johndaigler

I'm amazed (and chuckling) how quickly we go from parents asking that their children not be daily force-fed a religious preference they don't share - to Stalinist USSR, jailing Scoutmasters and, of course, blaming the ultimate evil that is the ACLU. This isn't about being forced to say the pledge or trying to get the pledge removed from schools - It's about a group of parents trying to get the Courts to see that the pledge as it is used today does not correctly represent all the parents and children expected to attend that school. Would everyone who wants to declare these Parents "Clowns" be so comfortable if their public school's principal recited a bit of the Talmud every day over the loud speaker, or perhaps time was taken during the day when everyone kneeled toward Mecca - of course, your kids could stand and not participate. (Though your tax dollars will still be spent on this time.) Which would be easy if 20 out of 22 kids are standing and not participating, but what if your child is one of two not participating? BTW, the Creator has endowed all men with inalienable rights - NOT GOVTS. (and for many years not women, or blacks, or Native Americans . . .) So, unless we want to declare God a rascist misogynist, let's view the D of I as not intended to be read fundamentally but rather as a guiding spirit for our nation's experiment in democracy. And all those who have fought in varying ways to protect and improve this country would no more agree on this topic than does our own little electronic-campfire subset of America. Let's refrain from trotting out the flag and implying that anyone who disagrees with our own view is less of an American, and/or a person of lesser faith. I can't see God being too shook about this one way or another - but parents sticking up for their kids?? That I understand (and respect) - whether I agree with them or not. jd

WELCOME, Juliettemom! If you haven't already tried this: http://www.gpgirlscouts.org/girls/juliette/ good luck, jd

I'm not way out there on the leftist, and/or atheist tree limb - just trying to think this through. Please forgive the random streams of thought. . . Public school kids are a captive audience. Including "under God" in their day, as a matter of practice, is a forced religious acknowledgement. I don't see how we can say that's absolutely appropriate. "under god" is not as faith-nuetral as a "moment of silent reflection" - it carries a very specific religious message. I wouldn't think God needs the US govt. doing marketing. And if God did want that - wouldn't his expectations be higher? "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." We Americans get very crazy when we see foreign nationals using their God as a weapon of hatred against us. Most of us rely on family and our religious organizations for faith leadership and communion. Do we really want the public schools carrying that ball? So, what's the purpose of "under God", "in God we trust", etc.? The "under God" part is only about 50 years old - a reaction to the "godless communists". Are we still fighting the Cold War - against ourselves? jd

Greying Beaver, I understand you want to do the right thing - and your thread is based on the fact that you care for all these kids. That being said, by posting this thread, what have you already said to yourself? And, if they get a chance to read this thread, to the kids involved? Assuming you follow G2SS and the buddy system and other common sense patterns - go enjoy the weekend!! And let the Scouts and families enjoy it, as well!! These girls helped with a service project??? That is sooo cool, they deserve an extra s'more!! jd

What can a distant Den or Pack do to help Gulf Coast Cubs - now, as they try to assimilate wherever they are - and in the future, as they try to reestablish their Units back home? Should we attempt to replace basics, like handbooks, uniform parts, etc.? Or should we go for "luxury" items like red vests, etc? jd

Not to over-generalize and paint with too broad a brush, but some of you guys are the worst Metaphor-ists on the planet. If we could stay away from sinking ships, fast food chains and our very own special mixture of Algebra and Geometry, I think we might more often make sense to each other. Better yet, could we just let this particular thread die its only ugly little death. If there's still a conversation being held, it's kind of hard to find and could easily be started fresh (if absolutely necessary!?)in a new thread. jd

pgking, sounds like a great effort -- good luck. I may be off base, but one suggestion. Perhaps it might be better to channel your efforts through one of the major support agencies ( or atleast local Councils)as opposed to specific Scout Units. All of these helpful efforts are more effective when they're coordinated under the overall umbrella of aid. Good Luck and thank you for your efforts, jd

Agreed, Kahuna. But I don't think anyone deserves (or will get) a pass on this one. There are a lot of questions that need answers. I'm assuming the Senate will have its hearings, and we'll get closer to the truth. But, I also assume, we'll never really get satisfactory answers to many of the questions. An answer I keep looking for, is: when told to evacuate, why did so many stay? jd

This is from jk's earlier post: "The COR's et al have VOTED the slates DOWN. Chicago Area Coiuncio has TWICE now refused to approve the handpicked slated proposed by their Council "leadership" that wants to remain in place. Yet the Council "leadership" refuses to allow the hand-picked "nominating committee" to nominate ANY candidats that the volunteers (through their COR's) WANT to VOTE for. " BW, your response to jk was to tell how it is CORs who have a vote in this situation, and that they represent CRs not volunteers. He seems to have already addressed this. It appears, Council Leadership is not listening to the CORs. What should the CORs do next? If, as jk tells it, the CORs are being disenfranchised - what should happen next? jd

