moosetracker

Yeah, besides Cruz, Rand Paul was doing a little pandering on his own in order to stay in good graces with the 'nutters.. Your right Packsaddle there are always these types, always have been, always will be on both the right and the left.. Question is, do you ignore them, or let them steer the ship..

But, one religion does not have the right to dictate to another religion what their religious beliefs should be.. So, you in your religion can do what you want within your CO's units, but you do not have the right to force the units that belong to the Methodists or the United Church of Christ or the Episcopalian or the Unitarian Universalists etc, etc, etc, what their beliefs should be.. Even when the change is incorporated (Which it will be someday).. Your churches will still have the right to decide for yourself who is and who is not a good role model.. So as with a prostitute, a Wise-cracking loud mouth, or a couple living together out of wedlock, you will have the right to not consider a homosexual to be a youth leader for your scouts.. But another unit run by different CO's could choose any one of these people as good Adult leaders for their youths.. Answer is to allow the CO's to decide for themselves if a homosexual is a good role model or not based on their religious beliefs..

I am not quite sure where you are going with this question, but if it is to somehow answer my question of "Are you saying that there is no point to believing in a God if you can't ostracize gays from not only your churches' activities but are unable force other groups to do the same against their will?".. Is the bully the homosexuals (I would imagine that might be your perspective).. For me the bully would be the religions who are forcing their religious beliefs onto CO's who not only do not believe in their viewpoint, but find the viewpoint being forced upon them to be the immoral one.. But, don't fear, if you followed the "Singing for lost items" thread, I would imagine the proper answer is, No you can't because you are not suppose to use negative punishment to instill values.

Absolutely not, what I am saying is the religions that are against Gays, have got to learn to respect the beliefs of the religions(and those with a belief system which is not tied to any organized religion) that are not and allow them to choose their adult leaders based on their beliefs.. Are you saying that there is no point to believing in a God if you can't ostracize gays from not only your churches' activities but are unable force other groups to do the same against their will?

Well in BSA a prostitute, stripper, adulterer, any heterosexual living in sin as well as a host of other sins could all be adult leaders.. It is up to the CO to decide if they feel the adult will make a good leader or not regardless the sins they are currently commiting.. It is just murderers, child molesters, gays and atheists that are automatically not accepted.. The murderers and child molesters are agreed on by all.. The atheists have a little support.. The gays though is where there is enough support that it should be up to the CO to decide if a gay adult leader is acceptable or not.. For many it is no more a sin then a heterosexual couple living together unwed, if that now that the homosexuals can marry.. It is just for some reason some religions have elevated this sin to be about equal with being a murderer.. It's all in what your religious leaders wish to highlight and what your religious leaders view as inconsequential.

Who knows maybe the USA is still spinning and the civilized world has stopped?? (just kidding) The problem is that there are now many people and religions that believe ostracizing gays goes against being moral.. In order for BSA to again be a non-denominational organization, they have to find a way for each religious denomination and other non-religious CO's to be able to teach the scouts what they believe is moral.. Currently in order to do that they have to make a choice to either disregard rules of the BSA or treat people in what they believe is an immoral way in front of the very youth they want to teach values to..

Thanks Stosh - Pretty much what I said, North was not lily white, but defiantly better then the South. Also points out what I also believe, that even today there is still a need to improve. I will admit that I did believe it was getting better (both north & south) with each generation, until all the crap in the news the last 2 months.. Yes, the north was better then the south, but never perfect.. As I said the North did not have the resources to absorb the number of people who migrated up from the South, and it did cause racial tension because it put a strain on housing availability and jobs.. The article stated white flight, that is the perfect description for the North.. Blacks would move into an area, whites would move out.. There were black & white neighborhoods, a few whites lived in black neighborhoods and a few blacks lived in white neighborhoods and the schools were zoned to a neighborhood.. Because of this a school would end up predominantly with white students or black students. If too many blacks moved into a neighborhood, the whites normally would start moving out faster and selling to another black family and so the neighborhood would change.. But with shopping and restaurants etc. the populations normally mixed fairly well.. I am sure you could point out a store or restaurant or two that may have had a racial owner, if there was no law against it, then I am not surprised that a few places got away with it.. Whenever they had to give up that practice, it didn't cause a community uprising over it, so I do not think they had the majority of the population on their side ready to defend their actions.. As I stated our city also went through discussions of bussing sometime when I was in high school.. But, even being in the midst of this argument although a lot of people was against bussing, their was no disrespectful talk against the other side, as stated, I never heard serious bigoted hateful racial speech until I met the southern kid at college, even during disgruntled discussions over bussing.. As stated everyone (both black and white) liked being in walking distance to their schools.. But, the blacks did feel the city did not put in the expense to keep their schools up to par with the white schools.. They would have preferred their schools improved, not bussing.. For us, if they wanted to mix the populations we didn't want to go to their schools, but we were fine if they got bussed to ours, or yeah fix their schools, after all if we were bussed, we would want good schools anyways.. I never witnessed a need to keep the blacks in their place, especially by brute force tactics.. Again I am sure there was your occasional rogue group.. But the KKK was never a group that gained footing in the North for a reason.. It was simply a belief that we didn't deny them anything, as long as didn't effect our way of living negatively.. Negatively would be something like if the community went from predominantly white to predominantly black then the housing prices in the neighborhood went down, so the answer was white flight.. If someone in the neighborhood thought the answer was burning a cross on the new neighbors lawn, or throwing a brick through their window, usually those same white neighbors who were selling their houses would be horrified by that type of action. Again the North wasn't perfect, just 10 to 20 years ahead of the South..

