Trevorum

I think the uproar about Obama's religion is fundamentally racist. These people would not have a problem with his statements about religion if he looked more like them and if he didn't have a strange middle name.

I'm waiting for Schwartzenegger's Kalifornia.

I agree with OGE. I don't share H4H's theology, but that doesn't stop me from volunteering to help them.

(This message has been edited by Trevorum)

Not all Unitarians have "stopped supporting Scouting". The Unitarian Universalist Scouter's Organization (UUSO) has a Memorandum of Mutual Support with the BSA (www.uuscouters.org/memorandum.htm) and actively promotes a program of UUSO religious awards for Cubs, Boy Scouts, and Venturers (www.uuscouters.org/awards.htm).

Emb021 said, "What was limited was the wearing of Jambo Shoulder patches & troop numbers. These were to be worn 6 months before & after the event. While I don't mind JSP worn longer, I do get sick and tired of people wearing the jambo troop number once the Jamboree is over."

In truth, any council shoulder patch (CSP) that has been legitimately issued by a council may be worn by any member who is currently registered in that council. That includes old versions of standard CSPs as well as CSPs issued for special events and activities, including National and World Jamborees. That means you need never replace your jamboree CSP unless you change councils.

I have to admit that every day I use this drug - an alkaloid, actually - that changes my body chemistry. I find it sharpens my mind, helps me focus and gives me the edge I need. In fact, I'm having a cup right now.

I never cease to be amazed that, while thousands of scout units are hiking around the outback each and every weekend throughout all 50 states, the media gleefully drills in on the one unit that has trouble.

Unbelievable ... four years after I started this thread, my NEIGHBOR's F-150 just exploded in HIS driveway a few days ago! Luckily, no one was hurt.

DON'T DRIVE FORDS!

Beavah, I am so curious: do you ever accidently slip into dialect when writing emails and such in your profession?

Not that I have anything against Latin ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrML6s1wNHk

This thread cracks me up.

I have a friend who is something of a nerd (or is it geek? ... I'm never sure). Anyways, he attends these SF and fantasy conventions. Often in costume, "Live Long and Prosper" stuff. He tells me that his liturgical language is Klingon.

oops, typo(This message has been edited by Trevorum)

and the wikipedia entry!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vineland_Cemetery

FWIW, Merlyn is not a Scouter and so is not obligated to abide by the Scout Oath and Law; to expect him to be courteous is as naive as expecting him to be reverent. Merlyn does not (generally) post in any forum other than "Issues and Politics". This forum is expressly for the purpose of talking about these problematic issues, which are of keen interest to him. If anyone does not want to be exposed to Merlyn's content, or style, or both, then just don't come to this forum.

OGE, I think your moderation has the light touch which is appropriate in this forum. OTOH, I trust you are also sending private messages to persons who occasionally resort to unnecessary rudeness. (I admit to that failing myself, with ol' Rooster.) Even thoough our forums are inclusive to all, blatant rudenesss should be activerly discouraged.

Thanks for the advice! I've already shot a message to my DE.

Thanks ScoutNut. Yeah, I've seen that. It's top-down stuff for "marketing" BSA to new COs. Not that helpful for on-the-ground Scouters. I am more interested in the bottom-up approach. Lessons learned stuff.

In the original thread, RDClements said, "Sometimes Venturing Crews form in order to do a single outing. The crew plans to disband when the outing is over. Sometimes they decide to stay together."

Is this true? If so, I'd like some advice on the nuts and bolts of forming a new crew (hopefully from someone who's done it!)

Our stable has a group of a half-dozen or so young ladies ages 14-16 who take riding lessons from my wife. They all love horses are all great friends. In fact they already act somewhat like a crew, without the organization. Recently, I happened to mention Cavalcade treks and they thought that sounded like crazy fun, being on horseback for a week. What would be involved in getting these young cowgirls lined up for a BSA cavalcade next summer?

OGE, you are asking which is the lesser of two evils.

"In fact, we're in resounding agreement."

I agree. At least, I think I do...

"... religion would be necessary for da survival and transmission of ethical principles within and especially across cultures."

I agree 100%. Thus far. I'd love to revisit this matter in another 1,000 years.

