AZMike

Frankly, I'm very okay with extended after-market magazines and drum magazines and even fully automatic weapons, because after market-extended magazines and drum magazines are notorious for jamming (both the Colorado shooter and the two North Hollywood bank robbers used drum magazines and they both jammed, giving more good guys a chance to escape or shoot back). I regularly see even the after-market 20 and 30 round magazines jam. Thankfully, few mass shooters seem to spend any time training with immediate action drills for weapon malfunctions, and tend to just drop the weapon and go to another one. I'd rather have someone shooting at me with a Glock with a 30 rd magazine than the issued 14 rd one. It's counterintuitive, but there you go. Fully automatic weapons are rarely used in crimes in the U.S. (the lengthy legal requirements to be a Title III possessor tend to weed out the criminals and crazies), but even if a bad guy does a conversion or steals one, unless he spends a lot of time practicing, the ability of a bad guy to control muzzle climb in full-auto fire, especially with a heavier caliber, improves the odds for the good guys. I've watched as a succession of highly trained people try to keep a full-auto AK-47 on target in full auto or short bursts, and they (maybe) could get one shot on target at close range, everything else went up high and off target. I can only hope that if someone is shooting at me with a rifle, that it is full-auto. They will use up more of their ammo to no purpose.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

One of the issues that is often brought up is that the police have the need for high-capacity magazines, but civilians do not. How is that again? Police don't carry firearms to execute enemies of the state, they carry them for the same reason civilians do - self defense. (And yes, I know that police officers are actually civilians as defined by law. You know what I mean.) If we believe we were created with the right to self-defense as part of our humanity and personal dignity, we should have the right to an effective means of self-defense. There is a reason that few law enforcement officers in America carry revolvers any more. As the evidence seems to show that more law-abiding civilians, on a monthly basis, use firearms (including "assault weapons" and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols) to prevent loss of life than to take life, would banning such weapons cause a greater loss of life than if such laws were not in place? How is that moral?