I understand the urge to go to the school board, but I'd be slow to do that. I'm a former school administrator, and I can tell you, going to the board will definitely burn any bridge with the superintendent. At least try the superintendent - as I said, on her terms, before you go over her head. Even with the board you're not going to get back what you used to have. The reality now is to build the best bridge you can - it would be better if the superintendent can be on your side as you do that. The supe has no reason to try to make it difficult for you. Together you can talk out the problems and the parameters. GOOD LUCK jd

jk defined this thread to be about Smith and St. Jean - thus the Irony. This is as good a place as any to focus on the St. Jean part of the first post. TJ makes some good points - and has actually brought a little sense and collaborative discussion to the thread - saints preserve us! Let's run with it a while. Isn't the point the seeming lack of consistency on the part of BSA as employer? I'm not saying they handled Smith inappropriately, but if so, was St. Jean handled fairly? Surely, it's not inappropriate to ask the questions, given the obvious disparity in the base causes, and the rather somersaulted end results. jd BTW, jk, thank you for trying to trim your sails a bit. As you show your ability to listen, I think the crowd will find it easier to listen in return.

Scoutnut . . . er . . . better played?! (ooops, gulp . . .) jd

great ideas, seabear! Also, Vince, someone from the Unit or District should approach the Superintendent again. You have to understand his role, his constituencies, and his legal obligations and constraints. Try to cooperate and work with him to succeed within his rules. There are ways - usually they involve paying your own way and never having a captive audience - that between you, the Supe, and probably the PTO, you can get better access than you have right now. It will never be like the good ol' days, but . . . jd

Welcome, Tuscarora!!! WNY? jd

The Chicago story makes me sad. The Atlanta story makes me sad. The Idaho story makes me sad. The St. Jean story makes me sad. The Smith story makes me sad. The growing (and hardening) devisiveness on this forum makes me sad. jk, OK, great, now I'm sad. What the heck are you trying to accomplish? Are you making a call to action? If so, stop complaining and do THAT. Are you asking a question? If so, stop complaining and do THAT. Are you suggesting we be vigilant in our future? If so, stop complaining and do THAT. Are you suggesting you have an answer to these problems. If so, stop complaining and do THAT. Are you just angry and want everyone to know? If so, stop complaining!!! We get THAT. I don't think deleting the thread is necessary, but if the only way to change jk's direction is to avoid him and his posts, then I'm done with replying. I only hope that we will stop feeding the fire by using jk's posts to take generic shots at other forum members. He speaks for himself - he is not the mouth of some negative group. As long as we stay on this destructive path, none of us are doing our best. jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Hunting wolf, Welcome!! Unfortuantely, discussing ex-wifes would be taking this thread in a new direction and, though you are cordially invited to start such a thread, our tiny brains prefer to stay on one topic at a time . . . Quisp and Quake Unless you're traveling, then you just need the 4 major food groups: beef jerky, mountain dew, moon pies and either (choose only one!) chocolate or red licorice! jd

rk, well played jd

WELCOME, tlamkin!! jd

WELCOME, bnnykllr!!!! OGE, I think it's . . . er, . . . Bonnie Keeler!! Or, . . . maybe . . . Benny Keller!! jd

Let's hope so, but briant may have a point - around the periphery. I would assume there's a story or two to be told. jd

Time for an Ever Lasting GobStopper?!?!?!?

Hunt, good post. I've recently listened to Ellis' "Patriots" lecture series for Barnes and Noble Audio. It's a great listen and a great learning. I'd more likely give a "slavery" pass to Lee than Adams, Franklin, Jefferson or even Washington. AFJ were intimately involved in the decision to avoid the slavery issue. They purposefully kept "property" out of the list of inalienable rights - a right included by G. Mason in his work for Virginia (though he undoubtedly lifted it from someone else - A Smith, I think) which was the basis of that section of the D of I. AFJ chose to leave slavery out of the formation process of the new nation, so that they could actually achieve a new nation. Apparently, they believed that slavery would have created such a conflict the founding fathers would have turned against each other. They were willing to change (and fight amongst themselves about) many aspects of govt. and law as they tranformed from royal colonies to a united republic - they just weren't willing to fight the slavery fight. By the Time we get to RE Lee, slavery was an institutionalized part of the south's culture and economy as part of the young nation. He was - what he was raised to be. BTW, though they reconciled before dieing (same day - 50th anniversary of the D of I), Jefferson didn't consider Adams "morally straight" for most of their post-revolution days. Something about Court stuffing . . . jd

Ironic that "screaming irony" has devolved to "screaming chicken"? You decide! jd

Hi, wahoonfp, WELCOME! Your Boy Scout can (should!) wear the knot for earning his religious emblem as a Cub. The device pins are worn to show when the award was earned. Check with your Unit and/or religious org. to determine who will purchase medals, badges, pins, etc. You can double-check this info with the insignia guide. jd

Thanks, OGE, I get that. But Hunt turned the discussion in slightly new direction, and I thought Merlyn gave a bit of a corpspeak answer. And amidst the usual piling on in both directions I didn't want Hunt's thoughtfulness to be lost. Ed, please challenge words not people. jd