Sentinel947

If my troop ever starts to try to avoid the YPT, I'll leave. I'm not going to get caught up in an organization that is refusing to follow the rules, and could possibly get all the other adult leaders in huge trouble. Not worth it.

Tough question. Surely if it's been signed off once, he's done the material, but shouldn't he be able to demonstrate it now?

Haha. Perhaps Pack, perhaps. What I meant was even at my college, and earlier in High School, that kind of gay bashing culture is quite prevalent here. Maybe it's not where you live. I dunno.

Yours in Scouting,

Sentinel947

Packsaddle: By and large my generation (I'm 19) generally tolerates homosexuals. Very few of us "fear" them. However, not all of us accept homosexual activity. I can support the homosexual person, but I cannot support homosexual acts. I guess my viewpoints mean I can be hated by the Leftys for not loving homosexuality and hated by the right wingers for not doing my moral duty to oppose homosexuality. I believe Jesus would treat homosexuals like he treated the lepers in his day.

My generation is not as tolerant of homosexuals as you might expect. Guys joking around frequently throw around the terms "Gay", "homosexual" and "Faggot" as a slur. I can't even begin to count the number of times a kid in High school failed a homework assignment or test and went: "WOW! That was really gay!"

Dislike of homosexuals has simply gone from outright persecution to ignoring them or avoiding them. Refusing to include them.

Maybe I just live in a bigoted community in Cincinnati, or maybe, Ohio being the bellweather of the nation, it accurately reflects national sentiment.

Who knows? Certainly not me.

With all due respect,

Sentinel947

All scientific laws started as a theory until proven.

Perhaps I am mistaken. I have never claimed to not make mistakes from time to time. Einstein was believer in the Spinoza theory of God. It is a truely interesting theory.

I'd like to point out that religion does quite more than "happy feelings". While religion certainly provides mental comfort that science cannot, (Anybody read Darwins "On the Origin of Species" when their spouse passed away?) it also provides some tangible benefits, including strengthing community ties, providing a safe place for youth, and provides significant material benefits to the poor and sick. Furthermore, not all religious people are literalists.

Also BSA24, you assert your opinions as facts. Saying "consciousness of life is precious." That is YOUR opinion, and if people disagree with you, they are just as correct as you are.

Your assumption that the United States will fall into the Dark Ages like Iran is entirely baffling to me. Iran is making great strides in Science and technology, as evidenced by the fact they are about to acquire nuclear weaponry. Their religious beliefs do not seem to be blocking their technological quest. While Iran is in the Dark Ages in terms of personal freedom, in science and tech, they are far from the ignorant backwards religious fanatics you want them to be. If people in our government believe the view you articulated, we are going to be in serious trouble in the future.

To whom it may concern:

Religious extremism is dangerous. All extremism is dangerous. That is why it is EXTREME. Religion and Science are not the diametrically opposed forces that people in this thread make them out to be. Allow me to name some great scientists who were also men of great faith.

Galileo Galilei

Rene Descartes

Isaac Newton

Gregor Mendel

Max Planck

Albert Einstein

Food for thought perhaps?

Respectfully,

Sentinel947

Mr. Boyce, thank you for saying everything that needed to be said.

My council (Dan Beard Council) seems to be doing quite well. But the Greater Cincinnati/ Northern Kentucky area has always been strong in Scouting. The Council to our South, the Blue Grass Council, is struggling mightly, and leaders I've talked to from BGC continue to tell horror stories.

Overall it depends on the area. I think Scouting as a general trend is becoming more suburbanized. Parents are only sticking around for the time their kids are in the program, and to be honest, that's what can reasonably be expected for most parents. The 10-20-30 year Scoutmaster is a rare, endangered breed indeed.

Reagardless, I think it is incredibly unfair to deny people benefits they were promised and their taxes were collected for. Even though I personally dislike the idea of Social Security and do not expect it to be around when I retire. (I'm 19).

packsaddle, so what about all the elderly who already paid into the system. Are you sanctioning government controlled stealing? That is what it'd be if you don't repay those who already have paid into Social Security and don't get repaid for all the money they paid in.

So Packsaddle, are you or are you not proposing to get rid of Social Security? That is essentially what you are describing in my mind. The young be forced to support the elderly.

I think BSA24 that VERY few Scouters in this thread or this forum agree with the BSA's policy, more many of us disagree with the policy, but recognize the BSA's right to form such a policy, and we don't let the policy change our service to the youth in our community.

Lisabob's post kinda summarizes my thoughts on the issue.

I think what people forget in this whole BSA vs Homosexual controversy is that the children have nothing to do with it. It's not far to attack or hate on teenage boys over a policy they have no control in shaping.

CC: I would assume they are decent people, and would be concerned about teachers having sex with students, or coaches, teachers, priests and Scoutmasters abusing their power over children. Just because they don't believe as you do on the Homosexual rights doesn't make them intrinsically evil.

Yours in Scouting,

Sentinel947

"We have no need to multiply anymore, so we know longer need couples having 9 or 10 children apiece."

In the Western world we do not. In places like India, where the family still means something, parents expect their children to take care of them when they get old. Therefore, in Indian families it's highly beneficial to have lots of kids. It spreads the cost of taking care of mom and pop when they get old.

In the west obviously ,with our average of 2.5 kids. I hardly consider having 2-3 kids to be over doing it. In Europe birth rates are at the lowest in the past century. Birth rates are dropping across the Western World, and are expanding in the Middle East and India.

Part of the reason for the Arab spring has been the explosion of population in Middle Eastern Nations. These jobless, frustrated youth have taken to the streets to get better conditions. And unlike in the past, Middle Eastern Governments tax coffers can't bribe off all the people who are frustrated, jobless and homeless.

