Trevorum

The Onion, Thursday, August 31, 2006 Vatican Against Ethical Stem Cells A new technique of harvesting stem cells without destroying the embryos is coming under fire from the Vatican as unethical. What do you think? "I expect this kind of knee-jerk moral grandstanding from Bush, but the Vatican?" - Blain Gunsrud, Spot Welder "I wish, time and time again, that the Vatican were not composed of the foremost scientists on embryonic research in the world. This makes it very difficult for anyone to argue a case against them, and we are repeatedly left at an impasse." - Ivan Andresen, Music Promoter "It serves those scientists right for trying to slip under the Vatican's ethical radar with these disease-eradicating, life-saving experiments." - Kelly Miller, Stained Glass Artisan http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52279

Flags are symbols. Symbols have hidden meanings and can be loaded with emotion. IMHO, the SM should poor judgement in allowing the flag in the first place. Would he have permitted a swastika by a scout who argued that the swastika was an early Scouting symbol? The SM owes the Camp Comissioner an apology. The Ranger's actions showed even worse judgement. He essentially called an illegal "Code Red" (as did Col. Jessup). The Ranger owes the SM an apology.

At my distance in time from High School, one remembers little, if anything, of teachers and actual classes. But I still clearly remember Mr. Z, my senior year US Government teacher. Mr. Z challenged us to think about our implicit assumptions concerning the way our society is structured and regulates itself. We debated each other on controversial social issues, often taking the side opposite of our personal beliefs. It was then that I formed my opinion that capital punishment is unconstitutional because it is BOTH cruel (ultimately so) and unusual (even more so today: USA, North Korea and Iran). I also came to the surprising opinion that a government had no business regulating personal lives. Especially, the government should keep it's nose out of consensual sex and had no business telling people who they could or could not marry. This startled me at the time because I had never really thought about it before. A classmate tried to back me into a logical corner with the issue of plural marriage. But what business is it of the government really? And exactly what are the objections to plural marriage? Ive never received satisfactory answers to either question.

Hello ranger and welcome to the forums!. Very good question. For our troop, this never used to be an issue (except for summer camps > 200 miles away). Lately, drivers pulling our trailer have been submitting gas reciepts to the troop treasurer for reimbursement. It's a necessary expense for the troop, and we'll fit it into the annual budget.

Interesting thread. Love the twists. I seem to remember reading that psychologists do not consider behaviora laterality to be an either-or condition. There are a dozen different tests to asses laterality, including writing, thowing, catching, kicking, scratching an itch in the middle of ones back, even picking ones nose. Few people are 100% right or left; most people do many things with one hand but other things with the other hand. As a 10 year old kid, I distained GI Joe. He was clearly a doll. A macho soldier-doll, to be sure, but still a doll. However, I loved playing with plastic army-men. That was different somehow. Go figure.

SR540, you have my compassion. I pray that one day, those wiser than I will discover a cure for diabetes. And, I pray that those more powerful than I will allow them the chance

Appearances to the contrary, I actually think we've made progress here in reaching common ground. We have seemed to moved beyond condemning homosexuality on purely religious grounds. I, for one, can accept arguments for or against something based on empiricism. Evidence, conjecture, hypotheses. All good stuff. Eventually we will learn the truth, one way or another, based on medical and scientific research and public opinion will follow. What is problematic are arguments for or against something based on supernaturalism, ie. "my religion says so". Anyone is entitled to believe anything their religion says of course, but it is impossible to have a meaningful debate on those issues. Many people who believe that homosexuality is wrong are firm in their conviction, cemented by by an emotional revulsion. Others, while completely mystified by the phenomenon of same-sex attaction, are willing to listen. Maybe examine their own suppositions. Then there are those who suspect that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that characterizes all human populations at all times and places (I'm in this group). Finally there are homosexuals themselves, sometimes deeply repressed, sometimes vocal, but always destined to be in the minority and at the mercy of society.

Never trust a leftie. They're all sinister ...

heh, heh... YH, you really set yourself up with that one () but, this being a Scouting board, I won't go there.

See what I mean? We start treating one minority group with respect and dignity and pretty soon they'll all want it. I tell ya, I makes me look fondly on Iran where old fashioned religious prejudice is a family value.

