Sentinel947

I don't own a firearm. One day I'd like to, but it's not a priority right now. I'd be having second thoughts about bringing a weapon on a camping trip. It's against the rules, and I'm sure there are parents of the Boys who would not appreciate that kind of "preparedness."

I think Beavahs idea of God's free will is well stated and really cannot be improved. I'll throw in my own two cents. See the news coverage? See how it glorifies the shooter? How his picture is thrown around, yet rarely the victims pictures are shown? See how his name is repeated, yet I bet you cannot name the Principal's name. Our media encourages copycat attacks. This must stop. These shooters must not be glorified. We must remember what they did, why they did it. But lets glorify the victims. Instead of "Adam Lanza shot 26 people." It should be "A mentally unstable young man shot 26 people." Quit glorifying the killer..... As for God, lets not remember that God didn't pull that trigger, a young man, a struggling young man, one who could easily have been one of our Scouts or children pulled that trigger. He was one year older than I am. If I had found out that a close friend of mine had just slaughtered 26 people, I'd blame myself. Considering I just convinced my friend with depression to seek medical help, I'm even more shaken by this event. There is much darkness in the world. We cannot accept it as inevitable, we must fight back by creating light. Yours in sorrow, Sentinel947

I think all faithful struggle with the will of God. Clearly we'd sincerely hope that the Lord we worship doesn't plan to have innocents slaughtered. This event has made me reflect on God. Does he will these things to happen? If he doesn't, why does he allow them to happen? If he doesn't want them to happen, but allows them to anyways, why would he? I don't think there are answers to that question. However what can't be understated is that this wasn't the actions of a raging mad God, but the act of a troubled young man, and there are more of them in this country, and we need to find them, and help them, in order to prevent another tragedy like this from happening again. (This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

There is light and darkness in the world. We must find a way forward in this tragedy. we must be a person who creates light. Be a good friend, family member and neighbor. God bless the victims of this horrific tragedy.

I'd be hesitant to just give him a walk in SMC for his rank advancement.

Basementdweller, if you don't mind me asking, what city in Ohio are you from? You sound to be describing either Columbus or Cincinnati. I live in Cincinnati.

Lets clear the air of "Boy Led" for a moment. The question is one of adult interaction with the kids. Some Scouts require more guidance from an adult or older boy mentor. Some don't. As long as the Boys are deciding the program details and carrying em out, then it's Boy led. If the boys are participating in their meetings, their PLC's and going on trips they planned and wanted to go on, it's Boy Led. If the only time the Scoutmaster addresses the Troop during the meeting is for Scoutmasters Minute, you got yourself a Boy Led Troop. "We have Troop guides / trainers, but they are fairly uninvolved with the younger boys... something the SM and I both hope to change. The APL is a newly minted Star (same as the PL). Both made it to that rank with little over a year in the program. Both are very fine scouts and I believe want to do a good job. However, both are very young (age 13). There seems to be a theme throughout the troop where the older scouts (15+) want to have little to do with the newbies (under 13), unless it is required for credit on their POR." This is where I think your problems truly lie. A 13 year old PL is going to make some mistakes, they are going to struggle. I see the struggles of your young Pl quite frequently. In their other activities this kind of organization and leadership has never been asked of them. It's not usual for them to fail the first couple times. I would explain to him about the problems you have mentioned and try to have him come up with a plan to correct those issues next time. What I think is more problematic is your Guides/Instructors/Older Boys are not mentoring your younger leaders. This is unacceptable in my personal opinion. This is a Troop Culture problem. Luckily there is a solution to this issue. You need just one older boy to step up to the plate and start working with the younger kids, get positive peer pressure working for you. Once the older boys are helping out, and the kids get advancing the parents issues will cease. I think you and the SM are on the right path.

Good that you have a boy led program! Just keep in mind that boy led doesn't mean boy led off the rails. Failure is a learning experience, constant failure means a failure to mentor from the adults and older boys. I'll start with the easier questions and proceed as I go. Here I go: With your boys only halfway thru Tenderfoot, are they having fun? If they are, and don't mind the slow pace of advancement, then I wouldn't be concerned, if they are frustrated with the slow pace of advancement, then I would be concerned. Are there other factors to the slow advancement besides what you mentioned? Does your Troop have Troop Instructors and Guides? What is their job description? Are they older boys? Are they reliable? The Patrol Leader is young. He needs to understand that his actions are having negative consequences on his patrol buddies. That's not fair. Have you had a one on one chat with this Patrol Leader. Sometimes that's all that is really necessary? Is the APL pretty good? Is his attendence good? How old is he? What rank is he? Sorry if I answered your questions with more questions. Trying to get a total picture of the scenario.

