BS-87

Here's how to handle a Scout who is guilty any or many of the listed transgressions. Is he legitimately remorseful? Has he changed his life as a result of the transgression which put him contrary to the Scout spirit? Has he actively worked to help others avoid making the same mistakes, or discontinue their unScoutlike behavior; especially those who he participated in the problem behavior with? If he hasn't made a marked effort to get back on a track of living the Scout Oath and Law, it's not unreasonable to deny his Eagle Rank. The only thing the new membership policy does is state t

He's probably a pretty smart kid. He'll be able to tell pretty quickly that his Duty to God does not include turning away from people who need his leadership. He should know that the best way to show that his faith makes him strong is to be the best example of an Eagle Scout that he can be. He can see the inclusion of homosexual Scouts as something that undermines his explicit example of morality, or as something that makes his great implicit example of faith and leadership as more necessary. There is a need for Scouts that set great examples. and I can already guarantee that no Scout that mak

It's safe to say that the resolution should pass today, and I hope it does. Here is why: - It reflects current practice in a majority of Scouting Units. I have observed, in my decades of Scouting, that good Scouting leaders put their Scouts first in every case. This includes homosexual youth. A good Scoutmaster or Crew Adviser will make it a priority to ensure a homosexual Scout understands not to let it become an open distraction, and suppresses the culture that can lead to bullying of a homosexual youth, instead fostering a more mature acceptance, aid, and understanding. This is very si

Boys behave differently in the presence of girls as a matter of fact. This is simply because girls are different, and even Cub Scouts realize it. They think different, act different, and learn different. A method of Scouting is Uniforming. While any boy of any background can conform to the mores and norms of a group of boys, it is a rare girl that's able to do so. While I agree it can still be fun with girls, and in often cases more fun with the girls present, something is lost in the learning and development sphere when the boys are behaving in a way that conforms to a standard of m

I think the constituency that matters most in this case is the kids. The Scouters that don't agree something must be done, when you consider that the boys are comfortable having gay role models and friends, are kinda missing the boat here. While there is rightfully concern about gay leaders and scouts, the fact that the boys are heavily in favor of welcoming them to Scouting should mandate that we figure out how to make it happen in a way that makes sure everybody remains safe and respected physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

What can be expected? From a dumb/ambitious DE: He'll come out and do it. From a dumb/lazy DE: He'll tell you he's busy. From a good DE: He'll ask who your Membership Chair is in the Pack so he can work with them on how to build a team in your Pack to focus on recruiting. The rule being that it's better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish.

I'd tread carefully with this one. The SE is definitely the person that needs to know the goal is malarkey. If it's a cruel SE, he'll chew out your DE. If it's a smart SE, he'll pass your suggestion to the Council Membership Chair, and that Council Membership Chair will make sure you're asked to participate or lead a goal planning session. The problem is that the goals don't reflect capabilities for the team in a way that is sort of at the "just-beyond-the-fingertips" range. Convincing the SE that talking capabilities first is probably the smarter way to start a conversatio

Oh man... I agree with Calico... on all those points... The Issues forum has just been turned upside down...

I have never, in my adult life, been so confused as to how I feel about something. On one hand, we are at an inflection point in our organization which may spell a return to greatness or a downward spiral into irrelevance. On the other hand, I feel our National Organization is letting smaller organizations that partner with it take the abuse and ridicule associated with the policy of discrimination instead of helping them defend themselves. In any case, the right thing to do is going to lead to a lot of heartbreak. For those who agree that this is the right thing to do, we no

1. Complete and on going Background check, paid for by the firearm owner, thinking every other year. A tax or fee imposed by the government above and beyond that which would be applied to any other consumer product infringes upon the individual's ability to own a firearm and is not constitutional. 2. Mental health evaluations on going, paid for by the firearm owner, every other year. As with number one, this places a significant barrier to gun ownership that is not constitutional. 3. No gun ownership for families with historys of mental illness. Based on how prevalent

This is a tricky subject in general. The traditional conservative approach to this subject is largely credited with allowing the Great Depression to happen, and made the people beg for federal activism and intrusion into the private sector economy. Granted, the crisis was made possible by the availability of credit thanks to the institution of a central bank, which was a very progressive idea itself that conservatives balked at. The system of credit made possible by the progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th century did help usher in an age of the middle class, but also

Here's a couple of wild ideas - first, decriminalize most drugs - in fact, legalize them and tax them like alcohol - us banning drugs hasn't stopped people from wanting or using drugs (that should be an argument the pro-gun folks should be able to get behind), but it has contributed a great deal to the violence levels in this country. Second, stop publicizing mass shootings - is occurs to me that, given how many mass shooters take their own lives at the scene, that they are just wanting to go out in a "blaze of glory" - well, if we stop publicizing them so much, we eliminate the possibility of

Wow! One would think a city of 24,000 would have 3 or 4 Scout Troops!

