moosetracker

Site has been (is being) plagued by something my anti-virus was preventing me from entering because of. It sometimes lets me in and other times blocks access.

Church every Sunday, and brought up in a Catholic school. Not Catholic but never going to church Catholic. His Aunt was a Nun. So I would not call him or his circle of friends ignorant on the subject. But, you have peeked my interest to try the subject out again on a different Catholic priest sometime in the future, to see if another priest can come up with your perspective on the subject.

I did not start off grabbing from Google until you told me I was mis-quoting. Then I went and grabbed from google. Before that it is what I has gotten out of discussions.. Since you said I mis-quoted I went out and pulled from the first site I saw explaining it. Accept for a mis-spoken word between Vassal & Vicar (Vassal being the relationship to god of a normal church goer, vicar being what the Pope is described to be..) The internet, pretty much explained it the same way I have had it explained to me.. But, you are right, somewhere in all of that they must see something in it that makes it seem to them to hold a closer connection to God.. Whatever that "art form" was, it was lost on my husband and his catholic friends, who never were comfortable with the whole idea, even though brought up Catholic. Nor my Catholic friend from high school. I also never got the artistic meaning discussing it with a catholic preist either.. So whatever it is, it must take a while to learn it, and many people never learn it. It also must be hard to explain..

A meteorologist will way it will rain a week from Tuesday. A priest would say it will rain this summer. Who's more likely to be correct? I would hope the preist. If not it is going to a dry, dry summer.. Well that explains some of the conflicting info I got. I would watch the weather tracker that would say tropical storm.. Media would say flood and destruction, worse since 1938 when whole towns parished.. But it was a weird one.. Rain and a very slight wind felt on the ground. It had to be much stronger just slightly higher up from the surprising falling trees on all the roads & power lines.. And we did get flood damage.. But on the ground it didn't seem like much.. Don't know if meterologist or weathermen but someone kept playing with the time it would hit, also.. Comming in faster, expected time x.. Slowing down expected time y.. Going more inland expected time z.. After a while, you gave up, it would come when it came..

:) I meant gospel, not gossip... Opps.. Fruedian slip :) Ok, looking it up, it is not vassal of Christ it is "vicar of Christ" sorry there too.. Had to look up why you took offense to Vassal though.. Maybe you are looking at the meaning "slave".. But I am looking at the meaning as a person holiding some similar relation to a superior, a subject, subordiante, follower, retainer.. Even in the definition of Slave it states a servant of slave.. I don't see the indignity of calling someone a follower or servant of Christ or God, I grew up with that terminoligy in prayer.. Actually that to me it is more appropriate to be a "servant of God", rather then the meaning of vicar.. The Pope is the vicar of Christ. The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of." In the Catholic Church, the vicar is the representative of a higher-ranking official, with all of the same authority and power that that official has. Calling the pope the "Vicar of Christ" implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church. There are also things all over the internet about the thoughts on the infalliblity of the Pope.. Although they do add he can have his own sins & mistakes, but is simply infallibal in his religious message. According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals. Catholicism maintains that the Pope is infallible, incapable of error, when he teaches a doctrine on faith or morals to the universal Church in his unique office as supreme head Infallibility doesnt mean perfect. Infallible statements arent perfect statements, so they can be improved so that subsequent popes can use better or more accurate language. Yet infallible statements can never be contradicted, rejected, or refuted So hopefully with showing the exact wording of others on the subject I have corrected anything I mis-spoken.. But, I don't see anything there that say I interpreted anything wrong, maybe you do in some of the fine print.. Thing is there is another group saying we are going into an ice age period and that the ice age & global warming combining is just going to wreak havoc all over the place. Watching the weather pattern of the last few years, I'm kindof banking on the mixup mess forecast myself. Problem with the veiwpoint on homosexuals is there are many religions that do not find it a sin.. And although those that are against it say it is a sin, they lack examples. Now if the religion is talking about the sins of jealousy and greed and pride. They have alot of great Biblical stories and examples to back up their claims of the damage. And God's displeasure. So Beavah, tell me a biblical story about the sin of homosexuality.. But I never said I would not listen to a preist if he had concrete historical or Biblical evidence.. Will I believe him

