Callooh! Callay!1428010939

The linked article reports US PISA scores are lower than scores in a handful of foreign countries with combined populations less than the US population. That's not compelling evidence that Americans don't think education is important.

 

The pattern of international and racial gaps in PISA scores isn't new. Past study of these gaps has suggested that "U.S. schools do about as well as the best systems elsewhere in educating similar students." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010904011.html

The linked article reports US PISA scores are lower than scores in a handful of foreign countries with combined populations less than the US population. That's not compelling evidence that Americans don't think education is important.

The pattern of international and racial gaps in PISA scores isn't new. Past study of these gaps has suggested that "U.S. schools do about as well as the best systems elsewhere in educating similar students." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010904011.html

There are some extremists who WANT the US to fall into financial ruin. It's their sick way of proving that they are right for hording guns, buying up gold, building underground bunkers and stocking up on 20-year supply of high-energy biscuits. There were a lot of preppers and tea party folk who were very upset that the end of the world didn't come in 2009-11 so they see this as their last shot at it. If the apocalypse never happens, they look like a bunch of fools and who wants to look like a fool. It's like those cults who predict the end of the world and when it doesn't happen they kill themselves.

How many?

Developing citizenship is one of BSA's objectives. But US Citizenship isn't required for youth or adult members (http://www.scouting.org). There is no mention of a requirement for non-US citizens to be citizens of some other country or to be loyal to that country if they are. What do we suppose is the pledge requirement for non-US citizens? And if their country has no analogous pledge? Or if they are not loyal to their country of citizenship or are not legally citizens of any country?

 

Would a non-citizen pledge exemption apply based on religion? Not everyone thinks of religion and citizenship as two very distinct categories. This isn't just a JW issue. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America made an extensively researched ruling into the matter, concluding that there is irreconcilable conflict between the Islamic testament of faith and the pledge of allegiance to the USA. And yet some Muslims recite the pledge and insist their religion does not forbid it, encourages it even. Plenty of people do plenty of things that someone else knows or believes is against the rules of their religion.

 

Some religion has doctrine allowing believers to (insincerely) take whatever oaths and publicly express whatever beliefs are necessary for them to get along and gain advantageous position in the social environment in which they find themselves. This helps put a more easily accepted face on their religion while they spread it to places where it does not currently dominate. One would have to consult JW's religious texts for insight as to whether or not JW has such a doctrine.

 

If he'll follow BSA and CO rules, why not let him join? IF BSA or CO rules require the pledge, tell him and his parents. Whether or not the pledge or joining BSA conflicts with their beliefs is for them to decide. We're not obliged to help authorities of the boy's professed religion enforce his family's conformity to that religion's rules.

 

Even if the religion forbids joining Boy Scouts at all, the boy and his parents may not know or care. They may prefer to follow their own conscience on this matter. They may even want to leave the religion but be hesitant to do it. Joining associations that don't require them to pretend to believe what they don't actually believe might help them leave a community that does.

 

Many people profess a religion but act and believe contrary to it, sometimes carelessly, sometimes with rationalizations and different "interpretation." People are taught that their religion is good, true, and integral to their identity. Leaving it could cause alienation from community or family. So if a religion's requirements are inconvenient or even objectionable to the conscience, rather than openly leaving it, people may rationalize or claim to "interpret" their religion differently.

 

When we believe a religion to be particularly demanding, we often refer to such followers as "moderates" and to those who do take the religion more seriously as "extremists," "fundamentalists," or "radicals." If the teachings of their religion are good, one might suppose the extremists are extremely good, the fundamentalists fundamentally good, and the radicals radically good (whereas the moderates are just moderately good).

 

This issue is less clear than "For your son to join a Boy Scout troop, he must complete the exercises included in Section II of this pamphlet." Still, what if a family of Abecedarians told us, regarding that requirement, that their religion forbade them from turning to such a manmade source for knowledge?

Developing citizenship is one of BSA's objectives. But US Citizenship isn't required for youth or adult members (http://www.scouting.org). There is no mention of a requirement for non-US citizens to be citizens of some other country or to be loyal to that country if they are. What do we suppose is the pledge requirement for non-US citizens? And if their country has no analogous pledge? Or if they are not loyal to their country of citizenship or are not legally citizens of any country?

