firstpusk

I think that there are two separate issues here. The first is the decision on the part of the Troop Committee to support the family is a done deal. The second is the issue of adult leader performance and its effect on boy behavior. It may have been a mistake for the troop to pay for this family, but there is no changing it. I have been involved in several troops in my time scoutmastering. One thing that was common to all of them is it was not common knowledge which families got help. I strongly suggest that this is changed before next year's camp. This sort of information can lead to unfair comparisons and who paid for camp should not impact judgements of performance. The second issue is a training issue. All adults at camp need to know their critical role in shaping the experience for the boys. If they are not willing to put in a strong effort and set a good example, they don't belong at summer camp. For the young boys, this is the highlight of their new scouting experience. This dad had a negative impact on his own son and probably soured it for other boys as well. This can not be allowed to happen. I have seen adults sent home. I have not done it but I would do it if I felt I had to for the good of the troop. Some folks are not cut out for a week of camp as a leader. It seems clear that this man did not buy into the philosophy of the troop. The role of the SM is to make sure every parent in the field understands their role and agrees to do their best. Whether they are officially SA's or not, they are still the SM's staff.

Thanks to those who agree. and if anyone care this piece [sIC] was written by Samuel Thompson. I dont think that is accurate. The particular piece has been circulated under anonymous or Samuel Thompson but it is more likely the work of Nick Gholson a sports columnist for the Wichita Falls Times Record News from September of 1999. That is because I was able to trace it back to that paper and Samuel Thompson has been dead since 1843, sixteen years before Darwin published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. The one source I found linking Thompson to the article gives a brief biographical sketch of this Revolutionary War soldier and early Texan. http://www.scamsandscandals.com/SamThompson.htm

"All protagonists need antagonists, without the one, the other wilts on the vine. I beleive it was my dear sainted mother who told me, you know, Bobby only picks on you because you give him good reaction, if you quit reacting to him, he won't bother you. She was a wise woman" ...and she wore army boots. ;^) Sorry OGE, I just couldn't resist.

I love to paddle my canoe. Useful knots there include: the bowline, the figure eight on a bite, water knot, double fisherman's knot, the truckers' hitch and the alpine butterfly. I am a committed knot-lover and try to keep my hand in on a daily basis. I tie some specialties used for awards like the star knot, pineapple knot and monkey fist. I put becoming a pioneering M.B. instructor on my ticket for Wood Badge. I almost always have a piece of cord in my pocket and get ribbed quite a bit by some of my fellow scouters. I don't know how many knots I have learned. I know that I have forgotten more than most people will ever learn. Cord and knots were the first tools and corresponding technologies developed by early humans. When I see the intricate patterns developed by sailors from an earlier age, I see this technological heritage brought to an art form. I have quite a few knot books and am always looking for my next (probably The Morrow Guide To Knots by Guido Regazzoni). The most comprehensive one I own is The Ashley Book Of Knots by Clifford Ashley. It has literally thousands of knots and illustrations and tons of trivia (useless information for most). Of course, with the advent of the internet my list of resources is darn near endless. I was really upset a couple of years back when my computer crashed and I lost my bookmarks until I could do a data recovery. I still have a few that I can't find.

ENTP. A lot of folks have difficulty understanding where I am coming from. Their reactions make life worth living.

OGE, watch it! You don't want to get to cheeky. ;^) How 'bout peanut butter the way Elvis liked it? A peanut butter 'nana samwich grilled in lard. This one more than meets the Maximum Daily Requirement for cholesterol.

SR540Beaver, I appreciate your sympathy. However, I more than make up for it with my away from camp beverage of choice. I brew my own. ;^)

OGE, that outcome would truly impoverish the intellectual standing of this message board. Shoot! My irony meter just blew a fuse...

...and I go with the generic. I guess I am nowhere near your league.

Ed, you must be one of those choosy scouters - they choose JIF, I hear. I agree on the wonderbread. I prefer a good Finnish rye myself. And yes, pb&j along with bread belong on any good scouter's table at camp.

Cold cpb? Ed, you must really tear up the old Wonderbread.

Reagan's "voluntary" prayer amendment was in name only. It would have allowed school authorities to institue and lead so-called "voluntary" prayers. It is worth noting that Mr. Reagan had to adopt this particular text and title for the amendment to mollify critics. Neither Reagan's amendment nor the school board actions in the the prayer and Bible reading cases were voluntary. Actually reading the decisions or Reagan's proposed amendment allow me to understand the intent. There is nothing voluntary about the religious exercise they require. "MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. Once again we are called upon to consider the scope of the provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." These companion cases present the issues in the context of state action requiring that schools begin each day with readings from the Bible. While raising the basic questions under slightly different factual situations, the cases permit of joint treatment. In light of the history of the First Amendment and of our cases interpreting and applying its requirements, we hold that the practices at issue and the laws requiring them are unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." From the decision of the US Supreme Court in ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=374&invol=203 "MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and [370 U.S. 421, 423] legislative powers over the State's public school system. 1 These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program." Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in public schools and the School District's regulation ordering the recitation of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution which commands that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - a command which was "made applicable to the State of New York by the Fourteenth Amendment of the said Constitution." The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Fuld, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection. 2 [370 U.S. 421, 424] We granted certiorari to review this important decision involving rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 3" From the decision of the US Supreme Court in ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=370&invol=421

