moosetracker

Love all the comments about it, from the conservatives.. Many similar to : "He will fry in hell!!!".. Really so now you not only go to hell for being a homosexual, and also you will go to hell for having an opinion different then that of a conservative? So when did God or Jesus tell us we were sinners to treat others with respect, even those you have judged to be a sinner? What page is that on in the Bible? So he has an opinion.. He also stated that it is up to each state to decide for themselves.. So he did not state he was for a sweeping reform that this country. What does it matter?.. Will you vote or not vote for him due to how he has run this country so far, and his proposals for the next 4 years?.. Or will you vote for him based on if he wore a tie that you disapproved of? I know I felt more respect for him because I pretty much knew what his view were with that "evolving" crap, but he was to frightened to say one way or the other due to votes.. His VP was on TV last week saying he was in favor of gay marriage, and this before he was chosen to be running as VP this campaign or not.. I felt I had more respect for him for his bravery at that, then I did with the president for his "evovling" comment.. So good for him.. He is being honest.. But, it will not help or hurt the platform he is running on, since he has no intention of forcing the country to abide by his veiwpoint. This opinion is not part of his platform.

Are the header "SM" standing for something other then ScoutMaster? Cause I don't know what the subject has to do with ScoutMasters??? Anyway, don't know the true answer I do know our council District Committee did not have a secretary take notes for years until a few meetings back.. I also know the only committee voting we do is to vote on who will be members at large for the following year.. (So basically we just vote ourselves in for another year).. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

What is your over all vision? All your tickets should be incrimental goals to get you to your vision for the troop, in regards to what your position can do for your troop. Just wondering the jump from LNT to web site to religious emblems.. Almost sounds like the old way when I did woodbadge when each and every ticket was a mini project in itself.. So if your vision is Seeing the image in your mind of your troop being very proficent in LNT then the website & religious emblems does not work into the incrimental goals, unless the website has alot of LNT info on it. But, then the religious emblems still don't fit.

Good luck.. finding a job now adays is hard, but this is no easy job.. You are right that it will build good experience, but to stay at it longer then a month or so, you really need to have a love of scouting.. Otherwise the Turkeys will get you down.. If you do get it, also remember you want to work for the volunteers who work for the boys.. Make them happy, they will go out and make your scouts happy, and they will also stay with you.. Bottom line, you can't make the boys happy all by your lonesome, as DE your kindof middle management, supporting the volunteers, and buffering them from the nasty old council..

Well just know if COR wants person A, and person A doesn't want to step down.. Then even though you have Mr. Awesome in person B.. Guess who is CM... If you guessed person "A" you would be correct.. So your COR is a member of your CO, and your COR... And also a member of heckler dudes new units CO, and a COR there???... Yeah, your CC (not you) should talk to the IH about concerns about a conflict of interest if he is COR of two different CO's both hosting BSA units, who are close enough to compete for the same boys in the same neighborhood, and the COR for both seems to favor the new unit over the old.. So your committee position sounds like that of secretary or an events coordinator (not sure which).. But if you had the committee support in not changing dates, the it was a committee decision, and still the heckler should address the CC if he has issues..

Well normally I also root for the underdog.. Thereby I will support gays being allowed into BSA, and Atheists being allowed into BSA... But as Fishman stated the words of God being in things doesn't bother him, he is use to it.. No biggie.. Most Atheists are accepting of others beliefs as long as they are treated respectfully for theirs.. Catering to the militant Athiest, to do away with "God" so that they can have their way is like rooting for the school Bully.. I would equally be against a church who suddenly found out they had a atheist for a next door neighbor, and so erected a huge glowing cross to shine into his bedroom window at night as it loudly played hymns over a magaphone system.. No one put God in the pledge to rankle the Atheist.. No one put God on money to spit on the Atheist.. No one put the 10 commandments statue outside a supreme court, just to stick it to the Atheist.. Now maybe the communists might want to take us to court about the Pledge as it was designed to stick it to them, and they might want to take issue with being called Godless.. But, the atheists have nothing to complian about.. Them being upset about the use of "God" because it might confuse their children, would be the same as you or I being upset that our child might witness some muslim in thier daily prayers, or for me if I were to see a Catholic do the sign of the cross, or kneel at the alter, or if my child saw the jewish menorah.. We all are respectful of the differences of each others religions. I can be respectful of a Atheists choice not to participate in anything. But, I can not be respectful of their need to destroy anybody elses joy of celebrating their beliefs in what has become traditional ways for them. Reminds me of the time, my family & I went to some sort of entertainment at our local playhouse.. Didn't realize it but they were celebrating First night of Chanukkah there.. Wasn't mentioned in the advertising.. So about 45 minutes we were celebrating a Jewish holiday.. Kindof interesting, caught me off guard.. But, I did not feel the need to get up walk out and protest the theater for doing a religious ceremony in a public theater.. (I wonder if there were any militant atheists there who did??) The militant athiest need to deal with the differences of humans the same as the rest of us, not insist that everyone bends to their will.