Ok, I agree the term is meterologist.. Was too lazy to look it up, but knew there was a term for it, (weathermen can be meterologist but not all weathermen are.) I never said I did not value the learning of a religous man.. Just said they don't always get it right.. Just like Doctors don't always get it right, just like meterologist don't always get it right (but because it's the weathermen who vebalize the forecast we take it out on them when it turns out wrong.) I just said don't take the word of a minister, preist (or even the Pope (I am not Catholic so I do not think his word is infallable).. As Gossip, as a fact, as indisputable.. Listen to them, listen to others, and listen to your own inner voice. It is like my husband, grew up Catholic, knew nothing but Catholic, yet even then when he discussed his faith he did not agree with all the ceremony around the Pope, or saints, or the wealthy display at Rome.. Bottom line he felt all of that was out of step and wrong about it.. Took him to a Protestant church, and he found out his beliefs matched up with the values of the Protestant church.. Now you can call it a disagreement with the policy he was raised to believe, but I call it his inner voice that was nagging him there was something wrong with this picture (as in right/wrong) as in morally wrong.. But I will not say that the Catholic Church is idolaters.. The Churches have made their peace with each other so they just consider it differing policies in organization. And all this is suppose to point everyone in the direction of God, they don't call their Pope God or Christ, but the vessal of Christ and God is somewhere above him still (if only ever so slightly above him).. All I said is if a protestant group wanted to follow on a similar path, it would be seen as a moral step in the wrong direction, because the emotions between the original group with the group splitting off to take the different path would be fresh, raw and heated.. The difference in viewpoint between if a topic is a split in policy or political views or if it is a moral sin comes with the cooling of heads, and the lack of some priests of the time labeling the differing opinion as heretic to their followers to drum up support for their side of the arguement.

Are you saying the issue of divorce and murder is defined as a political difference of opinion rather than an immoral decision? I guess then by your definition the argument over the judgment of atheists and homosexuals is a political one because it is chewing up the court systems.. You might say the difference between Catholic & protestant philosophy is philosophical. The Protestants will not call the ideas of the Catholic church immoral, out of respect for their right to opinion. Yet the except for the (Episcopal which is half & half in philosophy) Protestants will never themselves have anything resembling Popes or saints, or all the pomp of the Catholic church. Reason being is that they see it as putting forth idols that get in the way of you being able to see God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Therefore churches are simple with little adornment, and ministers are you everyday normal family men, capable of making mistakes like everyone else. It is a difference in philosophies between the Catholic & Protestants. You might now look at the other things as arguments of idealism, but in the heat of the argument, those on the side of that was against the ideas saw the new opinions as evil and immoral. Thousands of years from now (if the planet should survive).. On those grounds you win. Everything is political; nothing is about morality, because over time when the emotion of the debate is gone it is just a differing view on philosophies. So what about my comparison that your priests are similar to the scientist who try to track nature, (or the acts of God) The weathermen? And have the ability to be as accurate. Only the weathermens, accuracy is proved correct or incorrect much more quickly. (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Oh.. the arguement about science vs theology.. How about comparing a preist to a weatherman.. That's a scientific field, and you can say those in the field have studied their field, vast instruments to help them interpret their field of study.. Still, the weatherman can get it wrong.. (or if you have differing viewpoint on differing stations, you can take bets on who is going to come out right..) Even if they come out wrong, we still turn in to the weather, because their ideas are more studied in the field then ours.