Liking or disliking had nothing to do with my statements about Mr. Reagan. The intent of his remarks was to endorse public piety for political gain. I am certain that he favored school children prayer to Zorathustra. The fact that my point was beyond you is not surprising in the least. Read the First Amendment carefully. "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Note that it mentions the establishment of religion first. No surprise there. The Founders would be quite familiar with government-based religious persecution. Next read the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The protections of the US Constitution and particular to our discussion those of the First Amendment are extended to preclude the states from establishing religion. Therefore, the example of the athletic director is one of a government official paid by tax dollars. He is establishing a religion using his government office.

Reagan's shallow understanding of the First Amendment was well documented during his presidency. The decisions that invalidated so-called "prayer in schools" never made it illegal for children to pray. However, it did make it illegal for administrators, teachers or other school employees to initiate, lead or encourage prayer. Because students are a captive vulnerable audience and these school officials are government employees, it does not seem so hard to understand why the Establishment Clause would outlaw the practice. Yet Mr. Reagan was particularly obtuse when it came to these cases. One can see he garnered a particularly vociferous if not deep-thinking constituency by taking this stand. I wonder how Jason OK would feel if his children had to sit through daily Koran lessons or bow down to Mecca five times a day. The athletic director needed correction. If I had been present, I would have made sure that he and his supervisors understood that this is unacceptable. Would I interupt the dinner to do it? No. Had a student or group of students decided to pray, I would have no problem with it. Personally, I am happier if I and my church are the ones responsible for my child's religious upbringing not the public schools. Those teachers most inclined to use tax dollars in order to force their religious views on my children are the same ones I feel most misunderstand the teachings of Christ.

Globey's spinnin', Mr. Window's grinnin', 'cause Pterri's flyin' by (hello!) The Flowers are singin', the Picture Phone is ringin', and the Dinosaur family goes, "Hi!" Mr. Kite's soarin', Conky's still a snorin', there's the flashing Magic Screen, The Cowntess is so classy, Randy's kinda sassy - A nuttier establishment you've never seen!

You forgot to put d)all of the above...;^)

packsaddle: "Jason OK, That last post was unusually lucid and well-written. What was the source for your plagiarism?" MUSLIM ON-GOING CONFLICTS IN THE WORLD COMPILED BY MICHAELSAVAGE.COM http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/14muslimconflicts.html pack, I am not sure I would call much of anything Michael Savage says is lucid beyond, "Good morning, my name is Michael Savage." Jason OK, very bad form. If you take text verbatim from a source, it should be cited. If it is an entire internet page, the URL should be listed. To do any less than that is considered dishonest. Beyond the fact that there is a lot fighting going on in the world, your point was what?

My goodness, thrice you ask me. Think about it for a bit. If you have to, go back and read the posts. Your comments hit the jackpot again. You are not trying to be rude, are you?

I'm praying even harder for any scouts or scouters that have the opportunity to work with you.

Thanks so much, Jason OK. I have been praying for you for a while.

"Lets not get off the true subject. Satan works in these manners. Distraction from the truth. Satan wants us to think Jews and Christ Believers are evil. So go ahead and help his agenda. I still have not seen or heard a good rebuttal to my post." Your posts don't need a rebuttal. They rebutt themselves.

The Word is still used as a form of control. The debate lies in what each of us thinks is appropriate control and what is abuse of the Scriptures or authority. The Lectionary was extremely valuable. Written on vellum by hand, it would require perhaps thousands of hours of the copyists time. By the way, I commonly do read books though I rarely "crack" them. The offhand comment about about your debates with your wife on idol worship is off base, offensive and downright bigoted. Catholics do not worship idols. If that is what you or your wife has been taught, I am truly sorry that you have been subjected to such bigotry. The abuses of authority by officials of the Catholic Church is well documented. The comingling of ecclesiastical authority and govenment power was common in many of the Protestant govenments also. Such abuses happened but are wrong. The murder of believers of all stripes simply because they believed differently about Christ is well documented and beyond dispute.

"The last times Christians lost their way was in the dark ages when books were not readily available and the word was not taught (rather religion was a form of control) hence the pilgrims...mayflower...hello?" This statement could be considered offensive to Catholics and Orthodox believers. I know I consider these remarks uninformed and religiously bigoted. Scripture has always been part of Christian teaching and worship even during the dark ages. The vast majority of believers through Christian history would be considered illiterate by today's standards. Therefore, the word was taught as it is today in many Christian churches - read aloud to the assembled. The idea of mass ownership of the written word is a relatively new concept. The fact that most Christians before the printing press did not own bibles does not mean they were not aware of what was written in them.

In the words of PeeWee Herman, "Real mature."

I carry a Swiss Army Classic and Tinker - except when not allowed by applicable federal, state or local laws. If I need other real tools, I bring them.