GernBlansten

And how would those malevolent soles accomplish even the slightest diminishment of the substance of religion from the hearts and minds of the followers? My point is religion is so ingrained into the lives of Americans, no act of another will diminish or eliminate its presence and significance in society. The symbolism is nice but not necessary for religion to flourish. Unless of course, you think your religion is based on a weak foundation and can be demolished with the slightest touch. Not my view. Much ado about nothing, me thinks.

I like poinsettias, I think they are cheerful and bright when all is cold and snowy. This whole uproar over stores and schools banning Christmas symbols makes me think of a quote from a great, although drug addled, commentator. "Its the triumph of symbolism over substance." People seem to get too wrapped up in the symbolism of Christmas and forget the substance of it.

CA Scouter is correct. The ACLU has no case against the BSA if BSA is following the rules. Where the BSA may loose is in the court of public opinion if it can be proven that homosexuality is not a choice but biological. The Swedish/pheromone research is pretty strong and I'm sure there will be more coming. If that does happen, BSA will be under public pressure to relax their membership standards or be painted as bigots. I'm sure they will do the right thing.

Actually, I had to re-read Rooster's posts twice to make sure I understood his meaning (Biblical passages do that to me). It is not too often that he and I agree on anything. I do find that most protestant Christians react like Ed did, so he is clearly not in a small minority.

Ed, I'm talking about the concept of redemption. If you beleive in redemption, which all protestants should, and if Tookie accepted Jesus, he gets in. Now I'm not saying that he won't be sent to the back of the buffet line when he gets there. As a Catholic, you were also instructed that your deeds here on earth determined your time in purgatory and good deeds lessened the time, bad deeds lengthened it. In the Catholic faith, Tookie is doing a sentence (rather long one I would assume) in purgatory. But in the protestant faith, if he truly accepted Jesus, he could be nowhere else but heaven.

The problem with the "if I live my life good, I'll go to heaven" argument is that contemporary protestant Christianity doesn't support that. Admission to heaven is by accepting Jesus only. Your deeds here on earth don't enter into it. Catholics on the other hand do require good deeds on earth and belief in Jesus to enter heaven. Not sure the criteria for Muslims. So yes, in the protestant Christian world, even Tookie Williams got entry past the pearly gates if he truly accepted Jesus before he was executed. Then again, if there are 10,000 religious sects/beliefs in the world, 9,999 of them are wrong.

Prairie_scouter triggered something I had not thought of about the ID debate. If ID was allowed to be taught in science classes and students required to study it, would they not have to also have to accept God to pass? Doesn't ID require a belief in the supernatural to be valid? Evolution on the other hand doesn't require a belief nor is it invalid if you do believe. From that standpoint, I can now see why ID should be banned from science classes. Religious, philosophy or sociology classes sure. But not science.

I would turn the job down. What would you do if you found yourself serving a scouter? Would feel obligated to "out" him to BSA? If you out him, how would that make you feel about yourself? If you didn't out him, how would you feel knowing that that type of man is working with the scouts? I like to sleep at night, so I wouldn't put myself in that hypothetical position.

I am so grateful that we live in a country that has solved all its problems that it can focus on such a divisive issue as Holiday vs. Christmas labels. When I turn on FoxNews, I now know that the war in Iraq must be going swimmingly and the national debt must be paid off because its wall to wall coverage on how Target must be boycotted because they don't use the C-word in their ads. I was in the post office last week, sending my H-word cards. I call them H-word cards because they have a winter scene on them and no mention of the virgin birth. I needed a book of stamps. The clerk asked me standard or seasonal? I said I didn't care, 1st mistake. She gave me a book of Kwanza stamps, 2nd mistake. I exploded. Had I not believed she was heavily armed and trained in automatic weapons, I would have dragged her over the counter and pummelled the C-word spirit into her. I shouted to the mass of people in line, "HOW CAN I SEND MY H-word cards to my fundementalist family members with KWANZA stamps?" That got the crowd worked up. They started chanting with me. C-word, C-word, C-word. The clerk just look steel eyed at me, calling my bluff. The chanting got louder and louder. I stood firm at the counter, nose to nose with the clerk. A real mexican standoff. Finally, she realized my dominant spirit, retracted the book from the counter and replaced them with a very nice Madonna stamp book. Just one small victory in the WOC.

