moosetracker

OK.. Let me tell you my "hypothetical story".. So my hypothetical son was in his first hypothetical troop. Him, a mentally slow scout, and 2 other scouts. Troop gets about 30 - 40 boys per year from 3 to 4 surrounding troops, so in first month sizes them up chooses the top 10, then weeds out the rest by yelling and screaming at them, letting them know they will make sure that they never make Eagle etc., finding reasons they can't go on trips (no partner for you.. "Guess you have to stay home".. 3 minutes later another boy wants to go on trip.. "Oh we will find a space for you" and they do. Etc. Etc. No sexual abuse, no physical abuse.. So took hypothetical son out of hypothetical troop and put him in another. Talked to the leaders and told them they were about to loose the mentally slow child by their actions. Reply was "That would be for the best.".. This child left soon after.. Lodged a complaint. Nothing. Went down to talk to DE.. Nothing.. This is what I was told. "We do not investigate these matters until there are 3 complaints mad by 3 different people for the same person.".. Other boys stayed & stayed.. Was told of some horrible mental abuse they took. One became on the brink of 18, had done all eagle requirements but SM refused signing him off for Eagle because he had never been SPL, (a rule he made) but would never let him become SPL as he selected the pool of scout canidates and would not select him to even be allowed to run. Father finally got in and threatened the SM, to get him to sign off. other boy really loved hiking and they had set up rules that barred him from ever going on a troop hike. Found out about a 2nd complaint. Then found out that an investigation took place on a 3rd complaint. SM was kicked out of scouting.. By that time he was running a "selective group" of scouts that had joining rights that were not fair to all boys joining. Between my complaint an the 3rd complaint about a 5 years span.. If it is not sexual or physical abuse, the best thing is to have the boys or parents lodge the complaint, and move on. They don't do very well with answering mental abuse accusations as others have said, the parent is suspect of making it all up. And normally it is not sever enough to call in the police over the situation. P.S. Troop was self-chartered, so no COR to contact. SM was charismatic, had most adult leaders sucked into his view of life. (Including my husband, who was seeing the situation of our son as our sons fault, until a specific incident.)(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

USCCB's point man on abortion issues, Richard Doerflinger, has already declared that the likely solution to this mess -- the so-called Hawaii compromise -- unacceptable. (In Hawaii, religious employers can invoke a refusal clause that allows them to exclude contraception coverage from employee health plans, while still entitling workers independently to buy contraception coverage from insurers at a cost that is no higher than the price the employer would have paid.) Well I never heard of the Hawaii refusal clause (and related employee paid insurance).. Not that it is a great solution. But a decent compromise. Sort of like a co-pay to pay for it, but the church does not even have to hold or allocate out the employees own money towards it. So they would be totally out of the loop. At first I thought USCCB would not be Catholic related, maybe a spokesman for a pro-life group.. But, nope, it stands for US Conference of Bishops. So, if the Catholic church gets their out through this.. What would be the reason that they would object to their employees paying for their own insurance? If the Church gets it's religious freedom, then why can't the women who work for them be allowed to have their personal freedom? Obama should ignore Doerflinger and he should ignore any abortion rights groups... Seems your "liberal" reporter, seems to agree.. But if he is the Bishops point man, is that a personal statement, or the summary statement about the reaction of the Bishops? But you won your point that Tampa Turtles statement about "cheap Employer" may have been incorrect.. And so I was wrong to accept that statement, without further proof. Sounds like some in the Catholic community were working for the Health reform. So are you happy Beavah? One nice word for the Catholics from me.. Now lets see if the Hawaii refusal clause is what the propose.. And if so, if the Catholic church accepts it.. And if not, what will be their reasoning.

Well I guess it is just one of those hot topics this week.. Looks like Washington is coming to the "other" side. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10355280-washington-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill

