BS-87

For a tyrant who has an army fit with muskets, a free man must not expect to remain free while armed with a sling and pebbles. When faced with a tyrant whose army is fit with M-16's, is it unreasonable for a free man to think he should have something on hand a little more capable than grandpa's .22? While Barack Obama may not be the evil that would molest our liberty, he also does not seem to be acknowledging that history shows such evil can exist, has existed, and will exist again. I'm not content to live in a perfectly engineered utopia which submits to the "noble lie". It is not American.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/planned-parenthood-video_n_1552672.html So getting back to absolutes. Does a woman's right to have control over her own body entitle her to abort a fetus for having an undesirable gender. If it's always ok to choose. It's always ok to abort on ANY whim. Baby going to have brown eyes? Better abort. Baby going to be a girl? Better abort. Baby going to have subpar math and reading scores without extensive (and expensive) one-on-one tutoring because of some yet to be determined genetic identification? Better abort. The most disgusting, though, is the choice to abort based on gender. But folks ok with a woman's right to choose are being intellectually inconsistent if they don't think that fetal gynocide is A-OK.

>>You can't stake out an absolute position like this, then attempt to weasel out of it when it gets uncomfortable, AND claim to honest about it. I respect OGE's honesty.

Sorry, thanks for pointing that out Calico as that's not how it was intended to sound. I was meaning to get to the point that decisions surrounding sex have lifelong consequences and rightly so, making all decisions around it weighty. In the case of forceful and as a crime, I meant to say the imprisonment and lifelong registry are a lifelong consequence but erased that before posting because I thought that equated pregnancy to prison. In the case of rape, I feel that's an extreme circumstance that makes it hard for me to think abortion should be completely outlawed. Which is difficult to swallow considering an innocent life ends because of the decisions of someone committing a terrible crime. I guess if there's a justification, it's that the rapist is responsible for the death of the child and I could support an additional punishment on rapists for rapes that result in abortion.

I struggle with this issue. On one hand, I absolutely understand why someone would want to terminate a pregnancy as a matter of choice. Pregnancy and parenthood can be overwhelming burdens for those not prepared for them. However, on the other hand, I believe life begins at conception and that one human's rights to choose how to live their own life do not entitle them to terminate the lives of other humans that are inconvenient. The reason that I feel I justify a pro-life position on the issue is that decisions regarding sex are the most long-lasting. Whether the act is forceful and a crime, or loving and with the intent of procreation, the decision to engage in the act is a decision that stays with a person forever. The weight of the decision has been culturally downplayed, and I feel abortion on-demand helps to degrade the weight of the decision. So I struggle with the actual issue of "Should it be allowed at all," but feel that its use in cases that are anything but the most severe is nothing more than another contribution to cultural rot. I'm aware that the best argument against what I'm trying to say is, "It's just sex." but the fact that some people think that's a valid argument kind of proves my point.

The decision is the CO's to make. The reality is that if you complete the charter with or without said person, the COR will sign it anyway. You have a couple of options: 1. If he pays the Troop for his membership renewal, you can just keep him on because it doesn't hurt anything. 2. Your committee can choose to drop him and IF he notices, you guys can just have him fill out a new app.

Here's how that Board of Review would go: Board: Have you fulfilled all requirements of the Eagle Scout Award? Scout: I did the project and earned all the Merit Badges, but do not feel that a higher power is necessary to a person's moral development. I'm also homosexual and am disclosing that information right at this moment because I know that announcing that I'm homosexual is not acceptable decorum for Scouting. Board: Your position is well-stated, but contrary to our beliefs as a movement and the spirit of this award, and so we must decline to bestow this award upon you. It's really that simple folks. Getting upset on either side makes no sense. This kid is mad about not being able to earn an Award he has gone out of his way to disqualify himself for. Being an atheist and a homosexual didn't disqualify him from receiving the Eagle Award. What disqualified him was the exposition of these qualities. I understand that silence is painful, but a good person is defined by their actions, not by the Awards they earn. This Scout has learned to be "good without God" and now he must learn how to be "meritorious without Eagle" in precisely the same fashion.

