AZMike

As you and others have said that "atheism" is a simple lack of belief, not a positive belief system, and so cannot be judged on the actions of atheist governments, how can a "lack of belief" possess a system of morality?

Actually, Merlyn, it was denigrating the screwed-up beliefs of millions of people, not the millions of people themselves. Beliefs are always fair game for discussion.

"Atheism. There are a good many men who have no religion, who don't believe in God; they are known as atheists. In Great Britain alone there are nine societies of these. They are welcome to have their opinions in this line, but when they try, as they are always doing, to force these ideas on other people, well, then they are like the Germans trying to force their "kultur" on the world, they become enemies of the worst sort." - Lord Baden-Powell. From this, I learned that atheists are like the Weimar Republic of Life, Merlyn. I read this after I went to the Visiting Nurses Auxiliary Book Sale today at the fairgrounds, and found an original copy of "Rovering to Success" by Baden-Powell for a buck. It's a book for young men (older than scouts) full of advice (quite a bit on STDs, where babies come from, how to choose a girlfriend and wife, how to choose a career, how to improve yourself, etc. - actually, pretty good advice for a young man, then and now - I would guess that the Rovering program was a young adult program of its time.). The quote above is from the chapter on "Irreligion," which B-P defines as one of the Rocks standing in the way of your path to success. (He also includes a pretty funny (well, to me, anyway) caricature of a typical atheist, that looks a great deal like Richard Dawkins.) B-P wrote that chapter as an apologetic of answers to anti-religious atheists, as well as those "fellows who, though not violently opposed to religion, are not particularly interested in it. In some cases they have never been shown what it is; in others it has not proved very attractive or inspiring and they have let it slide." B-P provides some arguments based on the wonder of the natural world and the Natural Law, especially to inspire those in the latter category. B-P makes the interesting point that "Some of these [atheist] societies directly attack the religious belief of others in a very offensive way, but I believe that by doing so they are, as a matter of fact, doing more good than harm to the religions concerned, since it makes people buck up and sink their own differences in order to combine together to repel these attacks." Probably correct, as the rise of the "New Atheism" (as well as the rise of the Internet) recently triggered a corresponding greater interest in Christian apologetics, and a greater knowledge of the answers to the simpler atheist arguments by a lot of younger believers. So out of evil, good. The chapter is actually pretty good, and provides a very non-denominational series of arguments for God, although it draws on a number of very different faith traditions - Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Shinto - and makes an apologetic use of the observation, and reverence for, nature as a way to coming to know God. If a troop wishes to discuss the "Reverent" part of the code, the sections of this chapter would make a good series of starting points, without offending anyone's particular religious beliefs.

Military units used to charter scout troops. When I was in the Army, I was "encouraged" by my rather scary First Sergeant to assist his troop on a Scoutarama event. I expected to spend a day watching him bellowing at the boys in the troop where he was a Scoutmaster like he did at us, only to find him relaxed, having fun, approachable, and obviously adored by the boys in his troop. (At the end of the day, when I told him I wasn't used to seeing him in that setting, he said, "Well, they're boys. You can't treat them the same way as I do you guys or they won't have any fun. Scouting is about having fun." Then he punched me in the solar plexus. (No, just kidding about the last part.) That all ended in 2005, when as the result of a settlement between the ACLU and the Pentagon to close all of the hundreds of chartered BSA troops on military bases in the U.S and overseas: "In a letter dated March 11, 2005, the Director of Registration at the Boy Scouts of America National Office notified the ACLU of Illinois that it intended to advise "all local councils to transfer charters issued to government entities to private entities immediately." The Boy Scouts' letter came in response to a February 9th letter from ACLU of Illinois Staff Counsel Adam Schwartz. In his letter, Mr. Schwartz noted the recent action by the Pentagon, and stated that the direct sponsorship of Boy Scout units by local government entities violates the First Amendment because current Boy Scout rules require government officials overseeing the charters: 1) to exclude any youth from membership in the Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts simply because they do not believe in God; and, 2) to compel youth to swear an oath of duty to God. Schwartz noted that direct government sponsorship of BSA units violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not want to express a belief in God. The ACLU of Illinois noted that transferring the charters to private organizations would "avoid the need for further litigation in Illinois regarding the direct government sponsorship of Scouting." (source: ACLU Press Release http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/layer02/articles/2006050505.html) The military now allows both homosexuals and atheists, so the military would be acceptable to the ACLU, but the BSA would not. The ACLU would still have problems with the military reopening any charters as the atheists are still not allowed, and would also probably not allow the military to charter any local option troops that hold to pre-millennial morality. Most public schools would also not accept the BSA as a whole or local option troops that aren't part of the New Model BSA. I'm not sure what other organizations would rush forward to charter troops if their CO drops them. There are only so many Methodist, Anglican, and Lutheran churches that are pro-homosexuality and don't already have a troop.

