sherminator505

I think that a Scoutmaster who gets dropped off by his second or third wife, or the girlfriend he left his last wife for, sends an equally powerful message, particularly in a unit that is chartered by a Christian church of some sort. Jesus spoke specifically on that point. If we are to be an exclusive organization, then perhaps we should be a bit more consistent in our exclusions. I wonder how many leaders we'd lose if we actually walked the talk...

"By discriminating against them on the basis of their religion, moron." WHAT RELIGION???!!!

I can't argue with that, although I do have to wonder why an athiest would want to join an organization whose beliefs run counter to his/her own. Can you enlighten me on that point?

Um... OK. Over 3300 posts in these forums got us to the point that you have... a lack of interest in Scouting. That wasn't quite what I expected.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Sorry, Merlyn. We cross-posted. Same question...

What, Ed? Are you saying that my previous rant didn't make any sense? But seriously, Merlyn. If the BSA were to suddenly say that athiests were now allowed, but the Scout Oath and Law would not be changed, would you join? Why or why not?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I don't know how to swim... I have never known how to swim.... I have never seen a reason to swim... ... SO LET ME BE ON YOUR SWIM TEAM RIGHT NOW!!!(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I agree with NJCubScouter's assessment that I'd rather talk about Scouting. I do, however, feel that if we are going to talk about the 800 lb. gorilla, we should be discussing the whole gorilla, not just one aspect of the gorilla...(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"It is not in the best interest of anyone to say because a group develops some disease in a disproportionate rate that they should be somehow censured. We should not confuse the two issues." OK, I'll bite. What WOULD be a good reason to censure a group in a secular democracy?

Thanks, Beav. Sometimes a different perspective helps, particularly if the perspective you're used to leaves you a bit jaded. Still, it does point to a perception problem, at the very least, and a definite opportunity for improvement all around.

JoeBob, What is so un-Scoutlike about what I said? I have simply called it as I see it. If either my description of the relationship between the LDS Church and the BSA or my pointing out that bacchus' description of my positions was totally inaccurate has somehow offended you, and I'm not sure why it should have, is it now incumbent upon me to apologize for the offense you have taken upon yourself? Seriously, if you are going to toss around phrases like "terrorism" or "careless with fire," are you willing to back them up with an explanation, or are incendiary phrases all you have to

"Summary of our two positions: I say they have a consensus on the board that they will maintain their standards against immorality. You say it is one small group that is keeping them from becoming enlightened - a group you and your kind have been harassing for almost 200 years." I never said that there was any "small group" keeping anyone from being enlightened. I am saying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been cowtowed to by the Boy Scouts of America for a number of years, and this has culminated in the policy and program changes that I have previously highlighted

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying that the BSA has cowtowed to the LDS Church for a very long time. They allowed Blazers. They lowered the nubber of Scouts required to recharter a troop from 8 to 5, apparently just for them. They don't seem to insist that the LDS Church run the same Scouting program as the rest of us. At times, it really seems that the LDS Church already runs its own program for boys, and use our uniforms as a convenience! As for membership policies, it is becoming increasingly clear that the BSA is on the wrong side of history. As it was with blacks and women

"So many of you talk like there is one guy over at National walking around threatening people. In reality, I think if you were to ask all the people at National who have a say (a vote), you will find they all agree and there is no arm-twisting." I'm not sure how to respond to this. Are you talking specifically about the LDS Church's stance on homosexuals and membership, or are you talking about their remarkable ability to dictate terms about how they run Scouting in their units while simultaneously holding themselves out there as the straw that stirs the Scouting drink? Knowing that would

My chief problem with the LDS Church is not their attitude toward something so narrow as their position on membership. I come from an area where the LDS church is a sizeable percentage of the community at large, not to mention the Scouting community. This is what I have observed: 1) They tend not to participate at Camporees very much. When they do show up, they bring along a HUGE equipment trailer. They tend to keep to themselves through most of the festivities, and aren't exactly the poster children for "A Scout is friendly." 2) They have a whole week of summer camp reserved just fo

OK... did anybody happen to bring some chocolate cream pie?

"As for me, American by birth, Southern by the Grace of God!" Great, Brent. Great. This speaks for itself. But what does it have to do with the LDS Church's undue influence on Scouting?

I find the tone in how some of the posters on this thread describe LDS Scouts and Scouters a bit harsh. Granted they can be a bit stand-offish at times. They do sometimes walk around with a self-superior attitude about how they somehow do Scouting better than the rest of us. And yes, they do tend to wag the Scouting tail on a regular basis even though they have ironically shown an unwavering ability to do things their own way when it suits them. Still, they are Scouts and Scouters and worthy of respectful treatment, whether they choose to reciprocate or not.

shortridge: You misunderstood my question. If those big 'ol arrows are really necessary, I agree that handmade ones are much better than store-bought.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Why?

There is nothing wrong with avoiding DO cooking if you haven't figured out how.

If smoking is VERBOTEN in a Scouting context, as some on this thread seem to think it should be, then why the pocket?

"Will the "Arrow of Light Scouts" be getting their own necker?" Having observed how BSA supply works, I'm guessing that they'll get their own necker AND their own hat AND their own belt buckle. If they're going to split up the two years like that, why not simply reintroduce the Lion badge and let THEM have their own necker AND cap AND belt buckle?!

Older Boy Scout Handbooks showed many uses for the neckerchief. They were even more versatile when they had four corners, but I digress...

I'm sure BSA Supply will roll out something perfectly dreadful real soon (to match the new Venturing shirts).