Fundraising is serious business. However, anybody that tries to diminish the work of a boy because of a mistake his adult leader has made is NOT ok in my book. Due to the level of anger the SM reached I have trouble believing the SM was completely unprovoked. The parents or leaders at the sale had to have helped trigger him, because a rational person would not poison the well by complaining to the store owner, who nobody in their right mind would expect to know when the Popcorn Sale starts. Nobody with half a brain would do what that SM did without some sort of aggravation beyond the initial response to the situation. My guess as to what happened: Cub Scout: Would you like to support Cub Scouts and buy some popcorn? Scoutmaster: (to parent) You guys know the sale doesn't start until tomorrow, right? That's the Council's rules. Parent: (laughing) Guess we're getting a head start then. Scoutmaster: No you're not! You need to close up! You really can't sell now. Parent: Well we signed up for today here to sell. Let me ask my Popcorn person. This is when the SM who is used to having his knowledge of the rules go unquestioned goes berserk because he is now being put *on hold* essentially. He then makes the poor decision to not wait for the answer by phone and just go inside to explain to the store owner that the sale doesn't start until tomorrow and ask him to come out and tell the Cub Scouts (who he thinks are either incompetent or cheating) to leave.

Is this really a contentious topic? Heck, I can remember as a boy that just about all our patrols worked on merit badges at Troop meetings once they were First Class (patrols by age). It was even better going to PLC and having to tell the SPL what your guys were doing each week for the Merit Badge. If you didn't know, the SPL pretty much knew you hadn't confirmed your counselor yet to be at the Troop meetings for the month to work with your patrol. I can see it being a problem if ASM's are the ones teaching the boys all the badges and do it every month without the boys having to seek out MBC's and get them to the meetings. However, I don't think it's inherently bad to do Merit Badge work at meetings. In fact, I think it's the strongest motivation to keep the boys coming each week who aren't in the leadership corps and not working on rank advancement.

I sympathize with you BlueJacket. When a system that works has been created, it's only natural to work that system with impunity. While some may gripe, the Open House, Parent's Night, Pack Meeting/Event system works for recruiting boys, and you can't be blamed for making sure each Pack you're helping is following that system even if you have to step in and help as well. Even though it can leave heartburn with some leaders, recruiting done right will reap its own rewards and it's hard for a unit to be upset with that. If I hadn't had similar experiences and successes I wouldn't feel comfortable telling you that you're doing the right thing. However, I've seen Packs that recruited poorly in the past, after having a few years of recruiting help (that they may not have even asked for) grow in size, leader engagement, and impact on their neighborhood. A leader who does not support constant recruiting is the leader who doesn't understand there are more kids out there with parents just as smart and motivated to help boys as they are, they're just waiting to get asked to join Scouts!

Eagledad's right! Being lazy forces a person to get by in life by developing other skills than actually being a contributor. So long as you learn quick, recruit well, and delegate everything with precise communication; what more could anyone want in a leader?

It's horrible advice if he goes and signs kids up that the Pack will never see. It's great advice if he gets as many adult applications (with no specific position commitment yet as that's the Pack's job to decide) as he does youth and gives a detailed description of the people he talked to to the Cubmaster, following up by coming to the next Pack meeting to introduce everybody to each other.

BlueJacket - Despite what you've been told by Cubmasters, know that other DC's have your back . The mission for the District Committee, Commissioners, and professionals is to grow Scouting. This means that a District has to take advantage of every opportunity to do so. School Open Houses are too great an opportunity to pass up, and if a Cubmaster doesn't want to do it or cannot do it because they need to attend that night as a parent, it's definitely your job to be there helping them grow Scouting. The Cubmaster who is overwhelmed is the Cubmaster who lets new parents off the hook too easily. It would be helpful for someone like a District Commissioner to help with recruiting to set higher involvement expectations.

WasE61, I think none of those deserve any qualification under the moral code of Scouting. I think moral people could survive in any, but the acts themselves deserve no condemnation or endorsement.

But human polygyny is much different from primate polgyny because the measure of power for primates is size, whereas the measure of power for modern humans is intellect and wealth. This is because the needs of modern humans are higher on the hierarchy of needs. Few humans require a mate that provides them more physical security from outside threats, and so size is an irrelevant measure for modern era humans. I'm sure your assertions are applicable to Neanderthals and Cro-magnans, but once ingenuity enabled men to best other men of much larger size, Humans began breeding for intellect. You can definitely make the case that ever since the dawn of laws, wealth has been even more important than intellect in the mating game.