Would a non-citizen pledge exemption apply based on religion? Not everyone thinks of religion and citizenship as two very distinct categories. This isn't just a JW issue. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America made an extensively researched ruling into the matter, concluding that there is irreconcilable conflict between the Islamic testament of faith and the pledge of allegiance to the USA. And yet some Muslims recite the pledge and insist their religion does not forbid it, encourages it even. Plenty of people do plenty of things that someone else knows or believes is against the rules of their religion.

Some religion has doctrine allowing believers to (insincerely) take whatever oaths and publicly express whatever beliefs are necessary for them to get along and gain advantageous position in the social environment in which they find themselves. This helps put a more easily accepted face on their religion while they spread it to places where it does not currently dominate. One would have to consult JW's religious texts for insight as to whether or not JW has such a doctrine.

If he'll follow BSA and CO rules, why not let him join? IF BSA or CO rules require the pledge, tell him and his parents. Whether or not the pledge or joining BSA conflicts with their beliefs is for them to decide. We're not obliged to help authorities of the boy's professed religion enforce his family's conformity to that religion's rules.

Even if the religion forbids joining Boy Scouts at all, the boy and his parents may not know or care. They may prefer to follow their own conscience on this matter. They may even want to leave the religion but be hesitant to do it. Joining associations that don't require them to pretend to believe what they don't actually believe might help them leave a community that does.

Many people profess a religion but act and believe contrary to it, sometimes carelessly, sometimes with rationalizations and different "interpretation." People are taught that their religion is good, true, and integral to their identity. Leaving it could cause alienation from community or family. So if a religion's requirements are inconvenient or even objectionable to the conscience, rather than openly leaving it, people may rationalize or claim to "interpret" their religion differently.

When we believe a religion to be particularly demanding, we often refer to such followers as "moderates" and to those who do take the religion more seriously as "extremists," "fundamentalists," or "radicals." If the teachings of their religion are good, one might suppose the extremists are extremely good, the fundamentalists fundamentally good, and the radicals radically good (whereas the moderates are just moderately good).

This issue is less clear than "For your son to join a Boy Scout troop, he must complete the exercises included in Section II of this pamphlet." Still, what if a family of Abecedarians told us, regarding that requirement, that their religion forbade them from turning to such a manmade source for knowledge?

Because Americans do a better job of taking care of the outdoors and cleaning up our messes than anyone else on the planet? (Hoo boy now I've done it)

Lets try to get this thread back on track

in a thread about deviating from them?

Because Americans do a better job of taking care of the outdoors and cleaning up our messes than anyone else on the planet? (Hoo boy now I've done it)

Yes, please do.

The OP doesn't intimate that the boy hasn't earned his way so far. Maybe we're missing some details. If not, this could be the rotorwash of Helicopter-Scouterism hovering over the boy as the SM tries to ensure his scout experience is paced as the SM thinks it ought be.

The rank won't be diminished because a boy earned it. It is a rank for Boy Scouts. It's not a Ranger Tab or a PhD.

As long as all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed and the boy has actually fulfilled the list of requirements, he technically is qualified to earn Eagle. That being said, he is going to be viewed by most people as a technical Eagle, right or wrong. An Eagle with an asterisk beside his name. He may be an Eagle, but he isn't old enough to staff camp. He isn't going to be tapped to serve on an NYLT course or be a course leader. He won't be considered a serious candidate if he were to run for Lodge Chief if he is in OA. Heck, depending on just how young we are talking here, he may not even be eligible to attend a High Adventure base. Etc., etc., etc. He doesn't have the time, breadth, depth and maturity that most people will expect of an Eagle. I never, ever want to squash a boy's desire or spirit. that being said, an SM needs to have a sit down with a boy's parents and the boy as well and have a long discussion. There is the destination.......and there is the journey. The journey is far more important to becoming an Eagle than the destination is. A good SM will channel the boy's ambitions back into the troop instead of simply obtaining a rank. A good SM will convince the boy of how very important the journey is in relation to the rank. Just my two cents.

"He doesn't have the time, breadth, depth and maturity that most people will expect of an Eagle." Were that so, it could be because "most people" have expectations that come from their preferences rather than the actual rank requirements.

"....relationships with others should be honest and open. Respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions and faithful in your religious beliefs. Values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance"

From "clean?"

Humbug.

"Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, and reverent" are in the law. It doesn't need "clean" to stand in for a repeat of some combination of those.