Sorry, couldn't locate that for you if I tried. I was looking for something else unrelated, and that was in a comment on the article I was reading. So it is not as well written article, just someone comment of a personal struggle they had. Perhaps the women just made it up, or had some individual in the Catholic Church giving her the run-around. Frankly though I am sorry, I do trust articles about struggles in the Catholic Church over statistical numbers. How many times have people come on this forum stating that the head count of Scouts by BSA is totally wrong (to put it nicely.).. But I did admit that perhaps the Catholic Church has come up in numbers in the past year as a possibility that the numbers could be right. The articles I found are dated 3/2009, 4/2010, 10/2011.. Locally the stories were mostly around church closings and around the year 2010.. But they were of interest to read as the parishioners were having a hard time coming to terms with the loss of their church, and were doing a lot of stuff to get media attention about it, in hopes of someone or something coming to their rescue. We also had a Catholic school that the church wanted to close.. That had a successful end though, a lot of people came together they got one generous backer and the parents of the school were able to buy the school from the Catholic church and are still running it. Sorry if I read things like this that are written in the newspapers and broadcast over the TV and think they are accurate.. Sorry I don't trust in simple number statics over descriptive articles. OK back to the original topic. I had thought when the opponents of same-sex marriages started pushing for laws to give them the right to refuse service to same-sex marriages and the state had tabled the bill, but it may be put back in for a vote this month... It was written yesterday after the California court ruled a similar motion unconstitutional, but doesn't mention that. All in all I think the Union Leader tried to be fair to both sides of the issue writing a pretty neutral piece. I am surprised as the UL is well known to be conservative, and not unbiased, and I read they are already trying out the "refuse to service" law (that is but a twinkle in the eye of...) by refusing to post engagement announcements for Same-Sex.. http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120207/NEWS06/702089990

On a different note, I also found this article (when looking for like stories of what I had been reading for years about Catholic churches.) It also states that the health care issue, is nothing new.. Many States have had it on their books.. Though it did say that some Catholic churches did do the self-insured to get around the state mandate (but not all).. It also states there is talk about finding a solution with the Catholic churces, but (at least in the writers views) not trumping the rights of the general public. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/07/catholics-enraged-response-to-obama-birth-control-policy-is-misplaced.html

Well something is askew between my leisurely reading, and news cast stories and your numbers.. Don't know what. These are not the stories I have read in the last few years, but just some I picked up that are very similar to the stories I have been getting. http://theweek.com/article/index/202388/catholics-in-crisis http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/The-faithful-rattled-by-planned-closing-of-three-2209619.php http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-25/living/cleveland.catholic.parish.closures_1_church-closures-parishes-official-catholic-directory?_s=PM:LIVING I remember reading maybe three months back from a women who desperately wanted her name removed from membership of the Catholic church she wrote something like "They will never take you off, once you have been ???(I think it was baptised, but could have been something else)?? Unless you have done a mortal sin. I wasn't going to go out and murder someone, so I simply lied and told them I had had an abortion to get out of being a member.. I don't remember why it was urgent she get remove from membership, but it was something like there stance on homosexuals but I don't think that was quite it. Anyway I don't think many would take such a radical route.. Maybe this is the difference between the base numbers and the physical state of the church? Yeah I kindof figured the protestants have been a slow downward trend over years, while the Catholics were more a slow downward trend.. A definite big downward spike around the preist sex abuse scandels (at least that is what my none poll reading has me believing), then back to gradual downward.. But, may in the last year Catholics have had a slight increase?

If that's what you believe Beavah, your welcome to it. I just don't see freedom of choice for those who believe different then "other religions" as forcing them to do anything but accept that the world doesn't revolve around them (that goes for Catholic, LDS, conservative Protestants). And that is about their views on gay marriages, abortions and contraceptions. Laws should not be wrapped around their beliefs.. You see the laws being changed for fairness to all as an affront to the religions who don't agree with the laws, and forcing those religions to change. I was more thinking of something that was more concrete of government forcing Catholics to change, when they forced them to accept an older age for young people to marry. And as stated the change more by their members to ditch the Latin services and the no meat on Fridays. Sorry, I have read too many news stories about the decline of the Catholic church over recent years in lots of things. Membership and closing of many churches, and the problems of finding enough young people who want to go into the vocation to keep other churches open. So you can convince me that the Catholic church is stable. I wouldn't be surprised if Protestants are declining also. Religion is just not the "in" thing. But in our town a recent Protestant Chuch was built, and another was tripled in size, and the church that chartered our troop was saving for a much needed addition.. So if they have the right message, they sure seem to be attacting someone. Yet I am sure elsewhere churches have closed. PackSaddle - I saw that about the unconstitutional verdict! That is exactly what I said about NH when they were proposing a new bill to remove the bill giving gays the right to marry. Once you have given them the right, then removing it based on someone elses prejudicial veiws (religious or not) is unconstitutional. But, I didn't even know they were in the same conflict. More so then NH as they voted on it, and have put their right to marry on hold while they fight it. I guess even though they only had the right for 4 months, it was 4 months too much! Love this line : "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," PackS

Like I said, I know that Catholics can hold very structured old world masses, or very modern ones.. But, when something is supposably against the catholics beliefs due to the doctorine, then at least the way they talk it is a united front and all believe. Although many individually do not. So many will tell me they believe in these parts, but not those parts.. Well I always thought that was individualist.. If their are whole denominations though that pick & choose what parts of the Catholic docterines they would like to follow, you have surprised me with that packsaddle.. Although I do think I have visited a Catholic church that did not have the kneel pads. Except for what make a Christian a Christian, Protestants have really no united front, in what we believe in it is just a fractured hodge-podge of very individualist denominations.. Protestants can range from Episcopalian like to almost Unitarian like (almost because Unitarian incorporate non-Christian faiths and Protestants are definately Christian in faith).