Beavah - I agree there is alot of politics & corruption involved too.. (I might say, you have a point if you want to put it as equal).. But there is alot of splits over moral issues Alot of the different branches with the Protestants is the difference of how conservative or liberal they become, most of the difference in conservative vs liberal works itself back to arguements of what is moral & what is not. What about the first significant split? When the Church of the East left over Nestoriansm which was considered heretical? Gnosticism - moral dualism which was a thought of conflict between good & evil and seeing the material world as having some in between being , rather than directly by God. While some opponents simply disagreed, others even as evil (ie.. morally wrong) While the Great Schism Between East & West.. was more political, over a top dog, patriarch and patriarchs of certain territories, the later splits were over moral issues as groups took exception to Papal infallibility.. Yeah, that little belief of yours that your Pope is seen as unable to have any errors can be seen by others as a moral issue.. Lastly, I would argue about that split over the King authorizing his divorce.. It may have turned political, but it started with the morality issue that built out of proportion. I do not think the church would have been in such opposition of the king believing he should be able to brush his own teeth.

I came back to this thread, because I did not want to hijack the other thread.. Just support Basement there. Its a good subject with a slightly different angle. In that thread I said.. He was a little overly critical of your arguement that your God tells you to pass judgement on a group of people, and consider them unworthy, sinful and immoral.. Base - Religious people do not hate, that would not be the Christen thing to do.. They simply pass judgement.. They need some measuring tool to figure out who is a sinner, so that they can compare and know that they are not. Remember, it is not them who is condemning.. It is their God, and they must follow his lead. I am so happy my God is kinder.. My God tells me to respectfully disagree with their God. To which Barry strangely replied.. You can use a capital "G" with your god? In Answer to that Small g in God, must be part of your belief Barry.. I have always seen it spelled God.. I just trapsed around the internet and did not see a single god.. Even Abel Magwitch in her copied statement shows the word God. Duty to God.. Here are a few other snippets all from differing sites: beliefs about the existence of God(s) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself believed God was the initiator or designer I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians (I thought you were LDS Barry ?? This is specifically from an LDS site.) They have taken my God away from me (I wonder if the statement to love your neighbor as yourself, comes with a disclaimer of only if they are heterosexual and believe in god)

Base didn't call you a name.. Unless it was Scouter He was a little overly critical of your arguement that your God tells you to pass judgement on a group of people, and consider them unworthy, sinful and immoral.. Base - Religious people do not hate, that would not be the Christen thing to do.. They simply pass judgement.. They need some measuring tool to figure out who is a sinner, so that they can compare and know that they are not. Remember, it is not them who is condemning.. It is their God, and they must follow his lead. I am so happy my God is kinder.. My God tells me to respectfully disagree with their God.

BBEFOBBA -- Spell totally spastic Scouter??? Seriously.. Don't know, Doubt there is any rhyme or reason, because they switched it up for a change when the new WB course came out there use to be Raven, Crow, Wolf, Hawk and Panther .. Always wonder what the old timers do when the Gilwell songs come up. Was the song around back then? Were you just dropped from the song? Kindof sad that you can go to a Woodbadge reunion & not be recognized.

But, I will talk to ministers and Priests and rabbi's, and even your occasional witch.. I have nothing against listening to them.. Geez.. as stated my father was a minister, you don't think I could get away from listening to him do you?.. I didn't form my opinion and cut my father off.. I even left home and joined liberal church communities, for years until I moved to an area that I couldn't find a church liberal minded enough, and then I just discuss religion with many different folks of different beliefs.. Slowly I formed the belief that church wasn't needed. Then after 9/11, I was convinced of that. I don't cut off religious discussion, I will enter into it.. I will not tell you that you are wrong to find comfort in your religion, or that if your beliefs give you comfort, that is wrong. I will just tell you, your religion is not the one and only belief out there, and that your religion is wrong to point out other lifestyles as immoral when they are not causing anyone any harm, and they can have that lifestyle and still be productive and outstanding citizens. And I will not accept your argument your religion is right, because it is always right, because all of its beliefs where obtained straight from Gods mouth. If I can be a friend of a black man, a Polish person, a Jewish person and a Muslim.. But I do not join their community and do not become black, Polish, Jewish or Muslim.. Does this make me prejudice? Sure I will go to Doctors, I have also visited dietician when my son was sick to see if a change of diet would help, Psychiatrists, chiropractors, physical therapists.. And I will talk to friends and do my own self study.. I figured out my son had Dystonia, and gave the Doctor my suspicions and saw his eyes light up with true excitement as to the perfect diagnosis after over 6 months of them not having a clue. Does that make me prejudice of the medical profession because I did not stay with one Doctor, or sought a solution outside the medical profession..