(j/k)............ ;}

Man, this is even weirder! I tried to write a response to Eagledad, and I wound up in a post by AZMike! What's going on? Where am I? I'm lost in cyberspace! Packsaddle

On your question #2, my understanding is that yes, as some Protestant denominations have changed their doctrine to suit the times and have discovered a new belief in gay marriage and gay ordination, this has caused some congregations to split or even fold. The Lutheran church near me just dissolved its relationship with its governing body over this and went independent. Some of the Anglican churches have dissolved their relationship with the governing body in England and have instead chosen to align with an African one over this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/world/30anglican.html (A forum member who is actually a member of these denominations could probably explain the terminology for these moves better than I can). Thanks for bringing this up, as it probably is an issue that hasn't been fully addressed in this discussion. If people will dissolve their congregations and long-standing synods over their moral stands, which are presumably much more important and intense relationships for them than which scout troop their sons are in, what does that bode for the future of Scouting under the New Model? This formerly thriving church in St. Paul closed its doors after the congregation rejected the pastor's new hobbyhorse of support for gay marriage: http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_20975779/pastor-whose-congregation-dwindled-after-supporting-gay-marriage The Lutheran schism over gays will wind up impacting many of the social service networks they have built up, which also doesn't bode well for the BSA - again, the demands of the few will outweigh the needs of the many: http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Lutheran-split-over-gays-and-the-Bible-shakes-up-multibillion-dollar-social-service-network.aspx http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/lutherans_split_over_gay_pasto.html The Ethiopian Lutherans just severed their relationship with the English church over this issue: http://www.christianpost.com/news/ethiopian-church-severs-ties-with-lutherans-over-homosexuality-89745/ This bellwether topic may be worth a separate thread - thanks.

Yes. He was allowed to make mistakes before, too, just not on matters of faith and doctrine. Popes have less and less room for movement with each Pope, however, as what has been settled has already been settled.

On ghjim's comment, do you feel that liberals do not also require that everybody be forced to subscribe to their value system? Do many liberals not require that contraceptives and abortifacients be paid for by all employers, regardless of their religious views? Do many liberals not feel that a (liberal) government will be the best judge of how a person's earnings should be reapportioned? Do many liberals not feel that the importance of public education is such that voucher-based school programs should not be allowed? This is something about liberal thought/philosophy that has left me puzzled ever since childhood...

An article from the Hoover Institute that suggests the final solution for the BSA may be schism, and that the best we may be able to hope for in the Boy Scouts is the sort of velvet divorce that sundered Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics. Kind of depressing, and I doubt that even a split BSA (the Orthodox Boy Scouts of America and the Reformed Boy Scouts of America?) would shield the Orthodox from legal challenges to their use of government space and facilities: "The shape and size of any collective organization requires a trade-off between two benefits. On the one hand, organizations can gain strength by admitting additional members, which gives them more resources for programs and more political and social clout. But, as that membership increases, internal cohesion starts to diminish, and the costs of governance of the organization increase when the preferences of its membership start to diverge. "As the level of disagreement intensifies, the costs of maintaining the unified front increases. The single institution may well be better off if it divides itself into two halves, each of which is free to go its separate way. When religious disputes produce a schism, for example, it is necessary to decide which assets belong to which of the two dividing groups. This can often inject civil courts into religious disputes that they have little inclination to resolve. It would be better for the Scouts to reach an amicable separation before the organization has to resort to costly and bitter litigation. "To this outsider, it looks as though the separation of the two factions—who are in conflict over the issue of admitting gays—will happen. That, on balance, will be for the better. Any effort to introduce a federalism-like solution whereby each particular troop or subunit is entitled to go its own way under a national umbrella will not ease the situation. The deep divisions here are along moral lines. So long as the subunits of the larger entity have to engage in any cooperative activities, the division of sentiment on the matter will only engender the old rivalries, which indeed are likely to go stronger as the separate blocs become more emphatic in their views. "Come next May, when the Scouts reexamine this question, they should work for an amicable separation instead of a fractious union. Mutual toleration and peaceful coexistence may yet turn out to offer the best way forward." http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/140321