TempaTurtle - Moosie I think you brought up a good topic though I wished you bashed our protestant brothers and sisters with as much fervor as the Catholics. Like the Lutheran Ladies Guild--how much baking is insane! Which topic was that? We have shifted so much. If the protestants need bashing I will do so gladly I guess I grew up in such a modern, progressive chuch, and protestants can range from very conservative to very modern.. Like Beavah's veiws on homosexuals (which I assume is a religious view) would not be from the church I grew up in. I would imagine the church I grew up in and the one I joined early in my marriage, would be very comfortable with presiding over homosexual marriages. Anyway, if we have some conservative Protestant beliefs out there I will be happy to set them straight. Now, my father (who was a protestant minister, but I wasn't raised by him) was more of a conservative type, with older more conservative churches. Those churches would probably be siding with Beavah.. So although I have seen both types, I more grew up and enjoyed the open modern views.. And I have a hard time pointing to anything and calling it protestant.

packsaddle - and protect its RIGHT to FREELY force ITS beliefs on non-believers. Well I understood what you were saying.. (though not quite agreeing.) until this statement.. This to me means you are proposing religious beliefs allows you the freedom to do what you want to whomever.. Like blowing yourself up in a crowded market because you believe your God wanted you to do so, for force your beliefs on non-believers. Religious persecution is what the protestants faced when leaving England, true.. Or what the Jews endored. Or what the Muslims suffered after 9/11, with individuals harrassing, vandalizism, and negitive profiling and sterotyping. A line item on an insurance form, that was not made in a "We hate Catholics" fashion.. But, simply the fact that this is a popular health item these days. Nor the inability to pass a bill giving (any conservative religion, not just Catholics) the right to discriminate against a group of people in an openly hostile manner. Is not what I would call persecution.. Maybe not abortion. But contraception has really become a necessary health item, as the world is over populated. Contraceptions is much better then someday having to pass a law like China's "one child" policy. Or make an "open hunting" season on humans as we do with deer and other critters that need their population controled. Besides, as stated before, contraceptions have other roles to play. The condem in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, and the pill for other female problems. And religions being called to task to by either their own congragation or other outside influences can be beneficial if the religion is open to listen and change. Catholics are slowly loosing their large membership, simply because fewer members are as observant as they use to be, and few young people want to take up that vocation. Sometimes you have to change with the times, by picking and choosing your battles, or die out with the dinasours. And Catholics have been known to change in past history. Their sermons are not all in Latin any more.. The directive about "no meat on Friday".. There are some churches that hold more modern masses rather then the stiff & stern ones. From what I understand the confessionals are not so important, some on the part of the church members not attending, some on the part of the Church shorting up the hours they are open to receive confession, thus making it more inconvient for people to go, so few go, so the church shortens the hours even more.

If you PM'd me I never got it.. Sorry..

Don't know the song. But, I am sorry to hear about your mother. I wish you and yours the best.. And hope you do find that song.

My husband is contracted by a company. That company has him do all sorts of weird things, that you would think would be my husbands choice for being in buisness for himself. But, no.. If you want the contract you do it our way.. In otherwords.. What Packsaddle said.

TwoCubDad had a one word reply. "Parents". I wish he had elaborated. Did he mean contact the parents? Or did he mean, the parents may be the one text messaging.. If the scout is not at all like that in person. Then it may be as some say, just he feels safer and bolder when not in person. But, I have known parents to email and sign the scouts name. Seems a little odder to textmessage, as the scout/parents could have the same email address (especially when the scout is younger).. But to text message, the parent would have to steal the kids phone. But, many at time it is not the scout that is abusive if things are not perfectly aligned for them. It is their parents who take it as an insult, or your fault, and be the ones to spout off.. Maybe the parent thinks the kid is not assertive enough at meetings, and wants to give them a backbone.. But again, as stated, I would be more suspicious if it was email. This would be odd for textmessaging. You said in person quite a different person when he is physically in front of me Does he admit to the text messages. Does he explain them where they are seen in a better light when face to face? Or, does he just seem like whatever the texting was about is not a hot topic at the next scout meeting?