"Those men and women guarding us are well-trained, and well vetted. Yeah, I'll trust them over some guy who has never gone through that kind of training walking off the street and buying a civilian version of that weapon. " Like Major Nidal Hassan at Ft. Hood? Or former Marine Charles Whitman? He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others in Austin with a bolt-action rifle, didn't need an "assault rifle." He was an Eagle Scout as well. Or former Marine Lee Harvey Oswald? He only killed one man with a bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano, but certainly created more chaos than anyone else you can name. Or John Allan Muhammad, the D.C. Sniper and honorably discharged army veteran? Or David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz, an honorably discharged army veteran who killed at last 8 people with a Charter Arms Bulldog revolver? Or honorably discharged Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168, including 19 kids under the age of 6, without firing a single round from an "assault weapon." Talk to any M.P. or any police offer in a base town, you'll hear stories that will curl your hair about what trained and vetted soldiers are capable of.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Some thoughts... I think reasonable enforcement of existing gun control laws would include the administration prosecuting anyone who attempts to purchase a firearm by making a false statement. This happens very often but is rarely prosecuted. Why? I think the 3-strike laws around the country are quite reasonable, but the administration is walking back from those as politically unpopular with the Democratic Party base. How about a mandatory requirement to prosecute any juvenile committing a crime of violence with a firearm or explosive device (including drug offenses) as an adult for the first and any subsequent violations? That would have prevented Columbine and the Kip Kinkel shootings, as many school shooters (not all) have earlier contact with law enforcement for weapons violations. Same problem with the last paragraph, though - Democrats love to ban guns but they don't like to confine the people who use them, much. To what extent are those who would like to end this problem, or feel that their children are safe in schools (which are statistically safer environments that their homes, BTW) willing to accept the changes in civil liberties necessary to confine an adult or juvenile against their will for the safety of society? To what extent can society say you should be deprived of your right to own a firearm? If the government is aware you have taken an anti-depressant? Because your ex-wife says you threatened her? Because you made a tasteless joke about violence in the workplace? What level of judicial review would you require? If the standard is representing a danger to one's self or others, for how long can you be confined? If medication is required to make you safe for society, what measures should the government be able to take to make you take your meds? If you would like to see a greater police presence in the schools, why did the Obama administration cut back federal grant funding for the School Resource Officer program? If you would like to see specially trained officers stationed in schools as plainclothes officers (like the Israelis do, to prevent terrorist takeovers by the Palestinian terrorist groups), what level of training are you willing to pay for from your tax dollars? Do you want the equivalent of the Israeli Yanam, or the TSA officers who feel you up when you travel? If the answer is more magnetometers, why is the first person the school shooter often kills the magnetometer operator? There are probably as many, or more, people who want to own semi-automatic firearms for self-defense than there are marijuana users. Given our apparent inability as a nation to prevent the sale, possession, or use of marijuana, what makes anyone think a ban on such firearms would be any more practical, or less socially destructive in terms of the actions necessary for enforcement against what many see as a constitutional right? Would the Mexican cartels find a new source of revenue in American gun owners? Will they sell back the weapons that the administration sold them under "Fast and Furious"? Given that several states and cities have decided to abrogate for themselves the right to decide which federal laws should be enforced, such as the state of Washington with marijuana laws, or some cities in California with sanctuary laws for illegal aliens, what is to stop red states from holding referenda that legislate that they will not cooperate in the enforcement of any federal anti-"assault weapon" laws, and that they will issue cards upon demand that permit non-felon state residents to own an "assault weapon" and requiring by statute that law enforcement agencies in the state will not cooperate in the enforcement of federal laws against them? It's likely to happen. In Arizona, for sure. How about a tax on Hollywood producers of violent movies or TV shows or video games, with a percentage of 50% - heck, 75% - of the studio's net revenues from any film or TV show or video game that depicts shoot-outs (or even car chases) or otherwise glorifies senseless violence or feeds the fantasies of unstable youth, with the revenue going directly to support mental health programs (or, if those don't work, maximum security mental asylums for the violent mentally ill) for those at risk of acting out in person the kind of B.S. they see depicted glamorously in the media? I'm sure THAT would go over well with some of Obama's biggest financial supporters. Is it possible that the culture of death we have created in America has so devalued life that we have created an society where a 20 year old can conceive of doing such an act? How many young lives were extinguished in America last year with the implicit support of the government? What does that tell us about the way we view the sanctity of children's lives? Is it possible that such supremely evil acts cannot be simply legislated out of existence? Is it possible that the Pelagian apparatus of the modern secular society, (which has an implicit faith that if we just throw enough taxpayer's money, laws, lawyers, bureaucrats, and therapists at any problem that society can finally be made safe and perfect), will ultimately be ineffective against the capacity of humans for moral evil? Is it possible that humans, who either descended from Eden or descended from the trees (doesn't make much difference either way, does it?), will find a way to harm you, whether you make it easier for them to do so or not? Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. That didn't much help those kids on the island of Utya. Mexico law effectively denies civilian ownership of any firearm. 60,000 were killed by the cartels there last year. Based on the statements in today's WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578183910797348422.html?mod=e2tw), every staff member in Lanza's former school was aware of his problems, knew he was prone to violence, and did the best they could with monitoring him within their legal restrictions. Would a ban on the type of firearm he used (which wouldn't even fit the definition of Feinstein's proposed bill against assault weapons) have prevented him from eventually acting out in a murderous rage, whether with an assault rifle, a pistol, or a revolver, or even a bunch of revolvers in each pocket? Or from using his formidable intellect to make an even more destructive IED? How many assault rifles did Timothy McVeigh need to kill 168 people, including 19 kindergartners, in Oklahoma City? How many assault rifles did Andrew Kehoe need to murder 38 elementary school kids and 6 adults with explosives in Bath, Michigan? Will litigating against a specific type of tool disarm the determined tool-user? What if it wasn't bullying, or access to his mother's weaponry, or Asperger's, or violent video games, or his parent's divorce, or a mindlessly violent pop culture, or if some other societal excuse didn't somehow grab him and drag him over to the firearm, make him grab it, and then force him to commit this evil act? What if it was an act of free will by an adult who chose to commit an act of evil? How uncomfortable is our modern society, media, and pop culture with even admitting that this was not a "troubled" person, but an evil one?(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Oh, yeah. I think "Tunnel in the Sky" is my favorite of them all, though, and would appeal to most scouts. It holds up remarkably well. In an overpopulated future earth, the key to alleviating population pressure is a Stargate that allows earth to push colonists through to new worlds across the universe. The colonies are pretty much on their own afterwards until they can develop an economy that allows them to export goods back to earth, so the old-school skills of wilderness survival (i.e., the kinds of things scouts do...) are in high demand again, and you can major in Survival skills in college. The heroes of the book are taking AP classes in Survival as seniors in high school, and have elected to take the college-level graduation exam: the students are pushed through a stargate onto an undeveloped planet, and have to survive with only what they bring with them for up to two weeks before the recall signal. Then something goes horribly wrong - the recall signal never comes, and the groups of teens from different schools have to recreate a society. The lessons of survival - from individual to group to society - were examined by Heinlein because of his distaste for the novel "Lord of the Flies," which had just come out. Heinlein, who could be very pessimistic, did have a higher view of humanity than in Golding's book. This is a great book for young men, or even old men. Find a copy and read it, if you never have. And buy a copy for your son. (One of the early chapters discusses the young hero's decisions about what equipment he should take with him - you can wind up in ANY environment, after all - and I realized while reading it that Heinlein created the concept of the hydration bladder / Camelbak pack back in the 1950s...)(This message has been edited by AZMike)