BadenP, fear-motivated nonsense is apparently how I roll. I am, however, just doing the favor of taking those who want the New Model of Scouting at their word. If the failure to change to the NMS is all that is keeping a large group of gay scouts, gay scouters, socially conscious liberal parents, and morally impeccable corporate funding sources from rushing to participate in scouting, doesn't it make sense that a change will cause "an overwhelming mass of gay youth and adults rushing to join the BSA?" I have read those on this forum in favor of the NMS claim that the changes will mean that we will have huge Jamboree special effects shows created by Steven Speilberg and that George Takei will create loving media attention by being named the Chief Scouter. If it will have no effect in causing gays to join, but will probably cause social conservatives to leave, shouldn't the discussion focus on why the demands of the few must outweigh the needs of the many? You shouldn't claim that the NMS will change everything, but then say we shouldn't talk about how we plan to deal with what might happen, because after all it really won't change anything. If, as you say, the Local Option allows the units leadership and CO to set the parameters for what is or is not allowable activities, is it not prudent to discuss now how we individually plan to deal with the issues that arise? Clearly, some of those issues have already arisen (like participation in Gay Pride parades, and all-gay scout troops) in Canada Scouting (possibly to its detriment), and, in the Girl Scouts of America, transgendered child issues. Do you think the Boy Scouts of America operate on a special reservation that protects us from the problems of society as a whole?

Usually, granny has us check our larger pieces of ordnance at the front door, especially since the 1998 reunion, aka "The Coconino County War."

This is Arizona, even our clergy are packin'. Usually, granny has us check the larger ordnance at the door. Especially if any of us have been sipping some of our "driving whiskey" on the way over.

Scouting is an activity that attracts old-fashioned people. Some of them are conservative, some are liberal. Even the liberals tend to be old-fashioned - the sort of aging hippies that still have the Whole Earth Catalog on their bookshelf (next to all the Foxfire books) and can fix their VW van with baling wire and duct tape make some of the best scouters I've met. Actually, all the liberals in scouting are conservatives as well - Scouting focuses on conserving the wild places of the Earth, and old-timey skills that most people don't care about - lashings, and fire-starting, and what have you. Scouting says that just because a skill seems pointless, like starting a fire with friction,maybe we should still practice it because it might be fun, or even useful again some day. I think old-fashioned people are less common these days, sadly. And on Beavah's comment, combined with the loss of troops, scouts, and scouters that the New Model Scouting will likely cause, there are just going to be fewer people who want to spend the time and effort to do scouting, especially if they feel their morals are being ignored. On the left or the right.

So what does Flagging do? Does it go on your Permanent Record? I just posted 3 comments and they just endlessly sit there with a pop-up saying "Working..." Some of the threads show that there are long threads with current posts today, but they the thread only shows 1 page and nothing current. You have to use the Filter drop down to find the most current post. If I leave this forum, it won't be because of the incivility and personal invective (that just makes it feel like one of my family reunions), but because you can spend 10 minutes typing a response and have it vanish into the electronic aether. I have no idea if this post wll make it. It's like a message in an electronic bottle.

I think most people outside of scouting who are commenting on the issue either way could not be bothered to spend their spare time actually volunteering to help a Scout troop. I may disagree with a lot of the people on this forum, but most at least have skin in the game and I'll listen to what they have to say, even if I think it's nonsense. I have less patience with those (on either side) who have no interest in Scouting but find it a useful horse to hitch their ideology to. Scouting is going to take a hit on this either way, and it will ultimately wind up hurting a lot of boys to assuage some liberal consciences. Unlike a move to Canada or seceding from the Union, pulling a Scout from a troop is a lot easier. You just stop dropping him off for troop meetings and camp-outs and just let him sit in front of a video game growing fat and more antisocial while you pride yourself on your highly evolved social conscience or your higher morality or something. MattR, I suspect we'd agree that for a "boy-led" organization, the people who have been dominating this argument have been (nominally) adults.