Is that a Cub Scout thing? I have never heard of it. For boy scouts it would seem to easy of a task to be handing out an award for.. For them they should start learning that somethings are done just because it is the right thing to do, without seeking an reward for every little thing you do.

Well I know some of the regulation happened some time back. When my son started college he had to have ?? 12 credits ?? per semester to be on my health care. One time he was 1 credit short, so he had to take some frivolus course to bump him up. Then due to government intervention he was fine regardless of credits taken. Government also mandated that health care was to provide for pre-existing conditions (Which I was happy for, as my son has a pre-existing condition that will be with him all his life.) And what labs were paid for and what was not changed drastically.. The Viagra & abortions are on patient per patient need.. Obviously the person taking Viagra, will never need an abortion. (His partner might though). JoeBob you might be right about it being something added.. But then everything had a starting time, so it doesn't mean it should not be there. If we just did away with health care insurance all together (both individule & employer funded), (because insurance had a starting point). Then there would be alot more unpaid bills, those who did pay would be charged alot higher rates to pay for those that did not pay. Soon they couldn't afford it, and the Federal Government would need to step in to fund the whole thing. If people were getting health insurance and it was just stated all individuals must pay for their own, well then the companies who use to pay for health insurance would have to pay higher salaries to make up for it. I know every year I get a statement telling me not only my salary but what it cost for the company to pay my benefits.. The company always states that is my true yearly (wages, cost, whatever.) If I had to suddenly pay my own insurance, that would be a wage drop, if the money the company spent on me for it did not come to me in a salary. Calico - Where does it end?.. Everyone would have a different opinion on that. I think everyone knows mine. It would end at the churches door, not extend into buisnesses they ran, or the unrelated buisness of a Catholic man. I truely wonder if the government did remove contraceptions from the bill for Catholic owned buisnesses, or just removed it entirely for everyone, but still mandated employer paid Health insurance. Would that really settle the issue?. And Calico's 1,200 pound gorilla 1,200 pound gorilla in the room, why are we so quick to forgive what we know is discrimination the moment someone says its their religious viewpoint? Answer - Because most people are not foolish enough to disagree with someone on a religious rant.. Otherwise they get labeled a bigot!!

Many states already required that the health plans in their state required contraception Yah, but if yeh read the news in detail, what yeh learn is that in each states there were very functional work-arounds or exceptions that religious institutions could use. No actually half the states mentioned have the same religious consideration that the new health plan has (a break for the actual Church, but not for the buisnesses the church run.) While the other states do not even allow that break. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/02/02/the-truth-about-contraception-obamacare-and-the-church/ TT wrote : Catholics are withing their rights to protest for accommodation on the issues of abortion and birth control. The irony is that (and I have a priest-friend who is on the Bishops staff who told me this) is that the Church is steamed over the increased cost of providing mandated insurance. Just like a lot of other cheap employers. I do not read what you do Beavah. Most companies who are upset about rising costs of healthcare state this is their reason of concern. And they started their protests way before now.. If they have great health benefits now, then the mandated insurance would not cost them anything extra, they should even see a decrease, as health care would not be as high to offset the cost of those in the system without any healthcare.. I also don't read into TT calling them "Cheap employers.", as he feels they are just employers concerned over the money not being distributed to help the poor & needy. My employers self-insure. We pay percentage of the insurance ourselves and a co-pay. Therefore what I pay out of pocket in a years time, could be considered paying for my own contraceptives plus, plus, plus, plus.. So all they need do is not foot the bill for the health insurance entirely, and look at it as not their money, but the employees self paid portion of the insurance paying for what they do not approve of.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Good-Grief !! So these humanitarians, that are all about helping the sick and needy, are either not giving their employees health insurance, or very sub-par health insurance? Their beef is over the cost to insure their employees? Also very interesting that the "boycott the goverment over contracteptions in the health care package".. Is a canned serman that has been rolled out across the country as a "must" present.. I am sure it was a devine topic sent to them on the wings of angels from God himself.

