tortdog

>On the other hand, if I'm a member of a religion that doesn't use the 10 Commandments and I'm being tried in a court room that prominently displays them, I might wonder if I'm being tried based on the concepts of a religion, rather than on the rule of law. They've probably got a point.

I don't think that's a substantive reason for the ACLU argument. A person could wonder all he wants, but unless the government is doing the alleged conduct than that "wonder" is merely a theoretical argument.

If the judge pulls out the Bible and pronounces judgment based on Exodus 12:1, then we have an issue. But if the judges does so based on Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 162.001, then I don't care how many bibles are stacked out in front, we know where the law came from.

>Anyway, I can't accept an argument that the ACLU is trying to remove "God" from America. I've never seen that in any of their court cases.

And honestly, I fail to understand how you don't see it.

>You're right that the majority of people who said that they voted based on faith based issues voted against Gay Marriage and choice. But, here's my problem with legislating those views into law. Gay Marriage is opposed by many conservative religious groups and many mainstream ones as well. But not all. If you pass a law outlawing gay marriage, aren't you prohibiting some people from exercising their religious rights? If, say, the Catholics prohibit gay marriage, they can easily say that gays cannot partake of the sacrament of matrimony. Why can't that be enough? Why do they have to force their beliefs on everyone else by trying to get laws passed? Is it fair, do you think, that if you had a "Grey religion" and a "Yellow religion" that the Grey religion should be trying to pass laws that force the Yellow religion to live by the beliefs of the Greys?

Let's run with this. Let's say Religion X requires human sacrifice. Are you okay with that free exercise of religion?

>but George the Son, well, those opinions are better left unsaid

Don't MESS with Texas...

Seriously, I had some questions with George W. Bush, but as I have watched him in these last six years I have nothing but pride. I don't agree with everything he does, but I have to admire that he is a true leader who does what HE thinks is right. In my view, that is what a President should do (as opposed to following the latest poll).

First, Dug, I simply cannot comprehend why one would view judging as wrong. I see a God who requires us to judge our fellowman.

You bring to the fore the issue of homosexuality. My own belief is that homosexuality in itself is not a sin. The sin is when a person acts on such homosexual feelings.

If it is wrong to judge someone for acting on his homosexual feelings, then why would the God of Abraham and Moses command that judges be set apart for the purpose of passing judgment on those who broke God's law? Why would that same God command that those judges pass judgment to execute those who engaged in homosexual activities?

Further, even in our own day our founding fathers had passed legislation that required the execution of those engaged in homosexual activities. In today's world, that sounds harsh but when viewed in the context of historical laws it was closer to the norm than we are today.

Now, you say that a person's homosexuality does not harm any other person. I disagree. First, from my view homosexual activities are a perversion. They serve no purpose other than self-gratification. That being the case, if society begins to accept homosexual activities, it brings down society. It says to our children that homosexual activity is okay (even normal). That is direct harm to our children, just as a society accepting pornography as normal harms our children. I see that harm as very real, and something to be prevented.

I enjoyed your post, Eagledad - thought provoking and insightful.

Dug. I hope I'm not putting you on the defensive by asking that question. I'm asking/answering all this more as theory, rather than any form of an attack on a belief. I just wanted to make that clear.

>i understand that he is either Perfect or we have free will.

Sure, I hear you on this, but I simply disagree.

>Moreover, i can ask the question why would someone want to worship a god that discriminates?

I have no problem worshiping a god that discriminates. I would have a problem with a god who exercises unrighteous dominion and discriminates in an unjust manner.

To discriminate is to make distinctions between classes or features. One who is color blind cannot discriminate between red and green, while others can. One who is wise can discriminate between foolishness and wisdom. I believe in a perfect god who can discriminate between good and evil. I fail to see why someone would worship a god who could NOT discriminate.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

>If you believe in predestination, or in a deterministic universe, you believe that one's choices are totally determined by inherent attributes present from your birth (and before).