He will live in a monastery from now until he passes away. I will be sorry when he passes on, but I suspect that may be sooner rather than later and I don't think he is long for this world. He will write and publish during the time has has left (Ratzinger is one of the greatest living theologians, as even most Protestant theologians have acknowledged - his 3 volume series "Jesus of Nazareth" is amazing) - but will no longer have papal infallibility upon his divestiture. This must have been an incredibly hard decision for him, but the position requires extensive travel and public speaking and I think he made the hard decision that he could no longer fulfill the physical responsibility of the role. In his letter, he hints that both his physical and mental health are the reasons for his departure, so if an increase in cognitive problems is the issue, he probably made the decision to leave before it caused any potential problems. Ratzinger has always been sharp as a whip, so this is a sad thing to hear, and his orthodoxy has been just what the Church has needed. Faced with the worst sacnadal the modern Church has faced, Pope Benedict XVI made the hard decisions that had to be made...which is why the curent abuse scandal has dropped to almost no new cases, with just the sad detritus of the recent decades with which we still have to cope. We seem to get the Pope we need at various times in history (the rise of Fascism found a powerful opponent in Pope Pius, and the Soviet Empire met a powerful opponent in Pope John Paul II), so we shall see how the demands the current problems of the age are answered by the next Pope.

You feel that it is bigotry for us to accept the argument that has been offered by those who support this change - that a lot of gay teens and gay adults want to join the Scouts and can't or won't, and that changing the policy will allow them to do so - and that we should try get out in front of this to start coming up with some solutions to potential problems (liability, safety, unit retention) based on this supposed huge influx of gay teens and gay adults. Based on your viewpoint, most companies' HR programs are "bigoted," because they have to establish guidelines that will try to accommodate differing perceptions of what is acceptable behavior within a working community. Our particular working community involves shared sleeping arrangements, shared hygienic arrangements, and a population of young males who are at a hormonal peak of poor judgement. It is also a group that has been taught one moral view, and now will be told that the previous moral view is suddenly non-operative, and that they will now conform to the latest moral view. And you don't think this will all create a new set of problems? You feel that it is a flawed initial premise that homosexuality is intrinsically about sex. Fair enough. What is it intrinsically about then, CalicoPenn?