The book "Tunnel in the Sky" by Robert A. Heinlein.

I second desertrat77's comments. I suggest that the cool/uncool paradigm may be essentially irrelevant for new generations. There is a much wider range of acceptable behavior among kids when I was young, when those who had outre interests risked social banishment. Back then, if a teenager showed an interest in fantasy role-playing games, or comic book superheroes, or computers, he would be considered laughable or at least a nerd. Nowadays, most teenagers (and even many adults) play video games like World of Warcraft, superhero movies are among the top earners at the box office, and everyone fiddles with computers. With the increasing popularity of "niche" subcultures among kids, and the access to information about them through social network sites, I think boys have access to a wider range of choices in what they want to do, and things that once were terminally unhip are no longer social deal-killers. It may well be hip to be square, as Huey Lewis once sang. The BSA could benefit from this, along with the increase of interest in extreme sports and outdoor pursuits. But, drop or combine the MBs like the three iterations of the Citizenship MBs, add make more outdoorsy MBs requirements for Eagle.

Maybe an appreciation for STEM is its own purpose, and not for vocational training. There is a pleasure in appreciating the works of God and the works of Man, whether it is the Milky Way or a span bridge, or the elegant beauty of a Fibonacci sequence. And maybe, as we are increasingly a technology-driven country, a lawyer or doctor (or a teacher, or a soldier, or a salesman) will have more need to understand STEM-related topics if he wants to be competitive in the 21st century. As well as pioneering and rifle shooting, as a fall-back in case society collapses. As Heinlein said, "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

I don't own one, but I was looking into some and this was recommended by a guy at the backpacking store. Reasonable price, and the reviews on REI look decent: http://www.rei.com/product/814774/goal-zero-nomad-7-foldable-solar-panel

DeanRx: "AZMike - while idealistic, is very misinformed about how the system really works when / if you report. Unless the report is from an ER doc involving severe bodily injury... you're lucky to get a cop or social worker to come do an indterview within 72hrs of the report being filed. By that time, the perp and victim have already moved on (if they suspect anything) and you've wasted your valuable time doing a report and interview that will likely go nowhere when you could have been using your time to treat other patients who value what you do for them. That is a sad, but very true fact of life. " Uhhhhh... I respect you and BSA24 for being so "street," but yes, I actually do become professionally involved in these cases on a regular, ongoing basis, and yes, I guarantee you I know quite a bit more about how this aspect of the world works than most anyone else. Unfortunately. Like many other social ills, society has tended to sweep this problem under the rug, or to argue that the victims are too unsympathetic or are too messy to provide help to, or that the victims somehow are complicit in their victimization, or that they "want" to be in that position (i.e, multiple incidents of sexual abuse by strangers in a single night, every night; violent physical abuse by pimps for failing to make quota for a night or breaking a pimp's many arcane rules; isolation from any family or friends; complete loss of any income or legitimate job skills or job history for much of their early developmental life; a higher rate of PTSD than returning combat veterans; and a host of common physical trauma like traumatic alopecia, PID, ectopic pregnancies, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, stress-related illnesses such as asthma, and often, homicide (which is not unexpected when you force children to hang out all night in high-crime areas such as red-light districts, and submit to sex acts with the dregs of humanity). All the rationalizations you hear for not helping such children are complete and utter B.S., but I am old enough to remember hearing the same rationalizations made about domestic violence, about the physical abuse of children, about the sexual abuse of children, etc. The system actually works quite well to respond to child prostitution IF the mandated reporters do their effin' jobs (including Planned Parenthood, which has its own agenda that prevents helping kids) and IF people have enough of a backbone to help a child who is being regularly physically and sexually abused. The best practices and new laws that have been developed over the last decade, including modification of the forensic interview protocol for the special needs of this group of offenders to obtain legally admissible and defensible interviews, as well as the effective use of the victim specialist system, had made making arrests and getting convictions MUCH easier...but there are still a lot of old-school (and good ol' boy) attitudes that make the job harder.