I completely disagree with any form of predestination. I think that our environment shapes who we are (partially), along with some inherent characteristics.

>Personally, I can't make this idea consistent with any definition of "free will" that makes sense.

Agreed. Where you and I part ways is the ability of a divine being to see present, past and future as though it were all present.

>But while BSA and the strip club down the street both have the right to decide who gets in the door etc., they don't have the right to get preferential treatment from government.

I disagree. When is the last time you saw a BSA troop zoned out of a location in the neighborhood? We, as society, make rules all the time giving certain groups preferential treatment based on what those groups are doing. Strip clubs get to set up shop next to the city dump. Boy Scout troops can set up shop next to the school (or the city dump if it really wants it).

All these rules sound pretty complicated. I've done training for Venturing and Varsity, and we've never trained the organizations on setting up bylaws.

>The Troop Committee, Scoutmaster, King, Queen, President, Pope or the ACLU can't change the rules.

Well, the ACLU might be able to...

I see why you do not believe it logical but solely within the constraint of a chronological ordering of time. But that is where you and I disagree.

I believe that all things are PRESENT before God: past, present and future. As an example, a man in a canyon river does not know what is around the bend - the future. A man on the cliff overlooking the canyon can look down and see that man's future in one view. The ability of the man on the cliff to see the future of the man in the canyon does not rob him of his freedom. It merely is a different viewpoint.

God's mercy is that he allows each of us to paddle that canyon, to see our own future as we reach it, and to prove to ourselves what we can become. God does not create us as a broken vessel. He creates us, each having different attributes, and then we use our free agency to determine who we will become.

My view is solely that God knows the decisions that we will make and where we will end up. In his mercy, he generally does not reveal that to us (though he has before to his prophets at times and places).

Unless God had this knowledge, he could not make prophecies concerning man. That is my viewpoint.

>The most authoritative sources are the written BSA publications and the national BSA website

Well, the national BSA web site directs you to ask your local council if you have questions (which is what I did). Unfortunately, SHAC did not answer the question as some would have wanted it to.

Meanwhile, the BSA published Guidebook says you don't need Scout socks or a Scout belt for a Varsity activity uniform. So obviously the Guidebook isn't complete. (Shew...even the Bible is not complete so I can cut the BSA some slack for having left something out, or is someone arguing that the BSA publications are more perfect than the Bible?)

The term came up as I was in an instructor class and this instructor of instructors mentioned that another instructor was a not nice person when it came to certain items, imposing her view of rules to the point of absurdity.

Made the class laugh.

Were a BSA Council to follow Bob White's interpretations of the Varsity Guidebook, the Varsity teams would either (i) run the Varsity program but never be in uniform except for courts of honor or (ii) be in uniform but not run the Varsity program. Maybe that's why the BSA said ask your councils if you have questions. The councils can bring reality to the picture. In SHAC, Varsity teams meet the uniform requirements (to the shagrin of some in the BSA outside SHAC) while also participating in the full Varsity Scout program.

That's a good thing.

BTW...the Guidebook does not prohibit an activity uniform consisting of a pink fuzzy belt coupled with the Scout shorts. But, that's just me reading the Guidebook without any common sense sprinkled on top.(This message has been edited by tortdog) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Just between you and me, has anyone besides me claimed you were a uniform Cop? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

I said that the Guidebooks lays out that Varsity Scout leaders should always wear the uniform (whether field or activity). I based this on the statement in the Guidebook that Varsity Scout leaders "should set a good example by wearing the complete uniform themselves". We also have an exception for activities where the uniform is not a plausible feature.

Here is how I interpret the rules. We wear the uniform as much as we can. If the interpretation is such that the Varsity team would rarely wear the uniform, then the interpretation is off. Your interpretation of the rules would make it rare for a Varsity team to ever be in uniform.

Frankly, I think you are dead wrong and you have yet to acknowledge that the Guidelines do not require a Scout belt or Scout socks for a complete uniform.

