TheScout

Trevorum, It is true, the BSA does have the DRP. But how obviously they do not place all faiths on the same level Such is why certain can get religious emblems approved and others do not. DanKroh, I did not call Wicca devil worshippers. If you took that from my remarks, accept my apology. I was merely comparing it to other beliefs that I would presume the BSA would consider less than desirable. To play devil's advocate . . . pardon any pun. For those who are seeming to suggest we take religious tolerance. to the extreme, are there any religous emblems you think the BSA should not approve? Wicca? Satanism? Followers of a hypothetical revived Aztec human sacrafice faith? Devil Worshipers? (I am sure there are some out there) Or what about the People's Temple? (the movement Rev. Jim Jones started which led to the mass suicide/murder by the kool aid in Guyana in the 1970s) I would presume that few of you think the BSA should allow emblems for any of the above or hypothetical groups. Happy Good Friday!

"They get off for Christmas, but not for Yule or Hannukah. Does that sound like a level playing field to you?" So am I correct to believe you think we should make American kids go to school on Christmas? That doesn't seem to be a good idea.

ASM 915, Believe it or not I am a 20 year old student from New York. I just earned my Eagle a couple of years ago. I think must would agree that the BSA HAS to draw a line somewhere on religious emblems. Or should we allow any "religious" organization to have a BSA emblem. Should the BSA accept Devil Worshipers? What about someone who trys to bring back the Aztec religion and professes a need for human sacrafice? What if I decide to create a religion convinved of the divinity of my pet hamster? I would love to see the headline in the paper. 'Local Scout Presented with Eagle Scout Badge and Devil Worshiping Award" That would look real good for the BSA, wouldn't it. The point is a line MUST be drawn somewhere and I hope that everyone can recognize that. Either that or the BSA becomes a mockery. We may disagree where that line should be drawn. On whether Wicca awards should be included or not. But I think we would all agree that under no circumstances should the Aztec human sacrafice religion be accepted.

There must be a line drawn somewhere. It is easy to say every faith is right and equal, but they are not. In one of his greatest lines, President Bush told the scouts at the 2005 National Jamboree: "Always remember where you come from and what you believe. At times, you may come across people who say that moral truth is relative, or call a religious faith a comforting allusion. They may question the values you learn in scouting. But remember, lives of purpose are constructed on the conviction there is right and there is wrong, and we can know the difference" It is always hard to say where to draw the line. Especially in this society where nobody likes to tell anybody else they are wrong. But one thing I will tell you for sure is the witches or Wiccan or whatever you wish to call them do not belong in scouting. One of the things that makes scouting special to me is that it has stuck to its principles over the past decades when so many organizations have folded their hand to the cause of moral relativism.

Or a Judeo-Christian one.

Packsaddle, it is a shame that you seem to take so much joy ridiculing Christianity. The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. [July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress " Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -John Carrol, signer of the Declaration of Independence [source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.] It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. -Patrick Henry [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses] "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" -George Washington [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge] I won't go on.

It would be a lot easier and probably more consistent with the heritage of our country if the BSA only recognized Judeo-Christian Emblems and COs.

Several years back our troop attended Haliburton which is just couple of hours north of Toronto. Not a far drive from Western New York. Beautiful camp. Huge lakes. All the sites and program areas are around the lake. Ours was actually on an island. They give each troop canoes for the week to travel around. It's patrol cooking and they offer program areas. The advancements do not transfer back. But you can go to the areas and just have fun and take lessons. We had troop leaders registered as merit badge counselors. Must of the guys knocked of swiming and canoeing. We also did our own First Year program. All the boys had a blast.

"Is exactly why I am anti Bush. Send Americans out to die as long as that does not include his daughters." If this is the only reason why you are anti-Bush this seems quite foolish. I am pretty sure that Bush doesn't control whether his daughters decide you should enlist or not, just any person does not decide for his/her childeren. It is unfortunate that you seem to despise politics. This is how decisions are made in a democratic society. I think we would be hard pressed to point to many conflicts waged by democratic societies that were not affected by politics in one way or another.

The safety of our troops should not be our top priority. Accomplishment of the mission is always first. It is an unfortunate fact that sometimes American soldiers die doing their job. "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, it is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson

ASM416, How did Schoellkopf turn out in 2006?

Wasn't trying to rain oun anybody's parade. I spent a few great years working camp staff and was a Nature Director as well. A great experience, I learned a lot and will forever be thankful for the opportunity. But everyone who works at a scout camp quickly sees through the budget problems every year. It was a joke on our staff of what the management would do to save money. We didn't blame them, we all knew the predicament, but it was still funny. I'm sure your son will see soon enough, or at least another camp staff member will let him know why the Camp Director "hired" a 14 year old who probabably couldn't legally work there anyway depending on your state's laws. (It's happened where I used to work and the 14 year olds are technically "campers" when the state health inspection team visits) Regardless I am sure he will have fun and learn a great deal. I'm sure everyone who has worked on staff will agree.