No, here is what happens: The victim makes an outcry. The mandated reporter calls 911. Police show up, detain the pimp. Or the pimp gets panicky and takes off, with or without the child. Police and the local Innocence Lost Task Force find him. A variety of corroborating evidence is gathered, which is not hard, as most pimps are as stupid as a bag of rocks. He is charged, under state and/or federal violations. He gets many years in prison. You identify other children he has victimized. Victim services works with the victims and families. Victim funding is available through RICO seizures to assist the family. Is it risky to inform on a criminal? Yes. Are we expected to be courageous in defense of children in this life? Yes. Should you risk your tires being flattened and your car being keyed to defend a child's life? Yes. Does the law mandate that we report all abuse to children, even if we are afraid of the consequences? Yes.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

BSA24: "There is a lot of black and white thinking going on in this thread - an attempt to reduce complex situations down to easily solvable moralisms of right and wrong. But real people are complex, and real problems are not quickly solvable. Planned Parenthood, facing the prostituted 13 year old, is not going to report it, because then prostitution rings would no longer use their services. Instead, pregnant 13 year old prostitutes would receive "home abortions" from their pimps, and die. The lesser of two evils is what real decision making often looks like. Take a black and white moral stand today, and tomorrow you don't get any opportunity to help anyone and more people die and suffer than would have." Or, since you know that THIS child IS being repeatedly raped by adults for the commercial profit of the pimp, you could report it to the police, who would arrest and charge the pimp (sexual assault on a minor and trafficking of a juvenile carries significant criminal penalties under both state and federal laws.) Or you could ignore the whole ugly business, because other girls MIGHT receive back-alley abortions and MIGHT die in those..and your abortion mill will lose profits. And as we know that a relatively small number of molesters are involved with a large number of child victims, taking down a single pimp will have the effect of reducing the number of victims in the future, AND thus reducing the number of children impregnated by the sexual assault of pimps and johns. What is so hard for you to understand about this? If a child is being raped, you REMOVE THAT CHILD FROM DANGER. NOW. That is what the law demands. You don't avoid action because of the possible danger that the practice of legal abortion may be curtailed.

