Trevorum

Personally, I'm partial to firs. Pines are too poky

Ed actually poses a very good question. Popular definitions of who is an atheist are all over the map. 1. Some people say an atheist is anyone who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God named Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah. That definition is pretty restrictive (but may be current with some evangelicals): Hindus, Native Americans, and Wiccans would be atheist. 2. Some people say an atheist is anyone who does not believe in a supreme power or supreme being. This seems to be Ed's take and seems to be implied in the DRP. That would mean that Buddhists and many UUs are atheist. 3. Some people say an atheist is anyone who affirms the non-existence of a controlling god or gods. Note this is subtly different than #2. (Saying "I don't believe in god" is different than saying "No god exists") 4. Some people say that an atheist includes those who simply aren't sure about the existence of a god or gods. This would include agnostics and (may?) be Merlyn's usage and would seem to be indicated by the BSA legal website (but not the DRP). (And, as Merlyn astutely points out, BSA is remarkably murky when it comes to defining exactly what they mean by a concept that is so vitally important to membership criteria. For a long while, many in BSA assumed definition #1. Then we realized we couldn't/shouldn't kick out all those fine Buddhists and Hindus. Oops, but that let the door open for those pesky UUs and pagans. And now we have to deal with this slippery slope of uncertain Agnostics. What to do, What to do...?)

Brent, tsk,tsk! Surely you know that stuff's not science. That is merely journalism, and yellow journalism at that. All scientists have emotions (it goes with being human) and sometimes mud is thrown. But the scientific method itself is without emotion, without mud. Science advances our knowledge awkwardly, in fits and starts. Sometime in the wrong direction. But it is a self correcting system, by definition.

Our troop had a Scout precisely like this fellow. Very high IQ, always questioning. Clearly smarter than most (maybe all) of the adults. Drove us crazy. In our council, all advancement issues up to and including Life rank are handled solely by the unit. District and Council decline to get involved. If your situation had happened in our unit, I suspect that the candidate would have be given the benefit of the doubt for Life rank. Many teen-agers feel adrift and your scout may be on a spiritual search that is not yet resolved one way or another. I would also counsel him that his Eagle BoR will have a representative from District or Council who might not be so understanding of the finer distinctions of his philosophy. Dan's advice is good: counsel the boy to investigate Buddhism, UU, or Pantheism. God is too big to fit inside one religion. Our Scout? He's now an Eagle. I suspect he may still be agnostic, but he learned how to talk about the numinous without being confrontational. His spiritual journey is just starting.

This issue just came up at the crew meeting last night. Two new suggestions look forward to the holiday season: 1) cut and bag mistletoe; and 2) collect and bag pecans. Sell either door to door or at tables outside of Blockbuster, etc. Free, naturally occuring resource + volunteer labor = pure profit!

Is Christianity (or any faith) a "choice"? Ahhh - that gets to the core of what we mean by "culture". From an etic (outsiders) perspective, culture is indeed a choice. One does not have a genetic predisposition to be either Turkish or Greek. Culture is all learned behavior and we can choose to wear either a fez or a fustanella. However, from an emic (insiders) perspective, one does not have a choice because you were born into one or the other culture and once the die is cast you can not change. A Turk can not choose to become Greek. So I can fully understand if a Christian (or a person of any other religion) said they were born that way and had no choice in the matter. Personally, I realized that I had a choice whether or not to remain Christian, but others may not see it that way.

"Do you not think we are safer today because of the Bush Doctrine and the war on terror?" I wasn't asked, but I'll give my opinion. No. I think the world is a far more dangerous place today because of the Bush administration's foriegn policy. Bush's actions have whipped anti-American sentiment to fever pitch world-wide and have created breeding grounds for future terrorists. And The National Intelligence Estimate agrees.

Point taken. You're right.

Vicki, I respectfully disagree. In our council at least, we have been informed that up to the point of Life rank, all advancement issues are handled by the troop. Period. No second guessing by district, council or National. If the blue card is signed, then the MB was earned. If the BoR signed, then the rank was earned. Period. Only at the point of Eagle candidacy do district, council and National become involved.

Interesting thread. I go camping over the weekend with the troop and miss out on all the sparks! Anyway, I'd like to reply (again) to the erroneous notion that homosexuality can not have a genetic basis because gays do not reproduce. This is wrong on several counts. First, homosexual people DO reproduce and in far greater numbers than most people realize. This is what the "closet" was all about. Faced with a choce between a lifetime of disapproval and a loveless marraige, many homosexuals chose (and continue to choose) to marry and reproduce, deeply repressed. Traditionally, women did not even have a choice in this matter. They were forced into marraige, regardless of their feelings. Second, there is a developing theory among evolutionary biologists that homosexuality among hominids may actually have increased group fitness by providing extra food-getters for the band without increasing the number of mouths that must be fed. Far from being eliminated from the population, such a "gene" would be selected for: the "unmarried" uncle (with two alleles) would provide food for his heterozygous brother and, importantly, his neices and nephews each of whom had a high chance of inheriting the key allele from their heterozygous parent. I've simplified things here, but this theory seems to be powerfully explanatory and, if supported by further research, could help us understand the origins of human homosexuality.