Yes OGE, I know you are taking about Easter Egg Day. A happy time for my family to wake up to all types of chocolate confections, hidden in the garden and round the house. A truley joyous time of year.

Rooster, Would it be ok with you if the US Government adopted a specific religion to align itself with? In my best Ronald Reagan impression: "TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!" Not that the public would be required to worship the "official" religion, just have an "official" religion. Now what if that religion were Mormon, Catholic or Islam. Would that make you uncomfortable if you didn't share that belief? Would you have any concerns that you might be persecuted for your beliefs? The whole point of having a government that is non-religious, dare I say SECULAR, is to allow the people to worship as they see fit. Religion doesn't need government to promote itself. It needs to be left to flourish on its own without official regulation or promotion.

The producer of that image (the declaration of war, remember the purpose of this thread), used images associated with Christianity to drive his point home. Not sure why he didn't use the little fish we so commonly see on peoples autos. But it brings up the undeniable impression that BSA and Christianity are tightly associated through symbolism. Not sure this is a good thing as BSA is supposed to be about boys of all faiths. An analogy would be everyone associates Kleenex with facial tissue. Now is anyone aware that Kleenex offers other products?

Isn't the origin of Holiday "holy days" ? I giggle when I hear the O'Rielly types rail against the use of Happy Holidays as anti-religious.

I think this forum is great and I get many fantastic ideas that help my units program. However, I think the software is a bit long in the tooth and over capacity. I participate on other forums that experienced these type of problems. Most have migrated the forum software to Invision Power Board. Cleared things right up and gave a lot of functionality missing on this board.

To me, the current scout uniform is fine for dress activities like COHs, flag ceremonies and parades. But BSA doesn't recognize a utility uniform. Instead of changing the "class A" uniform, lobby BSA to adopt a second uniform specification, intended for troop meetings, outdoor activities and such. A key to the success of this would be to make the new uniform stylish, practical and fairly low key. Low key in the way of no patches or insignia except for a small breast area for BSA and unit designation. That's a uniform that teenage boys might not resist as much as the "dress" uniform. This approach differs from the unit class B uniforms already used as it will be a consistent BSA approved uniform. An analogy is the Marine Corps dress uniform is dramatically different from the field one. The field uni would not be appropriate for a military funeral and the dress one would not be appropriate for a beach assault.

Absolute Separation of Church and State grants me the right to worship as I please. It amazes me that the most religous people in our society don't see that.

I'm not convinced its our duty as humans to thin the herds and replace the predators we chased off. Nature has its own method of thinning herds. When a herd overpopulates, food supplies become scarce. The animals become stressed and their reproductive systems shut down. The weakest animals in the herd are ripe for disease and starvation, thus strengthening the overall health the the surviving blood lines. Those that perish, become food for scavangers. It ain't pretty, but its been successful for millions of years. The problem with hunters in the mix, is they mess up the natural selection process by not taking the sick and starving, but the healthy ones likely to survive the stress. This allows the sick and weak a greater chance of survival, probably not what nature had in mind. The scavengers are also short changed. Anytime man meddles in mother nature, there are unintended consequences. I've posted before that my neighborhood is overrun with mule deer. I'd love to see the herd thinned. It will, but after they do considerable damage to my garden and flower beds. I'm just impatient so I support hunting in my backyard. Its selfish, I admit. I also don't want to watch the show nature will put on when they run out of geraniums and start starving under my deck. But that is how nature works. I'm not an anti hunting tree hugger. I just think some of the arguments for hunting are not based on science. If you like to hunt, go do it. Do it so the animal suffers the least, and use the animal you take. I really don't care whether its sporting or not. Thats up to the hunter.

