TheScout

And this comes from the man who apparently despises Catholicism, by far the largest Christian denomination and standing alone would be one of largest religions in the world. Are you saying we should not have fought the Indians. Should our people have just stayed in Europe and left the New World to them? Our country wouldn't exist. I'm originally from New York and there the Iroquois frankly butchered Americans, terrorizing our settlements, in the words of the Declaration of Independence itself they were "merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions" As Andrew Jackson said, What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages, to our extensive Republic, studded with towns and prosperous farms . . . and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion. I prefer the republic to the savages.

"It's that first sentence that's the problem. You're merely asserting its truth." I really don't have the time to recount the history of Western civilization here. But I did cite a couple quality books on how Christianity has contributed to it. "And since relative morality is wrong, it is still OK for, say, the US to decide to conquer a country and subjugate the races that live there? Or what are you saying?" If the United States wished to militarily intervene to bring light and stability to a land of darkness I would not think that is morally wrong. I would oppose it for other reasons, I am an old school Paleoconservative.

"But it undercuts your basic claim. If Christianity is so responsible for western civilization, how could non-Christian nations successfully adopt it? You're assuming your conclusion." Christianity contributed to the political, economic, and cultural accomplishments of Europe. The Asiatics then borrowed the results of this European success. The great European empires brought much good to much of the world. They brought teachers, built railroads and telegraphs, fought disease, brought modern agriculture, showed the world the rule of law and the concept of civil rights, and in many cases left democracies in their wake. I would argue that Disraeli and his counterparts brought much light to dark areas of the world. So are you saying that our Western Culture is not superior?

I think it would be very fair to say Christianity is a very important part of Western civilization. It has had tremendous influence over the centuries. Though states like China and Japan have not adopted Christianity, they adopted the Christian influenced Western civilization. What I said . . . You might want to try Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, or Eric Jones' The European Miracle, or Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. They all point to the important Christian influence on Western civilization. You don't have to warp your God-hating to change history. As far as I know Japan and other places have the same proportion of right-handed people, but this did contribute to saving them from the impact of forced Westernization by the Europeans. I do recall what Disraeli was talking about - and then he led the British Empire to achieve its greatest days, subjugating many other races. Moral relativism is a great error. As the current day British politician Robert Kilroy-Silk once said, "all cultures are not equal - they are not. There are some that are reprehensible are not entitled to respect and we should say so." I am unashamed to say that our culture is superior.

Baden, I think the vast majority of people count Catholics as Christians. I am one. I certainly consider myself Christian. The chief statement of our belief is the Nicene Creed as most other Christians. I am unsure what you mean when you say the Popes statements are considred dogma. There are very specific cases when the Pope speaks in an infallible context. Nonetheless assuming there were a billion Catholics and a billion other Christians, they would be 2nd and 3rd in terms of numbers behind Islam. Merlyn, Maybe there is a supremacy of sorts. Nobody can deny the predominence of Western Christian civilization in our world. All successfull states have adopted the Western model. Look at China or Japan. Recall, Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th Century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said, "difference implies superiority."

"In the same sense that America is a white nation, sure. But I highly suspect the motives of people who say either." I don't know what this means.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions

Sir before you admonish others to keep their references accurate, check your own. Your ranking of religions is very inaccurate. Christianity is a clear first. There are about 2 billion Christians in total, about a third of the world's population. Islam is a sold second, followed by Hinduism. And Buddism is not even close, not even 400 million. Far behind Christianity.

Benjamin Franklin was 82 at the Constitutional Convention. He had much influence there even at his age. The Queen of the United Kingdom is 82 and still performs her job admirably. Pope Benedict XVI is 81. I think both of them are currently quality heads of state. I only hope our next President can do the job with as much competence and dignity as them. I don't know why we need a "current forward thinker." In another thread we just discussed how talented older scouters without children can still effectively engage todays youth. I don't know what the "new world" of the 21st Century is. I thought this was the same world. I like it the way it is. Its been pretty good for the United States.