God's word has not changed, it has just been interpreted, reinterpreted, and mis-interpreted.. And the key to what you say is sync up to YOUR CHURCH.. But your church's word will not sync up to Gods word from the church down the street. And they definately will not sync up with the words of some Fringe Mormon coloney, that teaches polygamy, nor a fringe Muslim group that teaches you to kill.. The Mormon's religion does not sync up to a fringe Mormon.. Nor a Muslim to a Fringe Muslim.. Churches have split off into two different groups based on two different interpretations. Sure you should find something syncing up with YOUR CHURCH, (but not always), who set the rules of your church in the first place? Follow it back, it was someone in history who interpreted the bible.. And you may find you are a branch of a split or two from differing opinion.. You may have roots that go way back to not being able to name the founder, or you may be able to name the founder, and his church and followers just came from insperation, a dream whatever, a belief in his inner voice as that of being God, or a claim of a visitation by an angel of the Lord (With no proof).. You may follow Christ's teachings, and I believe in Christ.. But everyone has taken the stories of Jesus and interpreted them.. The original printing of the Bible, started as an interpretation.. So even if you decide you are following Jesus's teachings they have been padded with interpretation.. Jews have been around for a long time.. Great roots in their religion.. But they do not even believe in the teachings of Jesus.. They have broken off into many branches of differing interpretation over the years.. They also are padded with interpretation.. But, until your church has another large division of ideas, I will agree.. YOUR Church's beliefs should be in sync.

Agree with shortridge, but also Beavah agree with your statement. With Doctors, many many people go for second opinions, or third, or fourth.. Sometimes the person is a hypochondriac.. But, sometimes it saves their lives. Doctors can be wrong. Other times people listen to their Doctors and die, or are permanently hurt.. Doctors can do their best, and can get it wrong.. Also as science learns more, we find what used to be considered correct procedures were wrong, and maybe even harmful. Thing is when Doctors are wrong, the end results, or more learned science will prove them out. When ministers are wrong, no one can call them on it, except for your opening your eyes and ears and listening to others, and making your own decisions. Rather then just following.. With all the differing views of Religion out their.. Someone must have it wrong, regardless of their years of study. You either believe God is benevolent regardless of which faith you pick, or you have to believe you take a gamble on the religion you choose whether you are going to heven or hell.. Medicine can have different views on treatment also, but over time the quack remedies dont stand the test of time.