packsaddles now second to last post.. Moosetracker, I'm not making that connection. YOU made that connection. "I still think the Oath would be best and easiest to follow the path that the Pledge of Allegence has." If you can find a place where I actually made the logical argument that you just attributed to me, I'd like to read it. I merely would not object to having 'duty to God' removed from the oath. I do understand how a person might find the idea that they cannot be the "best kind of citizen" if they don't have a certain religious belief to be prejudicial. It IS. FWIW, I'm not an atheist and I support removal of the 'God' reference from both oath and pledge. I consider religious faith to be a personal matter and I object to having it shoved in my face by other people (although I tolerate it dozens of times every day) and as a result I find that kind of 'in your face' projection of what ought to be personal to be rude, perhaps offensive. I also realize that I'm in a minority opinion so I just shrug and get on with life. So do you support removing the words about God, or leaving them in and just accepting the fact atheists will be silent on that phrase, but saying the rest of the Oath..? Maybe the comment about the pledge adding God was just a odd unrelated comment, coming in at an odd time, and I was trying to make it logically fit into the conversation at hand.. IE.. You are in support with KC9.. IE.. You are trying to add to the conversation currently at hand about if removal of God in the oath is neccessary, and that atheists are attempting to remove God from anything considered public.. What does the reference by you of when "God" was added to the pledge have to do with supporting KC9 that the Oath should remove the phrase "God".. So I was wrong.. I will amend my comment to say this... "Yes Packsaddle, I know the words "God" was recently added to the Pledge, but since it doesn't relate to the issue at hand, why bring it up??"..

Hey TT if that is your desire.. Wish you the best, and hope the unit encourages your dreams..

I think it just dawned on me that Snappy is not the CC or CM for this pack but a den leader.. I guess I assumed with the email he is receiving from a person who has left his pack to form a new one, and the COR contacting him directly over issues he was CC or CM.. Snappy, as Den Leader.. You most definately should not be getting email from the heckler outside of your pack nor you COR.. You do not have to be the one to mend the bridges with the COR either.. Have the COR email your Committee Chair if he has issues with you.. As stated before ignore the email of the heckler.. YOUR CM & CC should be the one mending the fences with the COR.. You are correct.. Pay attention to your den.. How on earth did you as a Den Leader get shoved into the middle of this war???(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Huh?? In that last post, you just said that you agreed with my idea that like the Pledge it should just respect the wishes of the atheist to stay silent at the "God" section.. And that you never made a reference that you wanted it removed.. Then on the same post, you state you want it removed for the Oath & Pledge as it is personal, and you feel the inclusion of it is in your face.. Before that post, I was just going to link back that a page back you stated you were in agreement with KC9DDI, and I was just going to state, I did not see where you had retracted that to agree with me.. So the comment about the Pledge not having "God" in it had me considering you were agueing still in support of KC9DDI... But, with this post, I don't have to.. As you state you want "God" removed from both Pledge & Oath.. (While at the same time keeping it in, and allowing those who choose to remain quiet).. So now I am confused at where you stand on the issue.. Bottom line is, if anyone demands that much of a change from the BSA in order for them to be allowed to join, when they are not chomping at the teeth to include these people.. Ain't a-gonna happen. At least not for a Long, Long time.. The Gays will be allowed to join first..