packsaddle: "On most calendars, that would be more like a summer 'solstice'." My bad. I blame the batch of fermented Kool-Aid wine I was drinking when I wrote that. You need a packet of grape Kool-Aid or equivalent, a package of yeast from the commissary, a handful of raisins, and a cup of sugar. Mix 'em all in a jug, stick a balloon over the opening, hide it under your cot, wait until the balloon inflates from the fermentation, and Bob's your uncle. Makes a pretty good bottle of popskull at a very reasonable price. I learned how to do that when I earned the (sadly discontinued) Beer and Wine Making merit badge. OldGrayEagle:"I always thought the Yule Log was adopted as a Christmas tradition from distinctively non-Christian backgrounds." I always hear that brought up, but honestly, does ANYONE actually use a Yule Log these days? I'm over a half-century old and have never seen one of the things. James Frazer claimed it was of pagan origins in his "The Golden Bough," but I don't know any anthropologist (and I come from a family of 'em) who takes his work seriously anymore. Again, in the absence of any evidence of a continuing pagan tradition through Europe, it makes as much sense that the custom of "burning things" just seems to be a fun thing for people to do, as all of us know from sitting around a campfire with a bunch of scouts, and if it's Christmas and cold, why not burn a log? We know that the January 6 Nativity feast was sometimes called the Festival of Lights,' like Chanukah, the Jewish Festival of Lights and both were characterised by lighting lamps and kindling fires, which could just as easily be the source of this custom. The Swedish folklorist Carl Wilhelm Von Sydow disagreed with the idea that the custom of using a hard, long-burning chunk of wood at Christmas-time had any pagan or indeed any religious significance at all. OGE: "The whole rabbit and egg thing for Easter does not have any Christian roots. In fact the name Easter, the most sacred Christian Holiday, has its roots in non-christian lore." I assume you're referring to the claim that the English word "Easter" derives from "Eostre," a purported pagan goddess. The problems with that are 1) Most countries that celebrate the Resurrection, other than England and Germany, don't use that word, but use a variant on "Pasche," or "Passover;" As this was allegedly an Anglo-Saxon goddess, and the historical record shows that Christians were celebrating the anniversary of the Resurrection in the second century (long before the conversion of the Saxons), the idea that the Saxons could have influenced the celebration (other than possibly providing a local name to the celebration), is not possible. 2) We only have one text (from the Venerable Bede) that makes the claim that the name of the holiday derived from "Oestre," and no pagan text makes any reference to the existence of such a goddess. The Bede may have simply been passing on incorrect or misunderstood information from a source. The Anglo-Saxons were not known to name their months after deities in any other cases (they named their days of the week after gods, not months), except for the possibility of one other god, Hrethmonath (for March), for which the Bede is again, the only source for the god's existence - neither god shows up in the Eddas or anywhere else , and there is no known Anglo-Saxon pagan celebration during either March or April. The best guess is that the Saxon name from April derives from Estor-monath, "The Month of Beginnings" or "The Month of New Things." (Actually, a fitting name for the month of the Resurrection.) As Charlemagne renamed the months, and he was violently hostile to Germanic paganism, it is unlikely he would name it after a pagan deity. Eggs and bunnies? Eggs were symbolic of the resurrection (rebirth) of Christ, but we don't worship eggs or bunnies. (I just like chocolate bunnies an awful, awful lot.) It's been suggested that English and German kids would roll eggs down hills on Easter Sunday to simulate the rolling away of the stone covering Christ's tomb. OGE "Why are the exact dates important anyway?" Exactly. My son's birthday would be important to me whether we celebrated it on the anniversary of his birth, or any other day we chose at random.(This message has been edited by AZMike)(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Moosetracker, again: But, here is a link giving 2 different ideas.. The first talking about the popular belief of the blending of pagan traditions, and an different belief that Christ was conceived on the same day of the year which he died, so therefore they put Christmas on a Date 9 months after conception.. http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp Is this the one you believe, or do you have a different theory then that? The first idea (of a blending of Christian and pagan beliefs) is nonsense, in that the early Christians adamantly resisted any adulteration or admixture of pagan and Christian worship, even to the point of martyrdom. Pagan worship would have been okay with a blending of faiths, as it was syncretic, and frequently combined gods or claimed that gods in newly-conquered territories could be worshipped as the same gods in the Roman pantheon. The Romans did make efforts to roll the God of the Jews and the Christians into their own rites, and even attempted to worship in the Jewish temples. They couldnt understand why they were rebuffed, as the Romans saw all religion as ultimately political and local. The Christians, like the Jews, would have none of that. While elements of Roman (and Greek) culture unavoidably became part of Christian culture (as with the use of Greek philosophy to explain elements of Christian theology), there was no blending of pagan and Christian doctrinal belief. (The need to maintain a separateness from pagan beliefs is the source of a lot of the admonitions in the OT that sound odd to modern ears.) It is also important to remember that the Christians, like the Jews, considered the pagan gods to be false gods, not in the sense that they didnt exist, but that they did, and were unclean spirits, fallen angels, and demons who were fooling their followers and whose unholy worship must be rebuked. The historical evidence on this is quite clear. When you consider the elements of real pagan worship, which included practices that were anathema to the Christians and Jews (ritual infanticide, castration, bestiality, etc.), its not hard to come to that conclusion. Do you honestly believe the Church would include ANY beliefs from paganism in their practices? The second argument is often claimed, although youve misstated the original argument somewhat- The date of the Annunciation was based on a older Jewish tradition that the world was created on March 25. The Jews also believed that a great man would die on the same day as his conception. The early Christians (who were of course, also Jews) therefore concluded that Jesus had been conceived on March 25. This made it the date of the worlds creation, and the start of the worlds redemption (and therefore the new creation). So, to do the math, if Christ was conceived on March 25, then he was born nine months later on December 25. The date for Christmas is therefore determined by the date of the Annunciation... and has nothing to do with the Roman celebration of the Saturnalia or the celebration of the birthday of Sol Invictus. An additional argument, of which the author you linked is apparently unaware but has become more popular of late, claims that we can calculate the approximate day of Jesus birth from the dates of events given in Luke for the conception of both Jesus and his cousin, St. John the Baptist, based on the time of the year when members of the line of Zecheriah (St. Johns father) would have been scheduled to offer the sacrifices in the temple, which we know from a reference in the Dead Sea Scrolls. As we know the dates when Zecheriahs line in the priesthood would offer sacrifices, and we know his wife Elizabeth conceived around the time Mary conceived, some basic math gives us a date in mid- to late-December. So again, its possible we are on or about the right date. The date is less important than the fact it happened and that we celebrate it. The Church had previously celebrated Christs birth on January 6, which was believed to be on the same date as the Epiphany, based on an oral tradition that was passed down as part of the Deposit of Faith. Christs birth, as the Incarnation of the Infinite into the finite world, was considered a wonderful thing and worthy of commemoration, but it wasnt until the Gnostics became a threat to orthodoxy that the Church began a separate feast day to specifically celebrate Christs birth. As the Gnostics (like the Basilideans and the Manichaens) denied the corporeality of Christ, and claimed him to have been merely spirit masquerading as flesh (part of the warped mentality that made them fanatically anti-woman, anti-sex, and anti-birth), the Church chose to establish a feast day that drew attention to the fact that Christ assumed humanity and was a real, flesh-and-blood person, even as he was God, and that the physicality of the universe was both God-given and a very Good Thing. (The Gnostic Arius, a hippie balladeer who promoted the claim that