Well, I would not shield my child from learning about the Catholic faith and not allow anyone to talk to him about it. He would learn about it from his relatives from his fathers side of the family, and also from his father. If on a holiday he was at his Grandparents, he has gone off to a Christmas service or an Easter service once or twice. So raise him as a Catholic no.. Allow him to explore what the Catholic faith is about if interested, as well as any other faith he had an interest in.. Yes. Be fine if he chose to be Catholic with his wandering and exploring. Rather then dis-owning him over the decision. Yes.. So that is to the best of my ability.. I am at peace with that decision. As said, you may disagree with the conclusion between the priest & I, and maybe the priest & I came to the wrong conclusion. But, as stated, being a preist does not make him any more right with interpretation of confusing issues then you or I. He has just taken more time to study and think & interpret.. But, being human can still get it wrong. Remember this is simply a debate. You cannot see ways around words, because you wish to be rigid and see only the here and the now. I can see opportunity for compromise and adjustments because I wish to be accommodating to people with a different opinion then me. I see the possibilities because I choose to. Will BSA change tomorrow on my say so, No. The atheist issue will probably take longer to resolve then the homosexual issue.. Because as you say it means two parties coming to terms with a compromise that allows both to stay true to their own separate values. Those are hard for people to do. Currently we have such a debate over the Pledge of Allegiance.. The war is being created by the atheists who are not looking for compromise to an acceptable solution that makes those who believe in God and those who dont live in harmony together. I understand their argument over separation of church & state, but I guess from my own perspective God is not church.. God is a belief with no need for church, church just aids some people come to term with God, but church is not God.. So they are trying to do away with the belief of many because they do not agree with it.. I dont see why atheists would need the words under God removed from the pledge for their benefit.. They can just choose not to say those words, or if in a group of fellow atheists go back to the original pledge that did not have the words in it.. They do not need to take away my right to say the words under God in order for them to use the pledge.. That means that they would need to learn tolerance to stand in silence and simply hear others say it.. And others must respect their wish not to say it.. So I can see a compromise of letting Atheists be silent for a section of the pledge, and allowing those who believe in God to say them.. I know you are jumping up and down in your seat and seeing red, because you are too ridged to entertain the notion.. And I know there are currently more that would be on your side today if we took a vote, then on my side. The war of the Pledge of Allegiance by the atheists would head the fear of them getting in an nipping away at the Scout Oath.. They would need to practice tolerance themselves, for that fear to go away. I see allowing Homosexuals into the BSA as being the easier wall that will come down, and the one that will be first.. Simply because morally straight are words that have different meanings to different people, our words are not I promise to be a heterosexual.. They are simply morally straight.. And as more & more states allow same sex marriages, this will be seen more and more as acceptable.. Currently we are abiding by one groups opinion of what morally straight is, while ignoring all the other meanings of morally straight or even caring to spell out what other actions are considered deviant reasons to be booted out of BSA, because it would take snooping into everyones private lives in places that we care to not wander.