Fishman - Glad you will feel welcomed in this Scouting unit.. I hope you and your son enjoy your scouting years. packsaddle - I realize "under God" in the pledge was added in the 1950's (did not know why though).. Still does not change the fact that people feel strongly it should not be removed. Nor does it change the fact that that is not the only thing the militant athiests want removed.. That basically they want God removed from everything that is a public place.. (Any place that they may wander into) Also "Duty to God" in the scout oath was not added recently it has always been in the scout oath, and the BSA have a very strong background in religion, so that history and relationship should not be removed in order to accept in a minority group we have so far kept out.. So, why is the fact that "under God" being recently added to the Pledge have anything to do with your logic that "duty to God" needs to be wiped out of our Oath in order to accept Atheists in.. Now had you said "under God" has always been in the Pledge, but "duty to God" is a recent addition to the Oath, you might have had a point for an arguement as to why "duty to God" should be removed.

Well I would agree with you that it was an unfounded fear, if the atheists have not had a history of going to court to remove God from everything that is public, stating that the offending item is against their constitutional rights.. Granted this is a small portion of Atheists making a bad name for the rest of the Atheists.. As stated the majority of them are like Fishman.. Those are the ones I would welcome.. The others may be a small section, but they are loud, demanding, self-centered and obnoxious.. http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/us/atheist-presents-case-for-taking-god-from-pledge.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.free2pray.info/2schoolprayerrulings.html http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandmentsnews/Ten_Commandments_News_Information_Court_Cases.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/7426824/Atheist-in-battle-to-remove-In-God-We-Trust-from-US-currency.html

I guess I still think the Oath would be best and easiest to follow the path that the Pledge of Allegence has.. It still has "under God" in it, because many would be upset with it being removed.. But an Athiest can remain silent during this line, and still be considered respectful of his country in his version of the Pledge.. I am sure an atheist group has done something to remove the silent pause, if doing the pledge within their own group. Your way has a real mess at a District, Council or National event.. I just can't see everyone all at once "Doing their own thing..".. By forced to remove everything dealing with God, I am talking about the current trend, where Atheists protest religious statues in public places, prayer in schools, the "under God" in the Pledge.. the reference to God on our money.. etc.. I would welcome the atheists who can live in a world where they can be considerate of others beliefs as long as those around them will respect theirs.. I would not welcome those atheists who must come in and obliterate God from every nook and crannie with in the Boy Scouts.. Those who need everything to cater to their anti-beliefs, because they can not abide anyone having beliefs that are different from theirs. If they are reverant, they can stay in the campsite while others go to the inter-faith worship.. Take a walk, or stand in silence when Grace is said at a meal, and stand in silence when others say "duty to God" in the oath.. That would be a way they can show reverence without believing in God themselves, by respecting the beliefs of others within their groups.. Obviously if some Atheist parents can bring their children to scouts, they have already excepted the fact that "God" will be in the Scout Oath and the Pledge of Allegience, and said during the opening of the meeting.. Just with LDS units alone, the number of units who are religious based are not small.. I am pretty sure other church CO's who run a BSA even as a neighborhood open activity will have a say in not wanting their units to not reference God, though some will be open to a child who is respectfully quiet, and others will not.. This is an issue that is more so a very sore subject then the Gay issue.. The Gays are not asking for any changes from the program to accomidate them, just acceptance.. It's and unknown what and how much the Atheists will lobby for the BSA to change to accomidate them.. Accepting people in is one thing.. Changing a little to accomidate someone is one thing, but not as easy as just asking for acceptance.. Forcing everyone who is already in the program to change, because the new comers are going to demand everyone adapt to their way of doing things, will not happen.. The fear that the atheist if given an inch will demand and lobby and fight in court for the BSA to change everything to remove God in everything to accomidate them, is the fear that will keep them out of being accepted in the BSA way longer then the Gays will be kept out.. It is a shame, because I think 80% of the athiests can come in and be respectful of those who wish to keep their faith and their traditions about God within scouting alive.. You do not understand me.. Well I also do not understand you.. I do not understand, why you can not see forcing everyone who currently is in scouting to change deep seeded beliefs is not a slap in the face for them.. Look at the fights to keep God in the Pledge of Allegience.. Look at all the other fights with athiests as they want to overturn long held traditions to wipe the belief of God off the face of the earth.. If you don't think those beliefs are just as strong with people in scouting, you are blind.