Okay, the Local Option may well happen, regardless of what many want. This thread will be for discussion of how your troops would deal with some of the practical problems that may arise, assuming you choose to continue to stay in the organization. 1) Participation in gay-themed events? Three scouts who have come out as gay join your troop. They want to participate in a local Gay Pride parade (such as this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/03/world/in-canada-gay-pride-can-be-part-of-scouts-honor.html) in uniform. Some of the straight scouts object to the unit appearing to support such an activity. It doesn't appear to be overtly political or partisan. You're a little uncomfortable yourself after looking at the themes of some of the floats in the parade, and some of the groups sponsoring the floats. Their parents are okay with their participation, and are encouraging them to march. They want to hand out recruitment flyers for your troop as they march. Do you say okay? If not, why not? 2) Tenting accomodations on camp-outs A scout who has come out as gay doesn't have a tent-mate and doesn't own a tent. None of the other boys want to share a tent with him. Can you order someone to do so? You loan him an extra tent and let him sleep solo. How do you deal with the angry call from his Mom, who happens to be an attorney, who claims that you are stigmatizing him? One of the boys says it is okay if he tents with him. The next morning, he tells his SPL that during the night, the gay scout discussed some things with him and made some comments that made him uncomfortable, and he wants to tent alone or with someone else that night. You discuss the issue with the gay scout who says nothing happened and he didn't say anything inappropriate. You let the straight scout tent with two other boys. You get an angry call from the straight scout's mother who tells you that under no circumstances should you ever let her son in the same tent with "that boy." The gay scout's mom calls you and demands to know why the first scout is making up lies about her son, and that she wants something done about him. It becomes a big point of dissension within your troop. What do you do? Two 17-year old scouts who have "come out" as gay and have joined the troop together, have stated they are dating each other, and want to share a tent together. You have no idea what is going on in there at night, but other scouts have made comments that they have heard things from the tent that make them uncomfortable. How do you approach that conversation? They tell you that there is nothing sexual going on. They have never had any public displays of affection within the troop. Can you separate them? Can you have a policy that gay scouts can't share a tent together? Can you have a policy that two scouts can't share a tent if they are in a romantic relationship? If you do so, how do you deal with the call from their parents (who are all attorneys) that you are stigmatizing their sons? 3) Deaing with the "T" in "LGBT" Under the rubric of "Transgendered" are included a lot of groups that describe themeselves as transexual, transgendered, or transvestite. Some members of these groups will insist on wearing the clothing of the opposite sex as an intrinsic part of their sexual identity. This is probably less of a problem if all scout leaders wear their uniforms on camp outs and social events, but not every troop camps in uniform. Most would agree that you shouldn't wear anything that will represent a safety hazard. Would you be okay with a male scout leader, or a scout, who chooses to wear make-up such as eye shadow or fashion accessories? How would you tell him he can't? Should the SPL have a talk with the scouts about not commenting on Mr. Smith? Will that be considered as stigmatizing him? Is there anything in the regulations that says he cannot cross-dress? (This is a growing issue in workplace and employment law, BTW.) If two or three gay scouts want to do a skit from La Cage Aux Folles, can you tell them no if there are no sexual references? If one of the adult leaders insists on wearing a rainbow colored neckerchief slide, or one of those rainbow knot patches, can you stop him from doing so? No? If not, how will you deal with the questions from the scouts that arise from why he is wearing it? 4) When the issue is raised by Scouts? I think most people agree that there should be no discussion of sexual issues in Scouting, and most potential homosexual and bisexual leaders don't want to bring it up. (Most of your scout leaders will be parents, and so unless adoptive parents, many will technically be bisexual, in that they had sex with a woman at least once.) Homosexuality is intrinsically based around sex, though - both in choice of sexual partners and choice of sex acts. This is pretty much self-definition - no one cares, or considers someone as "gay" if two men or two women have an intense friendship, strong feelings for each other, room togetehr, or even raise a child together (as a man and his brother might), if they don't have a sexual interest in one another. The desire to have sex with another man or another women is, I think we can agree, what makes someone define themselves as "gay." A simple interest in humming show tunes, dressing with a degree of style or flair, or a predeliction for Judy Garland movies does not. It's all about sex. It's actually about 4 or 5 really specific sex acts, some of which can only be done with another male. If we agree that there is no discussion of sexual issues in scouting, not no time no how no way, it's not really an issue. When someone defines his identity as a person by his sexual preferences, and insists that you acknowledge them as an organization, it's back on the table. Boys are boys, and they like to talk about taboo subjects - fart jokes, potty humor, sex humor, etc., whether an adult is around or not. How will an issue like this NOT be raised by teenage boys , and how will you deal with the bruised feelings that will result from such discussions? Many scouts will have strong religious and moral objections to such sexual behaviors, and may feel that such behaviors are immoral, and that they have a right to express their religious beliefs. If such views are raised among Scouts, it could be uncomfortable to gay scout leaders or boys who have defined themselves as gay. What will be your response? Tell them that such discussion isn't allowed? If a scout makes a comment about homosexuality, and another scout finds it offensive, will you counsel him? What if a gay scout raises the issue of his homosexuality (without discussing specific sex-related talk, but just refers to himself as gay) and another objects based on his religious beliefs? What if he tells you he is opposed to homosexuality because he was born that way? How will you handle this? Will you try to have a discussion about sex without talking about sex? 5) All-Gay troops A local gay organization announces that they are chartering a troop for LGBT children, such as the ones in Canada. In addition to rainbow neck scarves, they will admit "transgendered" boys - that is, girls who sexually identify as boys, as well as, what the heck, lesbians. Maybe even atheists. It's a political hot potato, no one wants to address it. They will be attending your local camporee. What kind of talk will you give your scouts before this event? 6) "That Guy" Will you be okay with a new potential unmarried adult leader, with no kids, who is openly homosexual and is really enthusiastic about being a part of your troop? How will you deal with the situation if he passes the background check and still creeps you out? Just spitballin' here. These are the kinds of issues that adult leadership training may have to focus upon in the future - how would you handle these?