Probably not as much of a compliment as the fact that they probable do not have enough applicants and are straining the budget so they found someone who will work for free.

I believe you need a NCS certified Shooting Sports Director to train for Archery and BB.

"I have a suspicion that another reason people shy away from us is because of me" If this is what you really think then it might be time to step down as Scoutmaster. Silly to have a Scoutmaster who harms recruiting. I am sure another one can be found and trained and you could take on another role.

I started this thread out of wonder what, if the BSA let you choose, would be your ideal Board of Review. This is just speculation since the BSA has rules on such things. But it seems that there are many different thoughts and views of how they should be conducted. My ideal Board of Review would be as follows. I would allow older scouts of the troop, as approved by the Scoutmaster. I would also allow them to retest. This would go a long way to making sure scouts have the knowledge and skills they are supposed to have before they advance. We all know some scouts advance without knowing what they should. I must confess the troop I participated in as a youth operated BOR's in this fashion despite its contradictions with BSA policy. The troop I am in now does it by the regulations. However I must admit that I admire the way the Boards were conducted as a youth. The older scouts did an admirable job of taking their responsibilities seriously and I think they were able to counsel younger scouts in such a way to make the Board of Review process more meaningful than just talking to adults. Just my two cents. If you got to design the Boards of Review how would you do it?

Instead of a question mark, why don't you just mark those scouts who are not active as inactive?

To play devil's advocate . . . is hitchhiking always bad? If one is in a stranded in a survival situation I am sure there are some circumstances where it would be appropriate.

I guess it depends if the Commissioner wants a true flag ceremony or some theatrical patriotic show.

I suspect that if the flag is indeed authentic the owner who donated it did not realize what they had.

But of course it is up to the Scouts themselves to support their program. Scouting isn't free. Scouts need to pay their way somehow if its selling popcorn, delivering papers, etc.

Packsaddle, I must admit I have not read Edgar's book. South Carolina seemed to be doing quite fine until Mr. Lincoln decided to invade it, pillage, and destroy its intitutions to cement our union with the blood of its citizens instead of relying on mutual affections. Hunt, I agree it is interesting. The United States would not be the world power it is today, but the citizens and the States would definatly have more freedom. Over the years ambitious politicians have chosen power of freedom. I as well see the EU evolving as the United States did. Both started as mainly a free trade area and continued to trend towards more centralization in every aspect of life. I think this explains the current British hostility to the EU. They joined it in 1973 to be part of a trade bloc and did not intend to give up their national sovereignty. It will be interesting to see how the EU will evolve in the years to come. It seems that confederations/federations are always fated to become increasing centralized despite any constitutional documents. Gern, And that list could be by no means exhaustive. It seems a rather libertarian list as it focuses mostly on how rights are not explicity granted. Strict Constructionists could probably point to all federal involvement in health, education, the enviornment, agriculture, science, student aid, transportation saftey, as all things that are probably unconstitutional as well and should properly fall under the domain of the States.

Granted, but it is a shame. When our founders wrote the federal constitution they had a dream that has since been subverted by ambitous men. They had a dream that our people did not have to have every aspect of their lives governed by an elite in a far off capital. A dream that only great questions of national concern would be debated by the federal government so States and localities could design their own solutions to problems based on local needs, values, and traditions. This dream is evident when reading the Constitution as it is written. If we were true to this we would not have many of the problems we have today. No Child Left behind wound't be an issue because each State could decide its education policy if it seemed fit. The appointment of federal judgeships wouldn't be controversial as judges would not have to decide on abortion cases. We wouldn't be debating changing the minimum wage. Each state could do that based on its own needs. It is a shame that our federalism is a joke now and the States are now mere administrative units of the federal government, and shackled so they can not meet the needs of their citizens.

"So....the TVA is not consitutional? Other similar entities? The Federal Reserve? The abandonment of the gold standard wasn't constitutional? Since Nixon we are no longer trading with legal money?" Well for the TVA I see no authorization for the federal government to run a series of power plants to compete with private industry. For the Fed, I also missed Congress's ability to create an organization to regulate all banking in the United States. I'm pretty sure the document doesn't even mention banks. Abolishing the gold standard was ok. There is no requirement that the US be one it. We didn't follow it unitl around 1900.

No where is the Supreme Court granted the authority to strike down federal or state laws, let alone have the final say over constitutionality. The argument that the Supreme Court alone is reponsible for the interpretation of the Constitution does not fit historical reality. Back in the day, Kentucky and Virginia used their authority as signatories to the Constitution to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts void as did South Carolina with several federal tariffs. Jackson asserted the Supreme Court was in error when he unilaterlly continued Indian Removal in defiance of it. It is clear that every officer of the United States takes an equal oath to defend the Constitution.