It is natural for political leaders in a democratic system which is based on winning votes to form organizations to assist this. If one group does this, the other is forced to match. This might be considered Mr. Madison and the other framers greatest error. They hopefully ignored the fact that political parties were already forming in some of the states as well as the United Kingdom, and thought it they would not exist in the US.

I would say America is a Christian nation because throughout the whole of its history the vast majority of its population have been Christian. Judeo-Christian public celebrations have been an important part of the tradition of our republic since its birth. As to consitutinal law. The Constitution as originally interpretted allowed states to maintain established religions. Connecticut for one did this until 1818. After the 1780 Massachusetts required everyone to belong to a churh and pay a tax to support it until 1833. Until 1877 members of the New Hampshire state legislature had to be Protestant. Until 1835 North Carolina had the same rule, allowing only Protestants to hold public office. Catholics were allowed to hold office as well until 1876 when only atheists were barred. I think we all know the Pilgrims and Puritans of New England certainly did not believe in religious freedom. They actively persecuted other beliefs in the early years of settlement. So I don't know how far we can go to say America was founded on religious freedom.

The white guy thing has worked pretty well so far. We have built the greatest country in the history of the world in 230 years. Maybe a coincidence, maybe not.

Or just make good speeches so they are not boring. Why give a boring speech?

I went to the Ecology Director Section in 2005. We did some concurrent training with the Outdoor Skills people. I thought it was a great experience. I had a lot of fun, met a lot of great people, and all the staff were top notch. The Ecology, and from what I know of the Outdoor Skills section, is not hard at all and the course should be no worries. Good to see your council is squared away enough to have picked a director for 2009 already.

Twisted way? I don't understand. The real question is, which America? The United States is much different than it was in 1910.

Reminds me of one of my famous quotes, from Ian Smith, Prime Minister of Rhodesia, a short lived south African country from 1965-1979. It is easy, when you live ten thousand kilometres away, to prescribe solutions, knowing that if the whole thing blows up and goes sour, you do not have to live with the results. The finest guarantee that the rest of the world can have, that we are completely dedicated to producing the best solution for all of our people, whatever their race, colour, or creed, is that we, and our children after us, will have to go on living with the result.

We could throw money at the problem!

We live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet. Nearly every household has a color TV, a phone, safe running water, 24/7 electricity, at least one car, the list can go on and on! Heck, I can't even think of the last time we had a famine here. Can't be said for much of the world.

There seems to be a great deal of pessimism about the state of our urban areas and the capabilities of our youth! I guess we shouldn't help subsidize scout units in such areas. The money would probably be embezzled, any equipment actually got would be destroyed, the kids should be fearful to walk to the meeting places, and if they make it they should be scared of the leaders.

Couldn't it apply to either?

I don't know. Several years back I made really good money delivering papers when I was 11. My parents made me pay for all my gear when I started scouting. A few weeks of delivering papers took care of that. I made about $70 a week, plus had savings. As an 11 year old I had little to do with my money. I delivered about 60 papers a day, took about 15 minutes. Not too bad. Currently, that paper is having a mighty hard time finding kids to deliver the papers. There used to be a time when there were waiting lists. Besides that: Run Errands Cut Grass Shovel Snow Babysit Rake Leaves Walk Dogs And I'm sure others can think of different ways kids can make money. There is always a way if one is willing to put forth the effort. But I suppose it is much more fun to play Xbox or surf the internet instead of actully doing a little work! We all know the dedication an effort it takes to make a successful scouting movement. If people (scouts, parents, CO's) in a community are not willing to make the effort, there is not point of "subsidizing" scouting there.

True. But aren't scouts in such economically depressed areas probably the most in need of the work ethic and any such economic life lessons that can be gained from fundraising. After all, they will face a harder lot in life than kids from a relatively affluent suburb. The cycle of economic depression and reliance on handouts must be broken some way some how.

I don't know about districts providing equipment and camping subsidies to troops in less well off areas. What ever happened to scouts paying their own way? Every boy can learn how to fundraise. This can help build a work ethic which would surely help them later in life.

A well stated critique of the folly of moral relativism. What is right is always right and never changes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7560034.stm And by 2042 the minorities will be a majority in the US according to new Census Bureau predictions.