Boy your on a roll this morning AZ... Was there a reason for two different threads that will spark similar comment, rather then putting them in the same thread? Wasn't Zach Wahls the one who dropped a huge signature petition off a few years back sometime just before the vote that allowed young gays in the program? From what I remembered I don't think he was gay himself, but was raised by two lesbian mothers and went through scouting all the way to Eagle although his parents couldn't be adult leaders. This seems like a worthy cause, but I believe they will need to raise lots more to make it attractive.. Even then I don't see BSA just dropping the policy at the meeting, the best I see is getting them to propose another vote similar to what they did to lift the ban on youth.. Personally, I think it may be too soon since the last vote.. I predicted the ban on adults to be lifted about 5 years after the ban on youth was.. I still think that prediction is about right.. But, I can see the squeeze is on to pressure the change.

Interesting, I was expecting National to apply pressure on the Council until they removed him. I remember some article a few years back of a camp councilor with a similar background of having grown up in BS, and having worked at the camp for years.. I don't remember if he had just come out, or if National had just got wind of it or what, but the council was pressured until they removed him.. I don't think with NY investigating them, they will do the same thing in this case though.

Well at least that way NJ doesn't have to break from banging his head to eat.. Just keep on banging.

Is this our queue to switch to the appropriate methods of first aid, because I don't think NJ is doing it right..

Yes, we don't buy new.. But, try for a good car only a few years old from those who have money to burn and rotate them constantly.. So, car color isn't as important to me as it being a good heavy sturdy car with comfortable room.. That way I can slide around on icy winter streets and bounce off of snowbanks like a pinball...

Sorry ! I'm not that up on the difference of the accent, and it seemed the type of dry humor the English is famous for..

Delinquent ?? Ok, Ok car is silver.. Not white, not black, nor yellow, nor red.. So I am not sure if anyone has a bias against silver..

Packsaddle - Ahh, Ahh, Ahh, you can call the policewoman who stopped and took pictures and a report (in triplicate, I am sure).. I appreciated the tiny trickle of water on the side of the road, somewhere between water runoff & a real brook.. But, I just watched it and listened and it had a calming effect as I waited an hour & ahalf for a tow truck (one came in an hour, but AAA didn't tell them my wheel fell off, and the truck needed 4 wheels to tow it, so they had to call in someone else. I also noted that the first 20 to 30 minutes almost every other car stopped to ask if I needed help.. The last hour absolutely no one did.. I reflected it must of been my attitude and the first 30 minutes I acted like I was in shock and unsure what to do, and the last hour I looked calm and relaxed and just quietly in wait..

Yes, some of the English comedy is great.. Yes, I guess they redesigned my car on Monday so that my front falls off..