Christ did not have a physical body, got knocked unconscious by good St. Nicholas at the Council of Nicea, BTW, so theres your Christmas connection right there!) The earliest (and thus, probably best) explanation for the dating of December 25 for the event was given by St. Augustine. Generally, in history its best to go to the earliest primary texts to understand the reasons WHY they did things, Moosetracker, and not to try to ascribe modern perspectives to them. The best explanation why the date was chosen was, simply, astronomy. The ordered nature of the heavens was frequently used as symbolism in the OT and NT - look at how many times the appearance of clouds is used as symbolism of Gods power working on earth, and stars, the moon, and the sun - and the use of the winter solstice, commonly recognized in all agricultural societies, was the best symbolism for the birth of Jesus as the Christ, the long-awaited Messiah. After the days of darkness and coldness grow longer and longer, and as it appears the sun will not reappear, on or about December 25 (depending on which calendar you were using at the time), the days grow longer at the solstice as the sun regains its power. As Jesus is linked with his cousin St. John the Baptist, whose feast day is celebrated around the summer equinox on June 24th (with a later feast day for his beheading in August), because as he said, He (Jesus) must increase and I must decrease - just as the longest days of sunlight begin to shorten at this time. Thus, the twin feast days for Jesus nativity and St. Johns feast day complemented each other in the eyes of the early Church. St. Augustine felt that Christ actually chose his date to be born to mark the symbolism of the return of light to the world. In one of his Christmas Day sermons, St. Augustine said: Because even the day of his birth contains the mystery of his light. That, you see, is what the apostle says: The night is far advanced, while the day has drawn near; let us throw off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us walk decently as in the day (Rom 13:12-13). Let us recognize the day, and let us be the day. We were night, you see, when we were living as unbelievers. And this unbelief, which had covered the whole world as a kind of night, was to be diminished by the growth of faith; that's why, on the day we celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the night begins to be encroached upon, and the day to grow longer. So, brothers and sisters, let us keep this day as a festival; not, like the unbelievers, because of that sun up there in the sky, but because of the one who made that sun. That which was the Word, you see, became flesh, in order to be able for our sakes to be under the sun. Under the sun, indeed, in the flesh; but in divine greatness over the entire universe, in which he placed the sun. Now, though, he is also over that sun even in the flesh, the sun which people worship instead of God, because in their mental blindness they cannot see the true sun of justice. So clearly, this was not an attempt to take over the holiday of a Sun God, - pagans dont own the solstice anymore than anyone else does, and the symbolism of Jesus with the light and warmth of the sun existed from the beginning of Christian worship. In fact, none of the traditional feast days for Apollo, the Sun God, corresponded with any astronomical events, such as the solstice or the equinoxes. So, what were the Christians supposed to be supplanting, Moosetracker? I could go on at greater length about this, but probably have gone on at too great a length already. Simply, the record of the early Church and other sources reflects that the celebration of the Feast of the Nativity, whatever date it happened upon, was not an attempt to mix Christian and Pagan beliefs. So let's all have a nice, refreshing glass of Kool-Aid, or even Flavor-Ade. (Or, my favorite, Funny Face... I miss Goofy Grape and Jolly Olly Orange.)(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Likewise, the feast days of the saints are usually based on the dates of their deaths/martyrdoms rather than their birthdates, which usually werent known and were considered far less important than the day of their martyrdom and ascension into Heaven. Accordingly, we celebrate the Feast of the Nativity, like many feast days, on a date that seems appropriate because of its association with another event - in the same way we can choose a date for the birthday of a foundling whose date we dont know. As we shall see, those dates were sometimes based on astronomical events, as Christians viewed the universe as created by God as an ordered place that operated on knowable principles (in opposition to the pantheistic pagan view of the universe as governed by fickle and changeable spirits inhabiting the stars and planets.) Ill get into the reason why December 25 was chosen below. It certainly COULD be December 25, as there is nothing in Luke to disprove it, and Im happy to celebrate it then. Puritans and atheists often claim there is no way that sheep could be in the fields in winter, but thats also nonsense. The sheep argument originated with a fanatically anti-Catholic 19th century Scottish cleric named Alexander Hislop (who authored an unbelievably turgid screed on the Catholic Church titled The Two Babylons Or: The Papal worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife), and maybe in Scotland you dont keep sheep out in the winter, but in Bethlehem, they sure did and continue to do so. The Navajo live on the same latitude line and elevation as Bethlehem, and Ive seen their sheep out at Christmastime. My sheepherding friends (of whom I actually have three) assure me that it is healthier for sheep to not be corralled during the winter. Keeping sheep inside in temperate climes like Bethlehem (and Arizona) is bad for the sheeps feet, for their metabolic adjustment, and it aids in the spread of disease. If you pen the sheep, you will also have to supply them with hay (which would have been in short supply and an additional cost for the owners of the herd in 1st century Palestine, who could have been either nomadic Bedouins or poor Jews), so it would have been more economical to leave them outside and let them graze. The sheep of 2000 years ago were presumably of tougher stock than modern breeds and more able to survive the cold. Anyway, as that argument usually comes up.. So as Professor Steve Hijmans at the University of Alberta wrote, numerous other dates had been proposed by the early Church Fathers: Clement of Alexandria, for instances mentions (and dismisses) proposals that Christ was born on April 19 or May 20 and himself calculated the date as November 17, 3 BC. Other suggested dates included March 28 and April 2, but not December 25th None of the dates were influential, or enjoyed any official recognition. Their basis varied from learned calculations to pure guess-work. It was only in the 330s, apparently, that December 25thwas first promoted as a feast day celebrating the birthday of Christ. Initially, this happened only in Rome, but in the 380s it is attested as such in Asia Minor as well, and by the 430s in Egypt. Nonetheless, other churches, as we have seen, continued to maintain Epiphany January 6th- as the birthday of Christ, and do so to this day. Moosetracker, again: When Christians attempted to spread Christianity to pagan communities they altered things to allow Pagan communities to feel comfortable.. Here is the first problem with your argument, and maybe you just misstated a commonly-held belief, but nothing was altered to make pagans feel comfortable. Certainly, by the time of the establishment of December 25 as the date to celebrate Christmas, the number of professing pagans was almost miniscule, so there would be no reason to change anything to appeal to them. While earlier on in the spread of Christianity, some of the patristic fathers would describe elements of the Christian faith and compare them to pagan beliefs, this was a rare event (I can count maybe two or three such references from this period). The core beliefs were in no way altered. Tertullian made the very reasonable argument that some familiar elements of paganism - such as the use of white wedding gowns and wedding rings - were allowable in Christian services, as they did not require idolatrous worship, or forbidden pagan practices such as child sacrifice. That makes sense. As St. Paul urged, we should teach non-Christians by using things with which they are familiar. Thats not cultural piracy, its respecting and incorporating things with which new converts are familiar to ease their transition into a new life. Theres nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesnt change any doctrinal issues. The Church also, shall we say, appropriated old pagan temples and possessions as part of the process of rebuking the old beliefs (and it went both ways - under the pagan Emperor Julian, the pagans seized and destroyed Christian places of worship), but in the same way as the Jewish neighbor I had as a kid would show me the Luger pistol he took off a Nazi officer. This was not adopting pagan beliefs, it was collecting war trophies, to impress on people that Our Side Won. Its why the Vatican has such a nice collection of Roman art.