What I am saying is that there are many who believe strongly that the line should be in there.. There are churches who see this as not a neighborhood youth program but THEIR (the churchs) youth program.. It is a way for them to teach their youth about God in a fun way that will interest them.. For those people you are coming into their churches, into their churches youth program and telling them that God is to be cut from their programs.. No more in the oath, no Grace before meals, no interfaith worship (or if a specific religion like LDS no LDS worship service if they are camping on Sunday.. Well not LDS they don't camp on Sunday, but their are other faiths I am sure that are only for their faith..) Even for churches who open their doors to the neighborhood telling an CO that is a church that God needs to be cut from their program is disrespectful of their beliefs.. I can see units of church groups still having the local option not to include athiests, units of atheists only, and units that allow both and where atheists their will simply be allowed to be respectfully silent for anything pertaining to God.. But, I can not see, forcing every BSA unit to give up anything pertaining to religion in order to welcome in the Atheists.. That is being disrespectful of the beliefs of alot of our current units.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Unlike KC9DDI or Packsaddle.. Although I would like to find a way to welcome the atheists, I do not think our Scout Oath should be 100% changed for them.. Simply respect them to be silent on the line about God, or if it is a 100% athiest group except they will probably then omit it.. But, the line should stay in for those who still wish to say it and believe in it.. Therefore I guess I would still be barring the atheists who could not respect or show reverence for the beliefs of others in the group (Unless they want to form an atheist only group that omitted the phrase). But, I don't believe reverence is being met, if all those who believe in the line "do my duty to God", are forced to change what they believe in to accomidate the atheists. Fishman - I agree with DLChris on this one, if you believe that God can not be disproved logically.. If your son also can keep his mind open to a slight possibility there is something, but not sure what he is good right up to Eagle.. If he is definate that there is no God, he probably will be fine in many troops, but probably shouldn't go for the Eagle rank.. I would think your family values will probably weed out any Pack/troops that are highly religious, and be more comfortable in the Packs/troops that see religious training as personal to the family, and a very low responsibility of the unit.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

First off, don't worry about starting a new thread.. Especially for specific personal incidents, even if something similar is posted.. First off renewing an old thread, does not get looked at by everyone who will look more for the threads with the orange "new" icon next to them. Second off yours will always be slightly different.. for example "Annoying Parent" is slightly a different situation then and "Annoying drunk Parent" As to your problem, although I am concerned about the Pack he is starting if he truely does have a felony and history of violence. That is for your District and Council to be concerned about. If they are not, then they can deal with the potential law suits.. You have brought it to their attention, but I wouldn't go further then Council if your DE is not concern.. And only if you have solid proof, not rumor. As for the face book and email.. 1) no longer respond to his email. Do not encourage his need to get under your skin. 2) mend fences with you COR if he has broken some. Get off the internet, and go out for a cup of coffee and discuss things person to person. You want him to know that this guy is trying to hurt his CO sponsered units.. Find out what his visions are for the unit. Start pulling his thoughts away from the past negativity, get him excited about future postive things going on in the units, and see if you are currently or can incorporate any of his vision into the program. 3) People may run accross the facebook article, but most do not pick a unit by searching for the dirt on facebook about them.. Run the best unit you can, and if this guy has the personality you describe, be willing to welcome some people who want to jump his ship onto your ship.

Thanks pchadbo.. I had heard about it before, and saw it on some show, but I was not aware it became a game of trying to get it posted to UTube, sort of like that the tebow craze (I guess now it's Planking).. Which of course will make them more popular. I also had not seen that it was now such a social game, the show I watched made it out to be kids choking themselves with rope (like the boyscout who died.) Which I don't know if that makes it worse because there is no one to help you if you over do, better because less peer pressure and party game atmosphere so less would try it.. Or just different.

My problem with the silly rules that you just KNOW will not be followed unless you are a mindless yes man... Once you start not following the silly rules, it is not so hard to simply not follow the good rules (like those in place for youth protection) After that probably any rule could be debated here as good or bad, but if you disagreed, but BSA made their policies with care, then you would probably grumble and follow them.. But, if you start ignoring the silly rules, (which I can understand people not following).. Then you start not following those rules that you don't like, but can see some point to (Like maybe LNT people may dislike the following, but can see why people are starting to move in that direction).. Then you might as well not follow the rules that slightly irk or rub you the wrong way.. etc.. Silly rules end up making a mockery out of any type of rules.. It all becomes meaningless drivel..

I know our CubScout RT commissioner uses it.. I asked about a BS version at the scout store, there isn't one.