"Clean" means clean, hygienic.

Shouldn't raising money from OUTSIDE of the organization be the indispensable skill required of a scouting exec?

Because Americans do a better job of taking care of the outdoors and cleaning up our messes than anyone else on the planet? (Hoo boy now I've done it)

"I believe it is wrong to force units to exclude people based solely on sexual orientation."

Is this what BSA does? It forces units to exclude people?

Where are these BSA units that were formed by force? Typically a unit becomes a unit in the first place not by having its members are forced into it... but rather by them volunteering for and paying money to become a part of an organization that has long discriminated based on both sex and sexual orientation. No one is forcing them to exclude anyone... they sign up willingly for it.

If excluding someone based on sexual orientation were an important issue for them, surely they'd not have chartered a BSA unit - unless they were willing to do something they know is wrong in order to get some benefit they think BSA will provide them.

"on a flawed initial premise in the first place - that homosexuality is intrinsically about sex."

Yes, that famously flawed premise of taking words to mean what they've traditionally meant, what most dictionaries say they mean, and what most people mean when they say them.

Sexuality isn't intrinsically about sex?

Good heavens Monkey Tamer! How unfair and mean spirited it is to follow this feel-good premise to its logical roots and conclusions. This hegemonic logocentric discourse you're trying to impose is going to upset the admiring omphaloskeptic practice of intellectual onanism.

That is a leap.

Police don't have a duty to protect you. Law enforcement does deter some crime because would-be perps calculate that they may be caught (after they've already done the harm, typically) and punished. But that doesn't protect you from a perp who thinks he can get away with it or who doesn't care about the consequences.

Type "no duty to protect" into your search engine, for starters.

"My thinking is that we have hghly trained police to protect us"

You are mistaken. The police don't have a duty to protect us. That isn't "my thinking." It's law. Police departments "protect and serve" the law and the government. Many police officers indidually would like to protect other individuals, but they are not professionally or legally obligated to do so. And even if they were, they are not manned to do so.

"why would citizens need an assault rifle?"

Need? Huh?

"but the indoor folks are now in the majority"

You may be right. But on the bright side... it makes the outdoors less crowded.

Are you proposing that only devoutly religious armed gays be given immigrant visas?

Relevant to quality or to quantity?

Planning and MCing such a thing is a Communications MB requirement and a good experience. Sometimes our scouts plan them and sometimes they "plan" them. They seem to have fun with it either way.

"The Semiauto ban won't work unless you collect everything that has been legally purchased. Then it probably won't make a difference in my lifetime and maybe my childrens life time, till all of the ones that have been horded away by the nutters are stolen, broken or turned in my families after they have passed away."

Yea, like ones "horded" away by "nutters" that use semi-automatic shotguns at Boy Scout Shotgun ranges in accordance with the G2SS.

"Yes -- I know -- it wouldn't fly. But I can still daydream, can't I? :-)"

Yes. In that spirit, yes. And in the same spirit... Eagle Scouts could design their own challenges to earn their own specializations like:

Civilized Man:

Citizenship in the Community

Citizenship in the Nation

Citizenship in the World

Environmental Science

Family Life

Personal Management

Communications

Law

Public Speaking

Outdoor Man:

Shotgun Shooting or archery

Rifle Shooting

Wilderness Survival

Orienteering

Camping

Hiking

Backpacking

Pioneering

Climbing or Horsemanship

Aquatic Man:

Small Boat Sailing

Oceanography

SCUBA Diving

Canoeing

Rowing

Swimming

Motorboating

Fishing

Whitewater

Emergency Man:

Traffic Safety

First Aid

Emergency Preparedness

Fire Safety

Lifesaving

Weather

Safety

Public Health

Crime Prevention

Artisan Man:

Cooking

Basketry

Art

Cinematography

Music

Woodcarving

Theater

Sculpture

Painting

Or... keeping with the sets of nine theme:

All Merit Badges that with an "r" sound - Man:

American Labor

Pulp and Paper

Weather

Theater

Whitewater

Nature

Sculpture

Indian Lore

Dog Care

Etc

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

It's tough to disentangle where collectivist desire to limit and control individuals ends and where innumerate reaction to popularized but vanishingly rare events begins.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't grant us the right to bear arms; it assumes we have it (from elsewhere) and restricts the government from infringing on it.

As for self defense against crime:

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.