I came here looking for advice from someone who might be familiar with the Varsity Scout uniform requirments. Later that day, SHAC responded directly to my question with an answer that made sense and allows the Varstiy scouts to be in uniform almost all the time.

You don't like SHAC's answer, even though the BSA site says that SHAC is authoritative (along with the other councils). You've even thrown in a few punches here and there, but that's okay. In short, I think you come across as the official BSA Uniform Nazi (learned that term at a recent BSA/Red Cross training program last weekend), and you take it to such an extreme that you counter the opinion of the Sam Houston Area Council and logic, such that Varsity scouts would rarely be in uniform when running the Varsity program, but you are fine with that.

But...other than that I think you are right on point. I'm just happy that I live in a council with sensible interpretation of what the Varsity Scout uniform consists of, such that I can look to my Varsity Scouts in pride as they display their uniform at every Varsity Scout activity that they participate in. So...I'm happy.

What bylaws?

What about a merit badge for counter internet attacks or data forensics?

Dug. Why would you worship an imperfect being - a being that shares your flaws?

I don't comprehend the logic of either of you two. Just because a teacher knows Sam will fail the calculus exam does not make the exam meaningless. Sam still has to get the grade and go through the test. Once Sam takes the test (and fails), he knows the judgment is fair. If Sam never takes the test, he has to rely solely on the judgment of the teacher. That's not just (though it may be right). Sam must prove himself through his own acts. The teacher's knowledge of Sam's abilities does not rob Sam of his abilities (or lack thereof).

I think the Constitution was written solely to prevent Congress from passing legislation institution an official religion on the People, similar to the Church of England. That would also include legislation that prevented the people from worshipping as they please (within societal boundaries).

I said "Under the Guidelines, the activity uniform consists of two things: (i) Team T-shirt and (ii) Scout shorts/pants. The Guidelines do not require Scout socks or a Scout belt."

You quoted me by leaving out my reference to the activity uniform. The portion of the Guidelines that requires Scout socks and a Scout belt is only the field uniform, i.e., NOT the activity uniform described above.

>The uniform goes from shoulder to shoes.

Incorrect. The uniform includes an optional hat. The uniform does NOT include shoes.

>How often you get to wear it is irrelevant.

I disagree. The Guidelines say that the Varsity Scout leaders (youth and adults) should wear the uniform always.

>How well you wear it is what matters.

Disagree. What's the point in being in uniform only three times a year at a court of honor if the Varsity program makes regular uniform usage impossible?

>No one says you have to be in uniform to do your activities.

Disagree. The Guidelines say leaders should wear it.

>You do not have the authority to alter the uniform as established by the BSA.

Correct. I never asserted that I did. However, the BSA's web site states that the councils are to be contacted for questions regarding scouting, and the Sam Houston Area Council has answered that the Varsity Scout activity uniform may include athletic shorts and white socks.

Why does your interpretation of the Guidelines trump a council's interpretation?

As I stated, the Guidelines do NOT require a Scout belt or Scout socks for the activity uniform. In your opinion, is a Varsity Scout in uniform while wearing a team T-shirt, Scout shorts, a pink fuzzy belt and yellow polka-dot socks.(This message has been edited by tortdog)(This message has been edited by tortdog)

I do not see the conflict of perfect knowledge versus free choice because we still need to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of the final reward. I view this life as a test. Though God knows how I will do on the test (much as a high school teacher knows how a student will do on an exam), I still have to take the test and get my grade. That way, I've done the test myself and I know that the grade I receive is fair.

Though God could have told us before He sent us to Earth that we would fail and not receive the greatest reward, I do not believe we would have been satisfied (picturing a bunch of God's children moaning that they didn't get such and such because "he said so"). By sending us to Earth, we prove ourselves and at judgment day we stand before a perfect and loving Heavenly Father who will ask how we have done, and we will not be able to deny our mistakes (or our good works). We then will have to acknowledge that God's judgment is just.

Just my view.

>Besides, the Bible clearly teaches that God doesn't even know what He's going to do in the future, because he occasionally changes His mind. (If he knew he was going to change his mind, he wouldn't really be changing it, right?)