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of a passionate intensity. Mere anarchy is loosed on the world, and everywhere, the ceremony of innocence is drowned." Yeah, there should be room for compromise between reasonable people, but those who are pushing this for GLAAD, the ACLU, the LGBT Defense Fund, et al, have a different agenda than making Scouting better, and many probably don't care if they destroy the organization as long as they accomplish their goals. Those who are pushing for a local option on the other hand have the goal of helping Scouting, we just disagree about methods and results.

This was released from John J. Halloran, the National Chairman for the National Catholic Committee on Scouting: I'm curious about the reference from National that says their attorneys say the next court case would be unwinnable. To which court challenge were theyt referring? Just any one that came along? Was there an impending specific one that had them concerned? Did they not consider the Dale decision settled case law? I would be interested in hearing Beavah weigh in on this as an attorney. 7 February 2013 Dear Members of the NCCS, Catholic Scouters & Concerned Parents, I want to thank all those who prayed, attended mass, sent e-mails, letters and phone calls in regards to the potential policy change by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) on allowing homosexuals in Scout leadership positions. I regret that I was not able to respond to each and every one of you. As I write this, I still have hundreds of unread e-mails. Of the correspondence I did read, they were well written and very passionate in support of one side or the other. You should know that on February 4th the NCCS key leaders attended the Religious Relationship Task Force Meeting. At that meeting, the BSA Chief Scout Executive, National President and National Commissioner addressed those in attendance. Because of the media and rumors, the perception to most Scouters and concerned parents is that this policy change was due to caving in under pressure and selling out for corporate donations. As the BSA Key 3 explained to us, the reason for this proposed policy change was that their constitutional lawyers informed them that they would probably not win the next case on this issue and that the last case was a 5 to 4 decision, which could have gone the other way. They also informed us that by having this restriction, the BSA has usurped for many years the Chartered Organizations ability to select and approve their own leadership as they see fit and not as the BSA sees fit. We also learned that the BSA started addressing this issue last year, but did not bring the major users of the program, faith-based organizations, in on this until a few weeks before the February National Meeting. It is true that BSA has been pressured for years by outside influences but there has been a growing pressure from within to make this change. Even the Task Force, which includes key leaders from the different faith-based organizations that charter Scout units, were divided on this issue. Some of the faith-based organizations would welcome this change. The Task Force did agree on a resolution to ask the BSA National Executive Board to allow more time for its membership to provide their issues and concerns to the BSA leadership before taking a vote on this issue. Most of you should know by now that the BSA National Executive Board has postponed making a decision on this issue until the Annual BSA Meeting in May (22–24). The BSA leadership wants to gather more input from the Faith-Based Organizations, other chartering organizations, local Scout Councils and all those who would like to have their voice heard. The BSA leadership will then present their recommendation to the voting members who attend the Annual Meeting for approval or disapproval. This delay allows us to continue our efforts in ensuring that the issues and concerns of the NCCS are properly addressed and that your voice is properly represented. I am looking at changing part of the format for our Annual Meeting in April (11-14) to allow working groups to discuss this issue and make recommendations. This is such an important issue that it needs to be discussed in as much detail as possible. Many have asked, how can they help or what can they do to make a difference. Here are some suggestions: continue praying on this issue and for us; continue letting your voice be heard at the NCCS, BSA Council & National levels; continue sending e-mails, letters and phone calls to the BSA National leadership and National Executive Board Members. Now that we know it will be up to the voting membership at the Annual BSA Meeting, get with your Council voting members, let them know your issues and concerns, and encourage them to attend the BSA National Meeting. Finally, come to the NCCS Annual Meeting and join in the decision making process so that the NCCS leadership can represent you to the best of our ability. Most of all, be civil in your dealings with those who disagree with your position on this issue. Remember that we are in the Scouting program for the sake of our youth and that our needs and wants should be secondary. Remember that we should not punish the youth by not re-chartering or shutting down any Scout units, especially before a decision has been made. Remember that the youth in Scouting should not be used as pawns to be sacrificed by those for or against this policy to try and gain undue leverage in the decision making process. Remember that all Scout age youth should be encouraged to be part of this worthwhile program, so continue to recruit and grow our Catholic units and membership. Remember to let our Catholic faith be our conscience and our guide in all that we say and do. God Bless. [/size]

Tech error

I would not want to be in charge of security at whatever site is chosen for that national meeting. The protestors outside and the media obession is going to make it into a total freak show.