Unless Merlyn, one views that action as murder. Republicans believe Abortion to be murder, to them regulating who can kill whom is obvious. Democrats by and large do not believe Abortion to be Murder, and therefore view it about as bad and morally corrupt as clipping your toenails in the morning. The argument that Republicans hate regulation except telling woman what they can do with their bodies is an absurd MSNBC talking point. To Republicans Abortion is murder, and as a society we "regulate", ie ban (I hate using that term regulate) murder. Now if you were to argue that Republicans hate regulations except what one does in their bedroom, that would have been a perfectly valid point. I believe we've traded alot of our privacy freedoms for temporary security. I believe we've lost some other freedoms as well. We've lost a property freedoms as the Government has boosted it's eminent domain laws. By and large I agree with Packsaddle, I'd still prefer living in today's society over 1939.

I agree with your entire post, but I'll point out that some people don't believe a fetus to be living. So they don't see abortion as murder.

I don't understand your questions?

In memory of those who make the ultimate sacrifice.

Excellent! This should be a huge head turner at National. However, they still aren't accepting homosexuality. The doctrine is called "hate the sin, not the sinner." The Catholic church has a similiar position.

I dunno if it's a trend in society, but certainly is in this forum. (edited for a grammatical error)(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

I agree, if you have a Venture Crew, it's to provide adventure opportunities that the regular troop program can't provide, why would you operate them with the Troop as well? Yours in Scouting, Sentinel947

Calico, I think you are assuming that all Christians are fundamentalists and literalists. Many denominations celebrate widely different interpretations of the scripture. Some denominations, such as Mormons or Catholics also have extensive oral and clerical traditions that accompany the Bible. I'm sure I'm just rehashing things you already knew. I'm a pretty liberal Christian. I tend to apply my beliefs to how I conduct myself, and don't apply that to other people. My religion and homosexuality don't conflict because I'm not using my beliefs as a benchmark for how they should live, only how I should. I don't think that's a very popular positions among American Christians at the current moment.

My my, it's a weird day when Merlyn and I actually agree on something, and it's becoming more and more frequent as of late. It must be all the holiday cheer on this forum.... oh wait. To return to the original topic, I'm happy to see the UK Scouts getting their non-religious youth fully integrated into the program.

The term "Secularist" in this thread has been misappropriated, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularist Arguably with that definition, the Bible teaches us to be Secularists. "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." With all due respect, Sentinel947 (This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

Just because some people in society have misappropriated a term doesn't make it the correct term. A hate group is defined as thus: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), hate groups' "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."[1] The Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) definition of a "hate group" includes those having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group Does the BSA advocate and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards gays and atheists? Is the BSA's primary purpose to promote animosity, hostility, and malice? And the people who generally define a Hate Group are the FBI, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti Defamation League. None of these groups have classified the BSA has a hate group yet.

First off congratulations on wonderful first step with your unit! Remember that recognition is an important part of the program, don't make it too elaborate, but there should be a certain level of ceremony to it. 1) Business Casual, anything they'd wear to church or to any other somewhat formal event. 2) There isn't anything in the by-laws I'm aware of that says a Scout can't wear an empty sash, if he's all pumped up about it, I don't see a reason to put a dampner on it. I think that's the Scouts call. Congratulations again!

Calico, your argument will be valid if and when the BSA becomes classified as a hate group, and if The BSA starts going around beating up gays and rallying against gay rights, sponsoring politicians who are anti gay, and a whole host of activities the KKK got involved in. You can quite easily argue the BSA's policy is immoral, and plenty of people will agree with you. You call the BSA the KKK, and equate it's members to Klansmen, and you've jumped off the bridge of total nonsense.

Another well meaning directive that ignores reality.... I hope this isn't a national requirement.

I dunno, I care about children outside of the BSA. I don't think my "tears" are of the crocodile type. Maybe you know me better than I know myself? Unless you are talking about Skeptic, which I think that isn't accurate either. Perhaps I misunderstood you again, as I normally do. It's so easy to do when I am so young and foolish. Respectfully yours, Sentinel947(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

Looks good. Hopefully the BSA will be next.

ah Meryln I finally got the link to work. Thank you for a very engaging article. Doesn't that logical fault apply to your opinion just as much as it does mine or Skeptics?