I'd disagree with that, and would suggest that in instances where one could argue the Bible states God changed his mind (i.e., where God says he repents), it is mistranslated/misconstrued from the meaning God intended.

And, no, I don't believe we have a perfect translation of God's word, since I believe that even prophets of God can misinterpret God's words, and that further misinterpretation can occur when those prophets either write down God's word or tell another to write it down.

For example, the Gospels were written long after Christ had died, yet we have word for word accounts of Christ's words. I would not fall off my chair if Christ one day appeared and told us that the writers missed a word or two.

It's in the penumbra somewhere. The founders were going to write it down and actually vote on it, but they didn't have the time in 1787.

>The BSA does not say be in a uniform all the time.

It says we should wear field uniform to team meetings, and for almost every team meeting I have been in that would be absurd.

>If you are playing soccer do not read the Varsity leader handbook to learn how to dress, read a soccer handbook.

I disagree (as does SHAC). You should be in uniform just as much as a high school varsity team is in uniform. We enforce the Varsity team uniform on our boys at all Varsity activities, with an activity uniform consisting of a Varsity team shirt, and matching athletic shorts with white socks. That is the uniform. We don't give our youth the option to dress any way they please just because it's an activity, anymore than the high school football team allows its players to show up to a game out of uniform.

As SHAC has made clear, the Varsity team can make its activity uniform to include shorts and socks appropriate for the Varsity team activities.

>Wear the uniforms of the BSA when appropriate to do so as a Scout. Otherwise dress in appropriate apparel.

But as a Varsity team, you would rarely ever have the chance to wear the uniform (under your definition).

Answer this. Under the Guidelines, the activity uniform consists of two things: (i) Team T-shirt and (ii) Scout shorts/pants. The Guidelines do not require Scout socks or a Scout belt.

In your view, is a Varsity scout in uniform when he wears his team T-shirt, Scout shorts but no belt?

Is a Varsity scout in uniform when he wears his team T-shirt, Scout shrots and a pink furry belt?

Those are simple questions that no doubt deserve a simple answer.

I'd be against an LDS district. I like the mix of the entire community.

>I would personally prefer that we not be selecting judges who have preconceived notions about particular legal issues. To take a "hot" example, abortion is currently legal. I'd rather not have a judge being appointed who is a known abortion foe who says that he/she would use his position to support that view, because I think it's unlikely that an abortion case coming before that judge would get a fair hearing. I'd rather just have a judge who will interpret current law, and turn it back to Congress to make legislative changes, where necessary.

Why would you want a jurist on the Supreme Court who has not formed an intelligent opinion on a hot subject? Such a person only qualifies as an OJ jurist, but not the Supreme Court. If a person has an ounce of intellectual curiosity and knowledge of U.S. society, he will have an opinion on the matters.

The question is whether that man can set aside his views and listen to the law and make a choice based on that law. It is where a jurist is willing to rule on a position that he may disagree with, but that the law requires. I have no doubt that jurists on both sides of the aisle are capable of doing that.

>The filibuster should be rarely used; Committee chairs shouldn't be blocking candidates from getting a hearing.

I agree, mostly, but for any requirement that imposes a requirement more stringent than the Constitution requires an amendment.

>You don't think the Republicans are selecting judicial candidates who support their ideology, and just looking for the best minds?

Both.

>Do you think that they'd support, say, a brilliant jurist who happened to be, say, pro-environment? or pro-choice?

Absolutely not. That's where consent comes in. The Republicans, to their credit, let an ACLU lawyer get to the Supreme Court. They didn't filibuster her; They had a vote.

>The Dems picked these 10 nominees to go the wall against. I suspect it's politically motivated.

Ya think?

>Bush decided to re-nominate these 10, knowing what would happen. I suspect it's politically motivated as well.

Well, his nominations have been refused their constitutional right to an up and down vote.