No, I just think it is a big stink being raised during an election year. And it is not a hill worth dying on. Frankly I think the campaign of We dont want four more years of Obama will take you further. Many states already required that the health plans in their state required contraception (in a huge package of other things their health plans were to cover) California, New York, North Carolina , Wisconsin, Colorado and Georgia to name a few.. They have for quite awhile, yet there was no battle cry when these states incorporated it. Does the Catholic Church purchase any supplies from Walmart, Target, any drug stores or most grocery stores? How can they buy from those places that sell contraceptives? Dont they know it will look like they are supporting these houses of sin? At least that is comparably equivalent to the amount of support that would be seen from having a health insurance with contraception options being a teeny-tiny little line item as an option on pages & pages of benefits offered. Especially with the Church very vocally making their opinion heard. Actually make that the insurance thing is less support, then the shopping. Since I doubt Catholic Nuns run up & down the aisles while grocery shopping yelling Sinner! Sinner! and bopping everyone else who is shopping at the grocery store over the head.. Boycott the government? So how is that to work? Are you going to refuse to pay your taxes? Or refuse government assistance after a huge natural disaster destroys your home? Is the church now going to refuse government funding for their hospitals? Much easier to boycott the stores. (though you may get a little hungry and run out of toilet paper.) It is pure and simple.. Teach you church members your beliefs, then trust in them..

LOL.. Speak of the ... well.. My husband & his brother (both Catholics *gasp* (how could I marry a Catholic)).. Went to some one year after memorial service for someone they knew from their youths in boyscout.. To which I guess instead of the priest doing a memorial service about the guy who the service was about. Spent the sermon part talking about exactly this issue of the Insurance that includes *gasp* contraceptive and other ghastly things.. So the bishop is calling a boycott of the government.. Now my husband had not been clued into my discussing this very topic on this forum.. Guess what both he and his brothers reaction to the service was?.. Basically, you have got to be kidding?.. So it's offered, just don't use it if you don't want to.. You should teach Catholics right and wrong by the Church's interpretation. But you can not force or rule over them with an iron fist.. And if you employ people who are not of the Catholic faith, then you can not govern what their beliefs are.. "Oh yeah, also they thought they was robbed of a good memorial service for this twitt and twattle!!!" Hmmmmm.. I guess my husband & his brother must be Catholic bigots..

Government interceds all the time. Car industry has had mandated laws to include seatbelts, put a 3rd eye break light in, reduce emissions, increase miles per gallon by year. Environmental acts that forced other buisnesses to clean up their air, or stop pumping their waste into the water. Employee rights amendments that my Employeers have to post on almost every surface of the universe. JMHawkins says : Or, if you're worried about employment, the worst the Catholic Church can do to a doctor who doesn't want to follow their rules is say he can't work for them. Don't know if it is buried in Employees Rights or some other laws, but you can't fire people on superficial grounds unrelated to their work performance. And even with work performance it is very difficult to gather enough evidence of poor work, in order to protect you from a lawsuit. An Employeer cannot fired you because you were taking contraceptives, or had an abortion.. It doesn't effect your work performance, is of personal concern, not related to the buisness. Sort of like a buisness firing people when they get too old, too fat, have a sex change operation etc.. ...Squirrel... Now there's and interesting topic. What would the Catholic Church do if one of their employees had a sex-change operation? Oh, I wish I was a fly on the wall for that one.

Well I might have confused Scoutfish with my comparison of the pharmasist.. But, what he said goes just the same for a health insurance. Does the insurance group that denies the contraception cover any of the other medical prescriptions Scoutfish has mentioned?

Yes the Golden rule.. Do unto others as they would have them do unto you. Don't meddle in the lifes of others, if you don't want others to meddle in yours... Therefore the Catholics should not be meddling in the lifes of their employees by dictating what they can and cannot have done healthwise, if they don't want the government to meddle in thier meddling ways..

Well, this is probably one of those political election year, the-sky-is-falling! Tactics to control the conservatives vote. But I will bite. I take it that since you are talking about the Catholics right to control the personal lifes of their non-Catholic employees by means other than the fear of God. We are not talking about their priests or nuns. So it is the who they employee in their business.. Yawn.. Fair game.. As stated before birth control is used for a wide variety of other things then contraception. Why is it fine for the Catholics to regulate(more like meddle in) the personal lives of employees via economics, regulatory mandates, but, it is not OK for the government to do the exact same thing to them. If this is even remotely true, it is not the same thing as forcing a Dr. to perform what he believes is murder. In which case if government ever does do that, the Catholic has the choice of not going into OB/GYN medicine and probably shouldnt even now, in case they cant get employment in a Catholic hospital, and would need to take employment with a non-catholic facility that would expect them to do their full job, or be unemployed. This is more in line with being a Catholic pharmacist or even a cashier at a drug store, and ringing up the purchase of birth control pills or condoms.. Get over it and do not try to force everyone around you to follow your beliefs.

I'm still not clear about where the line is for you, though. That makes two of us. All I know is it does not involve trying to force my government into passing laws to force everyone else to draw the line where I do.. While at the same time telling government to keep it's nose out of my business when I fear they are not going to draw it in the exact position that I want it drawn.. But, it does involve telling other people they have drawn their line too narrowly..