LongHaul, Egads, when will it stop? It all started you know when we gave rights to women. No, I take that back, it started when we gave rights to all males regardless of race. No, I take that back, it started when the Irish were recognized as worthy of human dignity. No, I take that back, it started when we decided that "All men are created equal."

YellowHammer, I understand that you do not see the injustice. Do you understand that the people we're talking about DO see injustice in the way they are treated by society? That fact, in and of itself, should give one pause to reflect.

Yes, we've stalled. I suggest we put a halter this bit and find a new tack. I do wish Semper were here - he'd spur us on!

YellowHammer, I'm sorry if my post was misunderstood. I was not equating anything. My point is that religion can be used as a rationale for injustice. Using religious arguments to perpetuate an injustice is, in my opinion, unethical and immoral. Of course, you may feel differently.

Before the Civil War, slavery was defended from the pulpit. It was a strongly held religious belief that people from Africa were ordained by God (the mark of Ham) to be subservient to white people. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm#bib) Our country eventually rejected this religious justification for slavery (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am13) A religious defense of evil is nodefense.

FScouter says, "This method is not efficient. Boys forget, make mistakes, and can be agonizingly slow ..." I'll add, "... and disorganized ..." "The boys learn by doing, and by doing they are moving from dependence on adults to independence. Their personal growth from performing the necessary tasks, however inefficiently they are completed, is part of the aims of Scouting." Very good! I'd like to include this quote in my welcome message to parents of new scouts as a general caveat for what they see at meetings and on campouts. Chaos! Inefficiency! Adults who just sit back and let the boys fumble everything! What kind of troop is this Scoutmaster running??? (He's not! The boys are!)

Speaking of beer ... TOP TEN REASONS WHY BEER IS BETTER THAN RELIGION: 10. No one will try to kill you for not drinking their brand of Beer. 9. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex. 8. Beer has never caused a major war. 7. You get to choose your own brand of Beer, after you become an adult. 6. When you have a Beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away. 5. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake for his brand of Beer. 4. You don't have to wait 2000 years for a second Beer. 3. There are laws saying Beer labels can't lie to you. 2. You can prove you have a Beer. 1. If you've devoted your life to Beer, there are groups to help you stop.

Oh, no. not puns... god help us if Semper sees this thread ...

Good advice, all. The nature and details of ECoH are at the discretion of the Eagle and his family. Period. As SSS alluded, the Court can be as elaborate or as simple as the family wants. Any appropriately meaningful ceremonies or speeches may be included. I suppose all that is minimally necessary is an authorized BSA representative to present the award with his/her congratulations. The rest of it is just icing. This thread caught my eye as my son has his EBoR in two weeks and we are starting to toss around ideas for his ECoH. He definitely wants it outdoors. With a Bar-B-Q. Y'all.

SA - I plan on collecting huge installments of that SM pension at each Eagle CoH I attend for the next 4 or 5 years. Guess I'll spend it on my grandkids, if and when the time comes ...!

heh, heh ... not worried, OGE. We wouldn't get that far. We'd bog down in the arguments about whether burning the question mark into living grass is environmentally acceptable, and whether a question mark really conveys the message, and whether our purposes wouldn't be better served by direct confrontation and debate. Ultimately, we'd disperse and continue the discussion over a few beers.

OK, since we're telling jokes on religions, I'll tell one on my own... Q: How come there are no Unitarian Universalists in Heaven? A: Because on the way to the Pearly Gates there are two signs, pointing in different directions. One sign says, "This way to Heaven", and the other says, "This way to discussions about Heaven." ...

(apologies to my friends in advance!) pack, that reminds me of the old pagan joke (I should let DanKroh tell this one): "Discussing religion with a Baptist is Hell". {rim shot}

Im never certain how I should be classified, but Id like to take issue with your typology; it has absolutely no scientific merit. I'll have to have a beer and debate this endlessly with my friends. (oops, I guess that makes me a Unitarian Universalist... )

Hello Tom. Welcome to the forums! I might have one of those - I'll have to check. I'm looking for 2005 JSPs from Rio Grande, Bay Area (Texas) and Concho Valley.