That's abolutely right. The leadership position for Eagle candidates MUST be from the specified list. No SM latitude there.

Then, how do you interpret: "...(or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop)"? My understanding of the language is as follows. In every single troop nationwide, there are certain leadership positions which will always and automatically meet the leadership requirements for advancement. These include Patrol Leader, etc. At the discretion of the Scoutmaster, certain other leadership responsibilities may also meet the leadership requirements for advancement. These will vary from troop to troop and from SM to SM and so are not listed. As an example of this (I've mentioned this previously in another thread), I created for our troop the leadership position of Service Coordinator. This fellow's job was to research service opportunities available (church clean-up day, SPCA booth at county fair, etc), regularly report these to the troop, and also lead the whole troop in at least one of these.

What are your top ten uniform mistakes? (I'd have to nominate wearing the shirt with blue jeans as #1)

OGE, Not necessarily. Certain specified positions automatically qualify in any troop (PL, ASPL, etc). However, my understanding of the rule is that the SM has wide latitude in identifying leadership opportunities to match a particular boy with the needs of the troop.

Well then, that's fine for your troop! In other units, the SM may well decide that having patrol QMs is in the best interest of the troop. We don't do this, but if we did I could envision this scenario: 1) SM decides whether or not patrol QM meets his standard of leadership and service. 2) SM informs SPL. 3) SPL notifies PLs. 4) Interested Scout asks PL if patrol QM position is open, and if yes, 5) interested Scout talks to SM to get approval of proposed position for purposes of rank advancement. 6) Scout performs duties. 7) SM holds conference with scout to review performance, and if appropriate, 8) SM approves performance for rank advancement

The US military has a lot of traditions and protocols. That's fine, but those traditions and protocols should not be imported wholesale into BSA. We're separate from the military. We're different. We salute the same flag, but not necessarily in the same way. Active duty personnel may cringe at BSA traditions and ceremonies; I cringe at camo-wearing adults leading boys in U-rah cheers.

I don't know about the others, but I've never been a member of the Uniform Police. That said, my understanding is that the patches are for troop positions.

FS, your reading is correct but your conclusion is wrong (IMO). The bottom line here is that the SM may assign any "leadership project to help the troop" that he cares to. If this is a Patrol QM position, so be it.

The SM can identify any specific leadership responsibility as fulfilling this requirement. If the SM says that the job Patrol Scribe or Patrol QM meet his level of expectation for leadership and responsibility, then that's all that is needed. On the other hand, I believe that the patches are for troop positions.

Our crew hosts a dinner and dance every year on the Saurday before Valentines day. Romantic music, elegant settings, and gourmet cuisine all provided by the crew. Lots of fun and always turns a profit.

I am curious about how many COs have a religious litmus test for membership in their chartered BSA unit? Other than LDS units - which tend to be exclusively LDS - does anyone know of any units that are 100% of one particular faith? (I don't know of any.)

In my experience, people at the unit level are generally very welcoming of all families regardless of faith. I've also found that the Scouters and professionals at the National level to be very accepting of all faiths. It's the Scouters in the middle - at district and council levels - who can be less than tolerant of religious diversity. Curious.

John, Religious belief is far more diverse that most Americans realize (or want to acknowledge). There are quite literally hundreds of faith systems that are not on the rather parochial PRAY list. Just because there isn't an award doesn't mean that a faith is "outside the BSA tent" While Kudu is correct about the monotheistic bias inherent in the wording of the DRP, I can't imagine very many people being atually turned away from registering because their faith is polytheistic (like Hinduism), or pantheistic (like some UU), kathenotheistic (like LDS), or non-theistic (like Buddhism). Would your unit turn away a family who belonged to the Native American Church? (I hope not!) While it's a big tent and can fit lots of diverse Scouts, those of us who are inside don't do a very good job of welcoming folks from minority faiths. As Kudu points out, the wording of the DRP is a major impediment. And, the folks inside the tent sometimes make it appear to be an exclusive Judeo Christain club, when it is not.

Happy birthday, John.

Hello pshurate and welcome to the forums! The White House will send congratulation letters for Eagle Scouts but I have never heard that they do this for AoL awards. (They also send letters upon request for special birthdays and anniversaries.) It's worth a try though!