No patrol activities without adults? I don't know. I trust the boys to be excellent on their own, but all it would take is a single instance of something bad happening and in today's world of information and litigation a boy could be face effects of a mistake he made, which may not have happened under supervision, for the rest of his life. Blue cards only? Unnecessary change and bureaucratic. Journey to Excellence? I think it's great to have REAL and annually adapting standards of measure against ares of success for the Unit. Setting your own goals is just fluff and self-flagel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358460086 So you can see what kind of conspiracy has come out of this.

Saying it didn't happen is completely insane. Questioning the official story on how it all went down isn't necessarily so crazy. Stories like this evolve over the course of the day as more information becomes available. In the days after, some other details are confirmed and join the official story. This is where the official story stops evolving to include new information, or omits some subjects that came up that day as a result of some good information getting tossed out that was incompatible with later stories despite still having good information that just wasn't relevant to the

"Ahh, so the issue is that violent video games are causing mental health problems, is that it? I've only seen one study trying to showing a correlation between violent video games and mental health issues, specifically addiction and depression, and there are concerns about the methodology used to come to it's conclusions, and it didn't try to make a link between gaming and violence." That's rather asinine isn't it? Coming to a conclusion about the subject that ignores the topics discussed by previous posters in order to insinuate that discussion of the topic is silly sure showed us.

Until the NRA and gun owners understand that guns are part of the real problem and that guns have got to be part of the discussion, then we aren't going to really get anywhere. It's certainly an attractive scent to follow, isn't it? What is sufficient gun control? Would Adam Lanza's mother still have been able to get guns under your idea of sufficient gun control? If so, does that mean the only solution is no legal gun ownership? What other means of murder are available to people? Maybe they'll start driving trucks through parades instead of targeting schools and theaters with a gun

People who want to act out will do so in the most efficient means at their disposal. This is why the issue of the attacks does not die when you take away guns, making gun control a red herring when considering acts of mass violence. It's sure an attractive scent to track, but it doesn't lead to a solution. I think violent culture and overmedication are some big picture issues to confront that lead to a more reasonable solution. Leaving the vulnerable and innocent unprotected through gun free zones is similar to the gun control issue in that it changes the efficiency of the attacks,

I think Gun Control in general is a red herring in the issue of these mass shootings. When you look at the problem, it's that mentally ill people are making a decision to acquire the most efficient killing tool they can find and cause as much pain as they possibly can. You can look at limiting their access to these tools, but you'll be forever chasing the next most efficient killing tool, hence why I feel Gun Control as an issue in this matter is a red herring. I'm more inclined to look at other factors that these shooters have in common, and that's mental illness. The way tha

First, ad hominem regarding my use of fictional works to justify feeling of malaise towards statism. Second, a straw man equating patriotism and citizenship to being a willing slave of the state. Third, a straw man using the nebulous NWO to make my concern with the power of governments seem ridiculous. For shame Beavah. For shame. Saul Alinsky would be proud though. You're pretty good at trying to shut people down that don't agree with you. The shame is in using logical fallacies to do so.

Thanks Calooh The point I was making isn't that Huxley's advocating a cradle to grave state. Neither did 1984. They actually both address statism as the issue, because the leaders have this notion that everyone is happy in their utopia. What they don't realize is that once people are free to learn what they're missing out on, they will never be satisfied by the "utopia". A good, real world example of a nation trying to be a utopia is North Korea.

I'm looking at the world that a tyrant dreams of creating of of their own hubris and (very Platonic in philosophy) desire to do "good". If there's something I don't need a refresher on, it's the Republic. There's plenty there to aspire to. Even Ronald Reagan seems to hearken back to "the cave" in saying, It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they believe so many things that aren't so. What I think, though, is that Plato takes a little too much license in the Republic to create politics out of philosophy, which at its greatest in Platonic works end in aporia.

Perfectly engineered utopia would be a system in which, from cradle to grave, the human knows no want as the "system" provides everything the human would ever need. I suspect it would look a lot like Aldous Huxley's vision of utopia more than Wells'. "Noble Lie" is a reference to Plato's Republic, in which the system of government and power is sold to the masses as necessary because of the innate predispositions and capabilities of the common folk and the philosopher kings. Tyranny is stopped by revolution, not by social forces. In the cases of a POTUS with his finger on the trigger