Our district is starting to do Eblast on the subject matter covered in each breakout session. I do think it is at least pulling in the people interested in that subject.. Hopefully some of them once comming once, may decide to come more often.. You may have the hard-core who will not come.. But, you also have some newbies, who may not know what RT is all about, or even that it is there. People come and go in units all the time.. You want to attract this new audience, by letting them know you are there, and what you have to offer.

I like SeattlePioneers approach. To make a list of topics you think may interest, and a few lines of blanks.. Then have those who attend (or maybe if attendance is low email out to who should come).. Ask them to rank the intrest, and possibly add suggests for topics you did not think of.. Asking the participants what they want, and then offering what they want I feel is what will attract them. I am sure SP will be along shortly to elaborate.

Red Berets !!! What's wrong with Blue, Yellow, or Orange Berets!!! Why do we only have Red Berets.. It clashes with my hairdo.. Fluffy Bunnies? Who Fluffed them? Was there animal abuse involved??? Grrr....

Beavah, I will attempt to answer that.. Prostitute (no criminal record) Local Option in Scouting Sin of bible. May not be a sin if following something other than the bible. Personal Choice even if it may be for survival. (unless is kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery) criminal Most danger of harm is to the prostitute, slightly the John as he flirting with the criminal world. Meth user (no criminal record) Local Option in Scouting Not specifically a sin of the bible unless linked with body is a temple Personal choice to start. Then addicted and hard to stop. Criminal Cause and effect proof of harm not only to those using drugs, but to others due to paranoia or psychotic violence. They may kill themselves. Plus other drags on community due to their own health issues, or children born from an addicted mother. Homosexual (not criminal) No local option in scouting May or may not be sin of bible (depends on how bible is interpreted). Some think personal choice, Some think naturally inclined.. I believe that definately some are naturally inclined, though some are definately choice also.. Not Criminal Not (physically) dangerous to self or others. So scouting treats the Meth user with more respect. But, I would not.. Even though it is not specifically a sin of the Bible, it does alot of harm to others as well as self. My local option would be to expect my Scouting unit to see them as not Good Role models and not accept them to be a scout leader. I don't interprete the Bible in that it says a homosexuality is a sin, so no problem there. I also don't agree with some odd notion that homosexuality is the reason why there is a higher divorce rate, that is trying to find a scapegoat by pointing the finger at what you wish to condemn.. So as far as I am concern, no harm to others.. Definately worth Scouting offering them a local option equal to the Meth users and the Prostitutes.

Well Cambridge, in some aspects slavery history does have some baring on homosexuals in parrallels.. We have discussed the place of religions in the issue of slaver in the past. ________ Religions who were in favor of slavery [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina. Religions who were against slavery. "...the campaign to end slavery in the United States was for many years largely the work of a small number of Christians who opposed slavery on explicitly religious grounds and who at the time were regularly condemned as fanatical zealots, bent (as indeed they were) on imposing their religiously based views regarding this particular issue on all those who disagreed." Paul Campos __________ Sound familure??? Except we have also many outside of religion, who are fighting for equality for all simply on the basis of citizenship. Well some differences. It is more like the fight for equal rights for blacks. I don't know how much of a difference that is, but I think there is.. We are not forcing people to give up ownership of what they feel is their property and will thus cause them some economic hardships.. They don't have to be best friends with a homosexual, or become one. But, we are requesting they show civil respect. (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Shortridge I think qwazse answered you with this.. Christians reserve the right to impose on culture. They demanded the Roman Empire end the practice of molesting young boys, among other things. They appealed to Britian to abandon the imperial slave trade. They drive capitalism towards pacifism. (Okay, that one's not going very well.) They oppose slaughter of innocents. And they put constraints on one's sexual expression. I think that means that their Christian faith to condmn what is a sin, trumpts your christian faith to treat everyone with kindness, curtious, and Christian love of fellow man. As other have stated, it will be that way until the newer Generation takes over the $$$$$$$$$$$$$... As it doesn't really matter who is correct or not, it just matters who can pay for the win. Morality these days can be bought. Of course whenever a state wins same-sex marriage, there is undoubtly someone from the conservative side, yelling "unfair, "You got out-of-staters throwing money around" As they try to hide the out-of-state big bucks that they were using. So really it only works if the side you are on has the big bucks, otherwise you are unfairly spending money to do the devils work.