Sorry Stosh, you can romance the good ol' South all you want with the benevolent masters. There are too many accounts of life not so great for the slaves by first hand accounts from people who were slaves themselves and from whites who were sickened by what they witnessed.. Maybe the head of the house did see them as valuable, it would not stop him from breaking up families and selling them, or torture that would teach the rebellious one his place and make an example of him for the other slaves so that they would not follow suit.. There was also brutal ways they would attempt in order to frighten the slaves into working faster and harder, like whipping them if they did not bring in their quota of cotton from the fields.. Even if one or two had to die, it would be a small price to keep the other hundred or more in their place.. Then there are the whites who were family members of the slave owner or the white work hands.. They did not value the slaves, the children of the plantation owner were no different then children today.. Plenty of sons & daughters today if you give them the family car to drive will beat the thing, doesn't matter if the family car is a valuable asset to you.. Likewise the Slave owners children with slaves.. Many employees of today don't care for company equipment, same was true of employees who worked on the plantation entrusted to keep the blacks producing at a high volume.. You are a little older then I, I graduated high school in '76.. So my grade school years were in the 60's.. I don't remember much about my first home as I moved after kindergarten, but I do know our church had at least one really nice black man, who did a lot for the church because I saw him there a lot, so I would imagine he was an elder or a deacon.. Since my parents were divorcing the apartment we were in during 1st grade was lower end, so it was a mix of races and we all played well together and all went to the same schools.. By second grade we had moved into the house I lived in until high school this was a white neighborhood basically, the black neighborhood was in the heart of the city and they had a school closer to them.. So our schools were pretty white, but not totally.. I remember one girl who was in the popular crowd (I was not), cheerleading and well known for her gymnastics.. Also no "Whites Only" in our shopping area, to shop you went Downtown which was in walking distance of the black neighborhood, so it was more their stomping grounds then ours.. A mall was built while in high school, all were welcome and it was in an area all of us had to commute to in order to shop at.. There was talk of bussing in my mid-school / high school years to mix up the blacks & whites.. The only reason I heard for not wanting it was that we liked walking to school and being able to do after school activities which you couldn't if you were bussed... But we had no issue if they built a wing onto our school to accommodate a larger population of students and bussed the inner city kids to our area (Of course they did not want to be bussed from their areas, and suggestion by us students had a price tag on it the city didn't like.).. I heard my mother use some demeaning term for a black who cut her off in traffic once in my life and when I was appalled by it, she explained she was raised prejudice so she did have an impulse that she needed to mentally stop herself from using and she was sorry I had heard that because she had worked hard not to raise us that way.. The next time after that I ever heard a prejudicial comment that wasn't from watching TV was when I went to college during freshman orientation.. I remember sitting in the registration office doing paper work and the new freshman next to me started spouting off to me about all the blacks on campus and how he hated them all.. I was in such shock over anyone having this attitude I just kind of got up and found a different seat further away from him. It shocked me so much that it is one memory that never faded with time. College in the North, student was from the south by his accent. So did my life story background of growing up in New York State convince you that the north was not as racial as the south? I would imagine not.. Just like giving me your pocket size view of your neighborhood growing up has changed mine.. Even today there are pocket community groups In every community there are people who are not as tolerant as other people.. The question is what where the leaders of your community working to change.. Did your elected official give speeches on inclusion and equality or on exclusion and intolerance (meaning what viewpoint did the masses vote for)? Did change come by peacefully educating the community, or by force? Sorry history just is not on your side with the statement that the South were more welcoming and tolerant of blacks then the North was.. The treatment of Indians was just a disgrace for the whole country.. It doesn't have anything to do with your trying to prove the North was more racial then the South.. The North was not worse then the South in it's actions.. And as you basically stated, it was greed, pure and simple.. They were on land that we wanted, demonize them in order to rationalize why we were entitled to push them out and take what was theirs. As for the 1860 - 1960's - All I know is it was called The Great Migration from about 1910 - 1970, when blacks moved in droves from the South to the North.. Did the north have the means to support this influx?.. No.. Not housing or jobs enough for all who came.. Which is part of the problem as to why they didn't quite get greeted with the Welcome Wagon.. But, why did they leave the South?.. They felt the living conditions and segregation laws of the South were harsher then those in the North.

You lost me with the South were not as racist as the north, because they associated with blacks more... I don't think association in a master/slave relationship made them not racist.. Buying and selling negros, splitting up families, breeding them like horses or cattle to improve the stock, raping, torture, killing, making them grovel and bow to their white superiors.. Argument for slavery showed their racist beliefs when they argued why the were inferior.. It does not matter how much they associated with blacks, they did not associate with them as equals.. Also when slavery was abolished, the north may have had some segregation with neighborhoods you lived in and were not fair in their hiring practices, but sorry they have always been 10 to 20 years ahead of the South in recognizing and changing their attitudes, and it usually ends up being an argument of the North against the South in order to drag the South kicking and screaming into changing their attitudes..