Period. BTW, I would not put it past the Republicans to filibuster a judicial nominee in the future if the filibuster rule is left unchanged. However, to their credit the Republicans never tried.

Thanks for the discussion.

We will have to agree to disagree that knowledge of the future robs man of his choice.

Okay...here we go from pages 149 and 150 of the Varsity Scout Guidebook.

*A Varsity Scout is not required to have a uniform in order to be a member of a team.

Okay...we know this. So a scout doesn't HAVE to wear a uniform to be a member.

*Varsity Scout team leaders should set a good example by wearing the complete uniform themselves and by encouraging each Scout to acquire and weare a uniform.

Okay. So all team leaders SHOULD wear a uniform as that sets a good example.

*Varsity Scouts and Varsity Scout Leaders proudly wear the full uniform for all ceremonial activities, including Varsity Scout team meetings, boards of review, and courts of honor.

Okay...so this doesn't say should or must, but says that we "wear" them. Optional at courts of honor and team meetings?

*During physically active events and informal activities, Varsity Scouts may wear activity uniforms of the team's choosing - Scout pants or shorts with a knit Varsity Scout shirt, team T-shirt, or camp T-shirt. Varsity Scouts teams may want to design a team T-shirt...

Okay...so at active events we can wear the activity uniform, and that includes Scout pants/shorts and a team T-shirt (but no BSA socks and no BSA belt). Under the Guidelines, the Varsity Scouts who are proud DO wear the uniform (ableit the activity uniform). Furthermore, the FULL uniform should be worn at team meetings (as opposed to the activity uniform introduced later in the Guidelines).

So, since in a Varsity team most of the team meetings are in a situation when you could not wear the full uniform (let alone the activity uniform consisting of solely the Scout pants/shorts but no belt or socks), most of our meetings will not be in any uniform. Furthermore, under strict reading of the Guidelines a Varsity Scout would be in uniform if he wore his Scout short and team T-shirt along with a red furry belt and pink polka-dot socks (Guidelines require only the T-shirt and Scout shorts.) Meanwhile, a Varsity Scout in a team T-shirt, athletic shorts (matching the other teammates) and white athletic socks would NOT be in uniform.

Additionally, the suggestion that we "should" set an example by wearing a uniform sets a standard that cannot realistically be met in a Varsity team.

Perhaps this is why SHAC has opined that the Varsity uniform includes athletic shorts when appropriate. Seems to me that SHAC's interpretation is more in keeping with the purposes of the BSA. If the Varsity uniform includes athletic shorts, then the Varsity Scouts and Varsity Scout leaders can come in uniform to the Varsity team meetings, and during the Varsity activities. Also, we don't have to worry about red furry belts that meet the uniform requirements.

Interpret the Guidelines otherwise means you will rarely see any Varsity Scouts/Leaders in uniform during regular team meetings.

I think SHAC is correct, having brought clarity to an otherwise ambiguous manual.

(This message has been edited by tortdog)

I will quote the passage once I get the handbook in front of me and the computer at the same time.

What should we do with this renegade SHAC that tells its Varsity leaders that uniform can include a custom T-shirt, athletic shorts and white socks?

Should the BSA allow a program in which the main activities of that program cannot be conducted in the BSA uniform? I mean, under the current rules in the Varsity handbook, the boys will spend most of their time out of uniform.

Regarding the 11-year old LDSers, they still do outdoors. The limit is that they camp only 3 times that first year. Once they hit 12, they are supposed to camp once each month. The LDS Church just thinks that 11-year olds are not yet ready for camping each month, and wants the 11-year olds closer to home.

It's a policy decision...not religious doctrine decision BTW, because frankly I don't see a problem with my 11-year old camping.

Now, what do the LDS units do to work within this rule? In our own unit, we drive our boys up to Boy Scout camp each day before breakfast and take them back when it's dark. That way, the get scout camp but we follow the LDS policy.

They still get all the training for outdoors, though. They still meet all the other requirements. They just don't sleep overnight once/month as do our older boys.