perdidochas - maybe it is because I look at this by way of a discussion I had with a Catholic Priest at one time.. Husband & I when getting married had both our faiths do part of the ceremony.. Husband was Catholic, I was protestant.. We as a couple at the time had found a nice liberal church that was protestant. Husband has parts of his faith he likes, but does not care for things like the Pope and the importance put on one man, or the wealth of the Catholic church, and a lot of the pomp & circumstance. So felt more comfortable in a Protestant faith.. Although I did not grow up with my father after my parents divorce he is a Protestant minister and was the minister who stood up at the ceremony for us.. But, his family wanted the Catholic presence. Anyway with Catholics there was some weekend couple meeting we attended, and my husband & I were to say or sign something stating we would raise our child to be Catholic to the best of our ability.. I talked to the priest about my problem with this, since I had no plans to raise the child Catholic.. His response was to look at the words To the best of my ability.. If the best of my ability was to teach him about God in another way, then so beit.. Now you may not like the out he gave me.. But, that is what talking to others and taking away from a conversation what you like and dont like is all about.. I was fine with the interpretation and so said the oath or signed the papers or whatever BSA also states I promise to do my best As for morally straight.. All BSA looks at and practices is the tossing out of homosexuals because it is a group practice, rather than individual decisions and is easily defined.. The will also kick out someone with a crime, which would throw out the pedophiles. Maybe they may do the polygamist but I doubt it as they would have to stand in court and say they are standing in moral judgement as to whose religious practices are good and whose are not.. They will never oust an adulterer or a couple who lives together out of wedlock, because now they are standing in moral judgement of individual lives.. Now a CO does have the right to choose their leaders, but again, if they dont want to be slapped with a law suit, it had better be they select all their leaders, based on their positive assests and have enough enthusiatic adult leaders that are clamoring for the positions offered.. If they have an open door policy for everyone, but then stand in personal moral judgement of one or two individuals.. Like the COs who have no women rule.. I disagree and would never join the CO, but they are ruling against all women, not one women because they dont think she has the qualities they want to see in their women.. But if they are hand selecting their leaders, and have a pool to pull from, I guess the women they dislike can be overlooked, in favor of someone else. Playing judge & jury on each individual persons moral standards is a slippery slope.. Beavah in school with science, the principles of gravity are pretty much in agreement with all schools you go to.. You may have a history teacher that interpret history in a different way then way then your history teacher the year before. But so too can you walk out of that school and get a differing viewpoint on history from you Grandparent, or Uncle, or a book you pick up.. If you feel closer to God by going to church and talking to like minded people who share your views.. And dont take their word as the new holy scripture ordained by God himself, because he wears black robes and a collar.. But as ones mans interpretation, then you are doing fine.. But if I choose to learn about my God, outside of a church, by talking to people of differing views, and reading differing books on the subject.. And discussing the subject on a forum with people like you.. Then I am also finding a way to check my inner voice as you say.. But I do so by having a wider source then just my school ..err.. church Because the interpretation is complex, not a scientific rule with only one answer.. As for the idea of "helping people" and "right and wrong" being a religious language, Although religion will use it, I do not believe they have a copy-right on it.. Those are common ideas of not only people due to us being creatures that form a social grouping, but you can find it in any animal that roam as a community, as a base instinct monkeys or Apes, wolf packs, Lions pride.. All will teach their young what is right and wrong in order to be part of the community.. All will work to help and protect each other to some degree.. It is a basic survival trait and instinct, to teach your young the rights & wrongs per your society Something instilled by God.. Religion just capitalizes on it to orgainize their different beliefs, and each religion will disagree on exactly WHAT is right & wrong.. Or exactly HOW you can help other people.. All based on the interpretation of other people.. And they may be right, they may be wrong but with good intentions.. Others though are purposly wrong and leading people into what other people would consider sin, or utilizing it to themselves sin with unsuspecting innocent victims.. Since all religions do not agree, either you can say that they are all getting correct signals from God, but he is highly confused.. Or that as long as we are doing our best, he is benevolent.. Or that we all have difficulty understanding our inner voices regardless of if you go to church, or just listen to the voice through quiet time and reflection.. Otherwise there would only be one religion, and all who went to church would be in single minded agreement.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Beavah - was that a typo, or maybe I am not understanding your meaning?.. "talkin' about how religion has caused wars and all kinds of other bad things. But they would never, ever, make the same claims about other groups - that blacks have done thus and so, that Jews have done thus and so, that Arabs are all this that or the other, that communism or capitalism or monarchy or democracy have done all these bad things." The whole thing with predjudice is that people do not meet people as an individual and make up their mind about a person indiviidually.. Blacks .. where to be ignorant, will bring down a neighborhood because of vandalism and the like.. Irish are hot tempered.. Ever hear and dumb Polish jokes?.. Indians are heathens and can't hold their liquar.. I know I am missing tons of them, but I wasn't raised this way, I am pulling from TV shows.. Calico - Catholics aren't the only religion getting beat up here.. What about the anger toward Muslims due to the current past history. We have been discussing the rebel Mormon sect with pologamy.. Jews are painted as greedy when grouped together. If you think I was brushing all religion with a broad stroke of ALL religious people have lost the sight of god, and worship thier religion.. That was not what I was saying.. What I was saying is SAYING you believe in God, whether with religion or not, does not mean you truely are believing in something higher then of this world (Government as you stated is not higher then the human populas, because it's rules and beliefs are made by humans.. And worshiping your Religous institutions, or the preists within is no better then worshipping Government, because sorry.. It is all man-made.).. Now if you use a religion to come together with like-mind folks, and just openly and intellegently discuss you common interest, and find comfort in unity.. Religion is not bad.. If they can walk away from a religious discussion with whomever, could be the Pope himself and say "Although I admire the man, I think his opinon on this subject is not right.. Because their is something in my heart or soul that says this is not right.." But, because someone says they believe in God, they may believe or they may be no more enlightened then an athiest.. Because do they really believe in God or in their church of choice.. If it is the church, they really believe in nothing any higher then another human beings, philosophy & beliefs.. Just like a man who does not believe in religion or God, but believes in his government or his country and follows the laws that the government puts down on what makes you a good citizen.. I believe in the voice inside me and that that is God speaking to me.. Well part concious & part God.. The "Have a cookie, don't have a cookie" internal debate stuff is concious, I don't think God care that much about my diet.. But the heavier things where I fear taking the step on a path, or my desires really are tempted to sin.. That is God.. Now take an athiest.. If they know right from wrong, and follow an inner voice that leads them down the right path, they could call it all concious, and no God.. But, they are listening to that same internal voice I am.. Why am I allowed into BSA because I believe that the inner voice (at times) is God, and they can follow their own inner voice, but not believe it is God.. But they can't be part of BSA?? Am I really better then them? Are they really worse then me? Seriously we could both be on the same path. You Beavah, just can not use that broad-brush statement to condemn atheists as all being unable to be good people due to not believing in a higher being. Nor can you use that broad-brus statement to say anyone who states they believe in God, is on the right path.. That is all I am saying, there are wonderful people in both groups, there are sinners in both groups.. Athiests can be lead astray, because they do not believe in God, country, or their inner voice. Those like me who talk to God directly can be lead astray, because I can shut out that inner voice, or convince myself it is saying something else. Those of Religion can be lead astray, and in large mis-directed groups by one or more sinful shephards, unless they can truely understand the difference between a mortal guide, and God.. So again I say what makes me better then an athiest who seriously wants to learn about helping other people, and learning right from wrong? Me, I say nothing makes me better.