Sorry, I didn't return yesterday.. I had a problem of trying to drive my car on 3 wheels when my front driver side wheel fell off.. Good news is the service center that worked on my car (caliber, brakes, rotors and tire change from winter to all-season) on Monday has accepted responsibility so all will be fixed free of charge including body work. Thanks Packsaddle.. Yes, when I quoted Darwin on his thoughts about Slavery it was a web page that showed several excerpts from his letters that was very illuminating.. http://commondescent.net/articles/darwin_on_race.htm .. I agree with the person who put this page together.. Only if you don't compare him to his own time in which he lived, and want to compare him to today's standards (which would be unfair) could you possibly label him a racist.. For his time he was very liberal minded.. He also pointed out that the creationists (who now want to discredit him now, but calling him racist) had their own creationists in that day and age that were VERY racist.. Packsaddle the web link you provided gave a small prefix to the quote you gave earlier that does answer the question of when he fluxuated in thought from an agnostic point of view, it was not to an atheist point of view, but to thinking more about the possibility of there being a God.. So Darwin should be labeled a racist, not because of what he thought on the subject of slavery or of the people themselves, but because people who wanted to find something to support their racist beliefs MISUSED his theory for their own purpose, even though his own beliefs were very enlightened given the time in which he lived.. And Darwin should be condemned.. But God and those who wrote the Bible were a product of their time, and their definite support of slavery was appropriate because it was advise on how slaves could survive their situation.. And it does not matter that racists in support of slavery and racism used the words of the bible to support their beliefs..

Merlyn, you first say atheists do not use evolution as a reason for not believing in God, then you say human evolution is your proof there is no God... Seems you are contradicting yourself and I will give Stosh one point "ding"... Still what atheists use or don't use to prove their points really has no baring on whether a religious person can find no fault with the science of evolution, because atheist color their views totally different then religious people do..

Glad you edited that, I read it last night but it was so late my mind was gone, all I thought was "Well, if Packsaddle said..... ", Then after sleep I was thinking "Wait a minute, Packsaddle's statement with no backup makes it no better then anyone else's all over the internet..".. Because of all these suppositions about the man, I appreciate quotes by Darwin himself.. Still this statement by Darwin leaves questions.. It shows he moved to this belief as he aged.. And what does he mean by "but not always" ? Now, Stosh would say that meant on occasion he was atheist.. I on the other hand question if the "not always" points more towards wondering about the existence of God, due to what he wrote in his books, that pointed to a belief in God (unless these statements are just how everyone talked back then, or he was attempting to pacify the religious community.), and the fact he studied Theology (which some say was his father forcing him to.) Still even if it wasn't his passion, it would be difficult to believe an atheist could spend years studying a field he totally disagreed with.. Explain.. What is a good gnostic suppose to act like, that caused Darwin not to make the grade? So you paint everyone in the North and the south as racist at this period in time... All of them, All of them... But, somehow Darwin should take the brunt of the blame, because...??? (guessing) he wrote a theory that OTHER people used to argue racism???.... Well then that does not bode well for the author(s) of the Bible and God himself, since the bible was used frequently to argue for slavery and racism, it showed God was all in favor of slavery..

Stosh - I might have missed the meaning behind your statement "We're talking about how honorable this anti-Christian racist is in our world today and how he has championed the "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Not really a Dali Lama, Martin Luther or St. Francis type of guy", That is if Merlyn is interpreting it right that you feel Darwin was all for slavery or white superiority.. I would say for the times, he was not.. Here are some of his own personal words on the subject. As for his being a atheist some say "yes", some say "no" some say converted to atheism later In life, some say he was quiet on the subject (which sounds about right given all the supposition going around).. Well he did study theology.. And I found this in an article, that at least pointed to what actual words Darwin wrote in books that may have suggested he was not a strict atheist when he did his research.. Whether he converted later, or if these are just the flowery speech of the times and when he speaks of a "creator of all things", that I do not know.. And looking around the internet, I don't think anyone really knows..

And what's wrong with a moose hat ??? I am deeply offended !!

funny, I just caught up on the thread about singing for lost items, and that also had a referenced to the evolution topic, then I came to catch up on this one.. Seems that topic is migrating into a lot of other threads..

Well I am not convinced that all singing is bullying, just that it could easily fall into that category.. But, I do agree that bullying can at least be as damaging as physical abuse (not sure if I would say worse then sexual abuse).. I hope today's BSA is more attentive to bullying then they were about 13 or 14 years back.. They would jump for any mention of physical or sexual abuse, but when I went to the DE about bullying in the troop that we were now moving our son out of in a hope to prevent the continuing of it with other scouts, I was surprised by the rule that the DE would need complaints from 3 different parents before they could act on it.. And from what the DE started muttering about the man in question, he was no fan of him, but he was tied by this rule.. Reason for it was one or two complaints could be just over-protective helicopter parents not understanding the BSA program.. By the time they investigated this man had created such a program of mental abuse of those considered "unworthy" they had to permanently remove him and bar him from ever being a BSA member again.. I think he would have just gotten a severe discussion in order to correct his behavior had they acted sooner.. Strangely they did invite him to do a class for University of Scouting twice and he accepted, so I learned he had moved to some other youth group.. I just hope he learned something and isn't doing the same over there.