Yeah Merlyn, the group marriage really differs from polygamy. Forgot the other downside to polygyny as well and was reminded when you asked what happens when the patriarch dies. In the wild that means that the females that are old enough to mate are added to the harem, the juvenile males are driven out, typically to die on their own or form a small group of roving males (gang), and those not old enough to mate or escape are killed by the new patriarch. This is probably why polygynous humans just won't find a new male to fill the role if there's a tragic death. Of course, all of these assertions of mine are only backed up by referencing the knowledge gained from watching TLC or Animal Planet shows like Sister Wives and Meerkat Manor.

Men with plural wives probably face more ridicule in today's society than men with a husband. A lot of arguments against same-sex marriage break down once you bring in the polygamy issue. If you're saying that a species survives through procreation and the purpose of marriage is rearing the offspring, then you cannot convince me that Natural Selection would not favor polygamy to monogamy. A family that lives as a pack or herd will be much better suited to survival based on their sharing the genes of a superior male and communal resources/gathering making life easier due to economies of scale. Of course there's something to be said for monogamy and the value of genetic variation. However, I don't feel that case is as strong. Anyway, it's much easier to endorse plural marriage than same-sex marriage if your argument is biologically based. In that case, it seems strange that same-sex marriage is becoming more socially acceptable while plural marriage remains an acceptable subject of ridicule.

Seen a number, and it's always hurt the boys most. It gets worse when one wants the boy to move to the Troop near where they moved to and the other wants them to stay in the original Troop. Either the kid's going to tick someone off by preferring one or the other, or leaving Scouts altogether.

Mitt Romney Official Site Do stricter gun laws keep us safer? Cast your vote now! Boundary Waters Camping Seems the ad program seems to have a pretty good grasp on what we're more likely to click.

When they say "program guy" it's probably code for someone who's not an "admin guy". Difference is the program guy is in it because he believes Scouting is THE movement to change the work. The admin guys are just happy to be in a career with advancement opportunities, lower-scaled but competitive pay, and truly making a difference. Of course it sounds like your former SE was an admin guy and so followed the job, which is where his heart is. The new guy probably just wants to say he loves Scouting and wants to support your love for Scouting and relate with you on that level instead of being seen as the automatic villain because he makes a six figure salary in an organization you give time, money, and energy to. That could just be the naive volunteer believing the best in folks, but I prefer it to being such a bitter cynic. OR it could just be that I've been lucky with the DE's and SE's I've worked with and find it incredible that it sounds like such an epidemic of evil is sweeping our nation in the form of money grubbing, volunteer hating Boy Scout Council staffers.

Listen to how explosive this subject is. Is it any wonder that the BSA finds this conversation wholly inappropriate for Scouts and Scouters to be having? Someone being openly homosexual always forces this conversation to take place. It doesn't even matter who is right or who is wrong. Both sides end up embarrassing themselves and exposing children to a level of vitriol that cannot be tolerated. I concede that in many communities it would not explode into "faggot" this and "bigot" that, and that's why a local option's still the best remedy.

I'm perfectly willing to call being fat and smoking a human failing. But those are things even a kid can say is wrong. I will not call being homosexual a human failing like you do, because it is not. However, because of the nature of the issue, it cannot be tolerated in the Scouting atmosphere.

So we must ban; Divorcees Anyone that has had sex before marriage Anyone who has has sex using birth control Since it is the thought that counts, anyone who has had impure thoughts glancing at the bikini adds on Scouter. Gamblers, including anyone that has wagered using lottery tickets, played pool or put money up on a golf round. Anyone that eats pork Disingenuous at best. The above behaviors are all things that people can or should be reformed from (and pork only if you're a muslim or kosher). It would be appropriate to denounce these behaviors if they came up with Scouts (which they shouldn't). Since homosexuality is seen as unacceptable to almost all religious orthodoxy, it needs to be denounced in much the same way. However, it is wrong to denounce someone for what they are and cannot help being, because there is no course of action they can take to remedy their situation unlike your examples. Because of how complicated that situation is, BSA is all the wiser to just not deal with it at all because there can be no winners when a person open about their "aberrant" orientation clashes with the beliefs of a majority of Scouting's partnering organizations.

Why are there 8 different Active Threads right now about the gays? Really, this has gotten absurd.

Here's another distinction. It is alright for people who are overweight or smoke to be involved with Scouts, because you can encourage the kids to encourage these Scouters to live healthier lives. It is not appropriate for Scouts to encourage homosexual Scouters to live chastely, and considering the staggering number of CO's that would consider it immoral to advise any other way of life than chastity for homosexuals, it is impossible for Scouting to embrace Gay Pride, or the acceptance of committed or promiscuous homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.