Beav, thanks for your thoughts. You say that ethical mores are "grounded in" (that is, are derived from) religion. I would argue just the opposite. I am certain that religious mores are derived from fundamental humanity. That's why all societies have the Golden Rule (or some variation theron). You see religion as coming first and giving us our humanity. I see our natural humanity as giving rise to religions. So, I am afraid that we'll just have to disagree on this issue without any possibility of resolution.

I will also disagree with you that homosexuality is against -as you call it- Natural Law. Take the prototypical 4 year old. I am pretty certain that a four year old will view any form of sex as shocking (normal activity can be very vigorous and can easily be misinterpreted as violent). This would hold true for sex between a man and a woman as well as between two men. On the other hald, I am pretty sure that the same four year old would accept at face value two adults of any gender holding hands, being affectionate, and expressing their bond of love. Four year olds know that love is a good thing.

JoeBob, your examples do not argue that torture is not wrong, they merely present it as the lesser of two evils. In answer, yes, I probably would condone it in those limited scenarios. That wouldn't make it any less wrong and I would share the guilt.

Eagle92, again your example does not make an argument that torture is not wrong. Bravery in the face of evil is common to all societies.

Wingnut, your example gave me pause until I realized that a mature adult would know that eating green vegetables, while possibly distasteful to some, is nonetheless not inherently evil. He would not need to look for confirmation for this from the pure, unsoiled humanity of a 4 year old. On the other hand, torture is a confusing moral issue for many mature adults, as we can see by these comments. If we look to the 4 year old as a litmus test, the fundamental evil of torture is revealed.

Sheldomsmom, an evil does not need a thorough dictionary entry to be evil. I dont have a definition and I hope I never need one. Can I say that youd know it if it happened to you?

In the original thread, Beavah asks, what proof do we have that torture is morally wrong? That got me to thinking.

When my daughter was about 4 years old, she was invited by her best friend to attend Sunday School with her. My wife and I agreed that it might be a good idea to expose her to other ways of thinking, so we said sure. After the Sunday School was over, the neighbors drove my daughter home and she burst out of the mini-van, hysterically crying. We ran to her, not knowing what to expect. She was nearly incomprehensible but through her tears and blubbering, we made out the words, "... and they were torturing him! They hammered nails into his hands!" She had been traumatized by a telling of the crucifixion story.

We had never told her this bit of Christian lore and she was totally unprepared for the brutality of the story. She was four years old, had never been exposed to the concept of torture and immediately found it horrifying.

In answer to Beavah, I submit that as proof that torture is wrong.

Pack, I know what you mean about talking past each other. This is not the first time I've had this experience with ol' Beavah. I think we secretly agree but just don't want to admit it to each other. I am also starting to think that Beav might be a closet UU, the way he loves to debate (no offense intended there, Beav!)

"Yah, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, eh? But this claim doesn't pass the sniff test. "

I know, it doesn't seem to make intuitive sense, does it? But to evolutionary biologists, it makes a lot of sense. Of course, they're probably all left-wing wackos with a political agenda driving their research, so you don't have to take them seriously if ya don't want to ... It s a fairly complex idea to explain (and especially so to folks who don't understand evolution to begin with) and so I honestly don't expect it to get much traction outside of the field. At least, as Pack notes, not for a few decades ...

(edited poor writing)

(This message has been edited by trevorum)

The longer we have this discussion (actually these discussions on multiple threads over the years ), the more abundantly clear it becomes to me that the only irrefutable objection to homosexuality is based in religion. Some religions (not all as we have seen in some of the above comments) label homosexuality to be a moral transgression - a "sin".

I say "irrefutable" because religious beliefs are immune to scientific evidence. That is to say, science could never yield evidence to convince someone that homosexuality is NOT a sin. Scientific research can (and in my belief probably will in the coming decades) yield evidence that homosexuality 1) is biologically based, 2) occurs for reasons that have nothing to do with "character", and even 3) is an adaptive trait that served to increase group fitness among evolving hominids (see my comment above). However, scientific research can never change what the holy texts say.

For this reason (and for the sake of courtesy), I must accept the fact that some people will always see homosexuality as a sin - a moral failing against God's laws. I know I can't change your mind. However, I (and an increasing number of like-minded Americans) will work to prevent you from discriminating against these people in our commonly shared society solely for religious reasons. That is simply un-American.

Patch collectors will advise to NEVER staple a patch, glue a patch, or tape a patch.