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society" Oliver Wendall Holmes.

Why are we quoting random famous thinkers again? =)

I read the whole article, well written, well done. I don't have much to add. I never saw this blog before now.

Keep up the good work,

Sentinel947

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Twocub, can I borrow that Scoutmasters minute?

"As for Skeptic's Scouts, I suppose you can ask them if:

1. They think the boy is doing all of that by himself?

2. They think he is having any fun?

3. They think he is learning anything or having any sort of experience akin to theirs?

4. There's more to earning Eagle than just getting a patch faster than anyone else?

You could have quite an discussion about honesty, integrity, loyalty, working as a good member of a patrol and troop, really learning about something as opposed to pencil whipping, etc."

I have nothing extra to add. Just wanted to support Nikes statement.

Yea.. I meant to say "to kill things only when necessary. LOL I'll edit that immediately. Thanks for the heads up pack.

Edit: Can anybody not edit their posts on page 11?(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

I appear to have misused the term "Empirical." and that my friend would be where the hang up lies.

As a matter of principle, I got hung up intially on what I perceived to be a claim that all American does is fight over Oil, and I found the notion to be insulting and inaccurate.

That was not your argument, and due to my misuse of "Empirical" I misinterpreted your argument.

Clearly you are correct in saying the United States has fought a war over oil. That is proved by your example of the Gulf War.

My apologies for the mistake,

Sentinel947

What is your position again?

While I wait for that answer, I will say this father is doing his son no favors in life, and making an arse of himself.

Moose: With respect to values, I don't see killing babies as question of values any more than I see me going out in the street and shooting someone to be a question of values. Killing is killing, and killing is wrong. You seem to think I am forcing my beliefs on people. That thought is erronous. As I stated, I support Roe v Wade. Not because I like abortion, but Democracy is about compromise, and it is a fair one. My religious beliefs determine how I live my life, and nobody else but me. However, I do believe a great crime is being committed in this country, and will not hesitate to speak out about it. Notice I didn't advocate for a ban on it, but I certainly believe it's wrong, and my opinion on that matter is closed. No amount of fancy wordplay is going to get us to see eye to eye on the abortion issue. I'm glad we've we can agree to disagree. I vote in a huge Republican leaning district, so my ability to vote for a non Republican is practically null.

I'm inclined to like Romney, but a large amount of his party scares me, and I don't trust his wealthy benefactors.

I'm inclined to like Obama, he seems to be far more human, relatable, and concerned for the middle class. His war on religious freedom, his war to force Catholic institutions to violate their deeply held beliefs doesn't make me very happy, but that might be because I am Catholic. I believe my religion is something private, and I don't expect people to conform or follow my beliefs. I wouldn't want government to force others to do so. But I don't believe government should force Religious institutions to violate their beliefs.

His foreign policy seems to be a more tempered version of George W Bush, and as an in training US Army Officer , I feel Obama puts more value on my life than Romney would.

Gary Johnson is a libertarian, and while I love most of his social stances, I'm not a huge fan of the everyone for themselves breed of economics Libertarians advocate.

I will probably vote for Obama, and I hope the Republican party realizes it needs to return to the center, or it will consistently lose Independents like myself who could be inclined to vote Republican. Being a Moderate Conservative, I'd like to vote for a Moderate Conservative, and the current Republican Party doesn't allow for that.

As for why I haven't become a Democrat, it's an interesting thing. Everytime I feel like I could be ready to openly become one, a left wing nut like Dennis Kuchinich, Barbara Boxer, or Harry Reid reminds me why I don't wish to be affliated with that party.

Beavah, I'm glad to see their are still a few other moderate Conservatives running amok. Perhaps one day we can take back the Republican party. Till then, Independent I shall be.(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

Packsaddle, I must correct you. I am NOT a Republican. I refuse to associate myself with either party.

I view Abortion as wrong. I believe the best way to fix the abortion problem is to fix the issues that cause women to get them. IE, Poverty, Young age. Abstinance based education is a start, but it's unrealistic to expect that all people, especially teenagers to do so. In this, I prefer birth control to abortions. I think blocking the creation of babies is better than what I showed above. However I refuse to call it choice. Killing innocent babies should never be considered a "choice" in my mind. What gives the mother the right to kill a child simply because it's not born yet? A mother cannot kill her baby when after he/she is born without legal penalty? Whats the deal?

As for my "Scary Pictures." I'll be blunt. The modern media loves to sugar coat it, and call them "fetus". Hopefully by not calling them babies, it will take the nastiness and evil out of killing a child. That's utter nonsense. They are babies, whether inside or outside the mother. Calling them fetus's is to just make oneself feel better about their death.

I think that it is common sense that a mother in danger of death or permanent disability be allowed to receive an abortion. It certainly isn't fair to the mother to die for the baby, and then likely have the baby die as well.

Again Packsaddle, I'm an Independent. I have various leanings in both parties directions. I happen to be a man of religion, but I don't allow that to generally play with the way I expect government to operate. My dislike of abortion is based on moral principles. That we should avoid killing things only when necessary. Whether that be babies, prisoners, or foreigners on a far away battlefield. Human life is so weak, and so precious, and should be protected at all costs. That shouldn't be a religious position, but a common sense one.

I tend to agree with Roe vs Wade, not because I like abortions, because I clearly don't, but because it's a compromise. A good one, it leaves everyone angry, because it doesn't cave in to either sides most radical desires.

Packsaddle, I'm glad we can have such a great, respectful conversation on such a heated topic, and I look forward to your reply.