Our troop does this at least once a year. Very popular. I think it falls into the G2SS since its a commercial operation. Doubt the Laser tag is though.

Don't laugh CA_scouter. A friend of mine is a gentleman rancher and raises a few head of buffalo on his 40 acres. When it came time to harvest 3 of them, two avid bow hunters paid him $300 a piece to hunt them. They walked up, shot them with arrows and they (the buffalo) just stood there. After a while, my friend got tired of it and shot them in the head with a 45 pistol dropping them quickly. They carved off the heads and left the rest for my friend to sent them to the processing house. The meat was delicious though.

My daddy was a butcher. Worked in a major grocery store chain when they actually cut meat on site. During hunting season, he would cut game to make some extra coin. Never hunted himself. He would drag me along to help. So needless to say, I've been on the processing side of hunting more times than I'd like. Anywhoo, I asked ol'dad why he didn't hunt. He said he didn't have a problem with hunting, just didn't like to kill things himself. This is from a butcher who made his living on death. For me, I guess I feel the same way. I like to target shoot and eat meat, but I don't really care to go do it myself. I guess much like a guy who loves to race cars but doesn't like to work on them. I will be taking my son for his first pheasant hunt next season just to expose him to it. I do feel that thoughtful, managed hunting is good for the environment. In my area, mule deer have become a real problem. Natural predators have been chased off by development and the population has exploded. Hunting isn't allowed and it isn't uncommon to have to "shoo" away the deer to get to your mailbox. They eat everything and are a real hazard to traffic. I would support a special hunt just to manage the herd, although I really don't want them doing it in my back yard.

Yes, the problem with 12 GA at the range is not the kick, but the weight of the gun. Not a problem for 14 to 18 yrd olds but the smaller scouts have an issue. The council range provides a youth Rem 870 12GA for the small scouts, short barrel and cut stock. It works well but isn't as light as a 20 GA. Even so, my son qualifed for his Shootgun merit badge with it. My son is rather small and I've looked at local gun shops for a youth 12 GA without success. Again, the reason the council disallows any 16, 20 or 470 rounds at the range is the possibility of inserting the wrong sized shell into the wrong gun. The only other way to do it is to restrict it to the smallest GA, but what 16 yr old wants to exclusively shoot a 470 or 20 GA? Keeping your ammo separate is a safe hunting practice but not pratical for a range of scouts. Just offer one GA.

Our council owned range requires only 12 gauge shotguns to be used. I was a little surprised since we allow first year scouts to shoot. But they do fine. Light loads. A little intimidating to boys who never shot before, but after their first round, they are hooked. We brought some 16 and 20 gauge out and they made us keep them in the car. It had to do with mixing the shells. A 16 and 20 gauge shells fit nicely inside the barrel of a 12. So in an effort to standardize and keep costs to a minimum, they only allow 12s. As far as cost goes, it runs about 20 bucks per scout for a day of shooting. That covers the clays and shells (about 10 flights of 5 rounds). And thats a lot of shooting too. The 22 range is a couple of bucks for rounds per scout.

Our unit offers two shooting camps each year, one in the fall, one in the spring. We make a strong effort to have our own adults NRA certified trainers, we currently have two shotgun, one rifle and two archery instructors and several in process of certification. The local council camp has a wonderful range for both shotgun and rifle. These campouts are the most popular for our scouts. In the evenings, we do JLT training. We also try to bring Weblos 2 cubs along and offer archery and tomahawk for them.

Because I wished my parents named me so.

I need a tour permit to get the critters to the trailhead, don't I? Heaven forbid I want to do anything outside the rules of BSA. If the tour permit doesn't allow a patrol outing w/o adults, then either BSA doesn't endorse them, or the permit is flawed. Far be it from me to figure the BSA is flawed.