Basement - Congradulations on seeing your tickets through!!! I know you came back from your WB experience so totally dis-illusioned (and with district people telling you, you would still be unwelcomed helping to organize district events after telling you that they would only allow you to help on district events if you took woodbadge.) you were unsure if you would do the tickets.. It is good you are seeing the tickets as something for you and to H_LL with them.. I would imagine if you had easier tickets to get to your vision, and were forced to make them harder, it would irk you that others got the easier tickets. Sometimes it is about looking at the person and what they are capable of.. Accepting smaller items from someone with little self confidence, and pushing someone who is already confident and capable.. It may be a compliment to your capabilities that you were pushed.. Then again it may just be your district staff being big smuccka-brains.

Seattle writes - Well, for openers, it's OK for a husband and wife to sleep together on an outing, but I imagine some eyebrows would be raised if SEVERAL husbands and wives who proclaimed themselves to be in a long term relationship shared the same tent. I think you would be safe if their polygamous marriage was not recognized by the state as a valid marriage.. Then you can just state, they cannot tent together similar to other unmarried couples, based on the states interpretation of marriage.. But, if the state recognized it then you can see where you can set up rules in the unit, but I dont know if you would get away with just polygamous couples cant tent together, or if it will need to be all married couples to stay free of a lawsuit. But, per BSA policy, they most definitely could be Adult Unit Leaders.. How I personally would feel about it, would depend on how they raise their children. If their children are truly free to choose their own lifestyle, then I guess I would be tolerant of it, but I honestly dont know if I would get over the novelty of it, and would be surprised if they could raise any benefits of the lifestyle, that I would say made a compelling point of argument. Unfortunately with a group like that, you find that they raise their children to believe that this is the only correct lifestyle choice. They may even choose the husbands for the women.. With that I cannot say that the choice is truly by consenting adults.. The children have been brainwashed from birth. That is one thing that I find with the homosexuals, they may have this lifestyle.. Their children will probably be accepting of their parents lifestyle, unless there are issues of it blowing up what they thought was a normal family of mom & dad, when one of the parents became aware they were living a lie.. The children will most likely feel they will be accepted and loved if they do turn out homosexual.. But, to date I have yet to meet homosexuals who try to convince their children the only right way to be is homosexual. And many who hope that their children will grow up to have a normal heterosexual interest, just so that they dont go through the difficulty homosexuality will cause for them. Yet BSA will welcome the polygamist Adults who will raise their children to not think of any other lifestyle as being acceptable, but not the Homosexual who will raise their children to be tolerant of other lifestyles, and be happy for them if they are totally heterosexual.. Either looking at both life styles as equally fine, or hoping they grow up to find they are heterosexual..

they do come in handy at times.. My son kept his in a notebook with baseball card pockets.. But whoever spoke to your troop representive sounded harsh, no suggestions on how to research and fix things. Blue Cards, contact the original troop, contact the MBC to see if they kept their stub, or remember completing the MB with the scout etc.. Just a flat, if we don't have it, then do it over again. AND with our council, 95% of the time it was not recorded by the council, my husband knew the month it was submited, they would go into their cabinate and sure as shootin' the MB was listed on the paperwork, the operater just skipped a line (or maybe recorded it on the wrong scout??) but it was the councils mess up.. I think now the Unit can look on-line for a full accounting of the advancement records, my husband used to go once a year and get an audit from council, and go through what they had, and fix the errors with them within a year, rather then wait until the boy is trying to finish up paperwork for his Eagle.