Moosetracker Don't know if the Sun God moving to "Son of God" is accurate, but I also have been told from religion historians that December 25th is not the true birthdate of christ, it was a date for a Pagan holiday, along with many christmas traditions being from pagan celebration traditions. Which Christmas traditions might those be, Moosetracker? And what evidence have your religious historians provided that those traditions survived over 2000 years to the present day? This remains one of the biggest problems for those claiming that practices such as the Saturnalian practice of gift-giving survived through the collapse of the Roman Empire, the rise of the Carolignian Empire, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Protestant Reformation and the rise of Puritanism, etc. - there are simply no primary historical texts that support this claim. Likewise the claim from hacks like Dan Brown that many other supposed messiahs and gods claimed December 25 as their birthday. There are precisely NO historical records for this claim, which both the Puritans, the new-agers, and atheists make with a complete absence of textual evidence. And which Pagan holiday are we talking about? Of the various pagan holidays that have been proposed (Mithra, Sol Invictus, Apollo), none fall on December 25, with the possible exception of a minor feast day of Sol Invictus. But Professor Steven Hijsman at the University of Alberta has, in the view of most scholars, demolished Useners claims in the late 19th century that the Feast of Sol Invictus was either a major holiday for that deity (his main feast day was in the summer), or that the one reference in a primary text predated the Christian celebration of Christmas on 12/25. As you are probably aware, the Romans loved them some holidays, and would be hard to pick a date out of the Roman calendar that did not fall on a celebration for some damned Roman god or another. As you may also know, the dramatic and unprecedented rise of Christianity caused quite the opposite of what you suggest - pagans attempted to co-opt Christian celebrations in many cases in an attempt to stem the tide of Christian conversions in the Empire. There are also NO patristic references to a decision to co-opt celebrations of Mithra, Apollo, Sol Invictus, or any other pagan deity. On that basis alone, we can shuck the argument. As far as the date, you are partially correct. We simply dont know (so its not accurate to say December 25 is NOT the birthday, and there are traditions that say it was that might be correct). Dates of birth for other than royalty were not recorded for common people in the ancient world (and still often arent, in rural communities of the middle east - many people from that area that I know just say January 1 when asked their birthdate because they dont know and were never told their birthdate.) The Jews did not celebrate birthday parties (partly due to the lack of inflatable bouncers for rent in 1st-century Palestine), and despised astrology, so had no need to record birthdays. Emperors or kings would likely have their births recorded for posterity and to help cast a horoscope, but the poor son of Mary and Joseph? No. As birthdays of holy people were unknown, most often the date chosen to celebrate a saints feast day or the celebration of a holy event was chosen at a later time to commemorate another date, if the original date was unknown. Thus, the date of the Feast of the Transfiguration (whose date was not given in the Gospels) was chosen by Pope Callixtus III to honor the date of the victory of the forces of Christendom at the Siege of Belgrade, which was considered an extremely high honor by those involved. (This message has been edited by AZMike)

