, often do not gain as much benefit from the program as older boys. However, this is a generalization. And as is true for all generalization, it cannot be stated as being true - all the time - for all individuals.

Yes NJ - like you, I have strong opinions. BTW, I love the way you depersonalize these little debates.

SMT376Richmond KY, Interesting points. I guess it depends on how much emphasis one chooses to place on the word - "reality" as opposed to those other words - "game show". Was Lill participating in everyday life (i.e., reality) or was it merely a game show, whereas the rules of the game are not the same rules one would follow in everyday life? I'm not condoning lying - but is it truly lying when all of the participates know that deception is an intricate part of the game? To my shame, I watch and enjoy this show. I say to my shame, because I think there is a danger here in that many folks may think, the end justifies the means. While I dont blame Lill, she could have sent a powerful message to viewers by forfeiting her chances to win by remaining faithful to her Scouting values.

At its root, every law - from jaywalking to murder, has a moral basis. At its root, every person - from an atheist to a conservative Christian, has a source for his or her moral basis. It shouldn't matter how a jurist feels about a controversial issue or even he or she takes a public stance. What matters is whether or not he or she will hold up the law as it is written and/or interpret it reasonably per the Constitution. To query candidates about abortion is wrong. It is a religious litmus test. The fact is, nearly every conservative Christian believes abortion is morally wrong. Regardless, that does not mean he or she will make findings or rulings that are un-Constitutional. It does not even mean that pro-abortion laws will be overturned. It simply means that the candidate subscribes to a certain set of beliefs. Democrats are telling this country that those people who subscribe to that set of beliefs (i.e., conservative Christians, Orthodox Jews, etc.) are unfit to be federal judges. Abortion is the issue of the day. Tomorrow it will be another. No one can predict what a jurist will do merely because he posses a certain religious faith. Yet people of various religious faiths are being penalized for embracing the beliefs taught to them. Liberals who proclaim otherwise are merely propagandizing in order to achieve their own political ends - even if it means circumventing the Constitution. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Bob White, I have to say - Point taken! She may well have made several disclaimers concerning her status as a Scouter, which the producers chose not to show us. If that was the case, I think she did well. If not, then I believe she deserved the criticism. Regardless, I must agree - TV producers are master manipulators - so we may never really know.

Lill was held to a higher standard because of the way she presented herself in the first three weeks. She never disassociated herself from the ideas of Scouting until it became apparent to everyone else that she was being hypocritical. In fact, she used the uniform and her status as a Scouter to gain trust. You can't have it both ways. Her speech at the end was great - but it was 39 days too late. She should have given it on day one.

Lil is no worse or better than most folks. As people go, she has strong and weak points, just like anyone else. However, the question shouldn't be - Has she done anything to bring dishonor to the uniform? The question should be - If she wasn't wearing a BSA uniform, would her behavior distinguish herself as being a Scouter? While I think Lil is likeable, I dont she has done anything on the show to uplift the BSA or to distinguish herself as the lone Scouter on the island. I dont look at Lil and say to myself, I want her as mentor for my son. I look at Lil and see a lady whos doing fairly well in a competition that focuses on physical endurance, some degree of wit, but most importantly the ability to deceive others. With this last trait in mind, I dont think the game is really well-suited for someone who is striving to mentor exemplary behavior for youths.

OGE I think you're mixing two discussions here - one that was religious in nature and one that's not. I've made enough posts on my religious beliefs...to the point; I don't think I need to or should add another - at least not today. In regard to this specific thread (which was not intended to be specific to religion), I've merely offered up a few of the things that I think I should have or shouldn't have done when I was younger. I never said any boy or girl had to do the same. These thoughts were merely a reflection on my past, including some of my mistakes. By the way, aside from the faith specific wish of "seek out and attend a Bible believing church", was there something on the list that perhaps rubs you the wrong way, or for that matter, that goes against the values of the BSA? Also, you should know - I specified "boy" because 1) I am the father of three teenaged boys, and 2) I am a man who knows what its like to be a boy. I have no idea what it's like to be a girl or the kinds of temptations that they fall into. Frankly, Im a little surprised by your reaction. If I had to guess - someone in your life forced you down a road you didnt want to take. My advice for Scouts is not meant to be anything but just that friendly advice. No one is forcing or telling anyone that they have to do something. As for my thoughts on Christianity and other faiths, search this forum and you will find them. Theres no need for me to rehash all of that again. However, I do not concur with your characterization of me. In your attempt to summarize, you have over simplified my thoughts concerning the faith and values that I embrace.