"Christmas, or more correctly Christ Mass, was a day spent in church for the Christians. The Pagans celebrated the birth of the Sun God that the Christians later used as the Son of God." Well, that part is historically inaccurate but I agree with the rest.

An interesting interview with the Secret Service agent who jumped on the back of JFK's car, on the anniversary of the assassination: http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/236559/reflections-from-the-secret-service-agent-who-leaped-onto-jfks-car

Oswald acted alone, but was probably not trying to kill Kennedy but former Secretary of the Navy (and Texas Governor) John Connolly, whom he blamed for denying his military medical benefits due to his dishonorable discharge from the USMC. It wasn't that he was such a good shot to hit Kennedy, it was that he was such a lousy shot he hit Kennedy instead of Connolly. The root causes of political assassination in the U.S. are more often personal than political.

O/T - while we often disagree here, I wish that you all have a great Thanksgiving and hope you all have the opportunity to spend it with your loved ones. - Mike(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Huh. Yeah, I think I would rather have an interfaith service, where each faith does its own prayer and explains its own doctrine, or a very basic non-denominational service, than try to wrap us all in the same blanket by claiming a shared set of beliefs or vision of God that may not exist in reality, at other than a very basic level. Do you know if that was part of the Woodbadge curriculum, or something that was done locally?

BigBovine: "Being that, outside of Church, Scouting seemed to be an organization that followed along my beliefs. I understand there are different faiths in BSA, and at Woodbadge experienced a non denominational, multireligious non religious ceremony. That was very different and bothered me at first. Then I realized that there were many different types in the group. Even though I didn't like it, I realized I am not in BSA for it's religious services." BigBovine, I've never been to Woodbadge - just out of curiosity, what was that ceremony like and what did you find objectionable about it?

DigitalScout, you rock too! It was actually a joke based on Brewmeister's earlier post on page 8" "Holy cow, we went from gays to global warming in 8 pages. No mention of Hitler yet though. Where's the popcorn?" (Although at least two of my three statements are true.)

"Spending on research on embryonic stem cells, the effects of sex education, space exploration, contraception and global warming became not based on science - but politics. It is sad. Maybe we need ." When has government-funded science ever NOT been political? We're paying for it with money extracted from the taxpayer's pocketbook. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on Obama's mandate to him on NASA's new focus: "...perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering." Au revoir, manned space program.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Hitler was a gay atheist who hated the Boy Scouts.