Problem is there are a lot of people who confuse their religion to be God himself, and they owe their allegiance to their religion, and then the religion (not always, but has) taken advantage of that and finds ways to control them (to do good sometimes as you point out, to do evil other times, sometimes large killings in the name of God, and sometimes individual sins of a single priest.) So what is the difference of a man who has pride and allegiance to his government or to mankind in general or a person who is has his allegiance to his religion? If he has his allegiance in his religion the high priests are telling him what is good, because they are telling him what God wants him to do because of their interpretation. Fringe Mormons? A religion, they are controlling the beliefs of their followers. And they do not have the backing of majority who do not practice their religion.. Beliefs of pedophiles? Again they have no foundation to sway the majority who are not pedophiles that they do not cause harm.. Or they have formed a religious cult and are controlling the beliefs of their followers.. The wealthy who pay for lobbyist to back their specific special interests in Washington, may hold our country hostage, bankers, oil and others.. They do not have the backing of the majority, and may be the downfall of the democratic society, so that others can kick and scoff at the governmental ideology of democracy and how it failed the same way you do for communism and monarchies.. Case in point, so far no one has come up with a working solution for a government because the evil and the powerful and the wealthy will find a way to manipulate it.. Back in the feuding between monarchy & religion, both of those in power of either position were known to be corrupt and self centered.. And drug use is known to be a drag on society, they rob to support their habits, have serious health issues that put a drain on society, and have children with health issues, they cannot hold down a job to support them or their off-spring.. So it would be hard to change the opinion of the public that they are only hurting themselves by educating them that they are not a drain on society. If homosexuality was a religious cult, and people were brought into it and brainwashed into believing they were homosexual, because God wanted them to be that way, then I think you would have a point of issue. But it has been around for ages, some people not even understanding what it is they are feeling or why they are feeling it.. and is even seen at times in other animals.. It is not the influence of someone over the mind, body and soul of another.. As fun as this is Beavah' I am gone for this weekend, so if you have any words of wisdom, my lack of reply will not be because you have stumped me.

I dunno Beav.. I guess the question for me is looking at how many you can convince it is the right thing to accept the group as equals even if it is not their preference or taste. How many can you swing in favor a pedophiles even if they themselves are not.. How do you educate people to open their eyes and see it will do no harm to their children if their child is attacked? The small groups I hear about seem to be trying to pretend they are a religion. And ancient beliefs is just like my slavery example, stamped out by people becoming educated that it is truly harmful.. I don't see communism as sinfully wrong or right.. Just a different political view on how their people should be governed, same as a monarchy.. And the other things like lack of parenting, divorce, and trustworthy bankers, politicians & lawyers.. That is an unraveling of social norms true.. I have yet to see anyone educate me in this is the right way for our society to go.. Most agree it is not the right thing to do, and then might be the ones doing it for greed, or laziness, but just believe it is ok for them, or use some rational to lie to themselves that what they are doing really isn't the very thing they think is wrong because... Now maybe you could argue society has accepted not shunning a divorced woman, I know my mother was divorced and went through hard times of establishing credit and being treated with respect, and we kids went to a school where it was believed it was not worth educating us as we were from a divorced family so we would not amount to anything any way, and were not worth the effort.. But, I have yet to see someone coming out of the chapel after just getting married to picketers waving signs "Get a divorce, it's the "in" thing!".. Nor have I been educated as to why a crooked banker is better for me then an honest one. And that if they steal from me, they are really doing me no harm.. Most of the things you expressed do have harm, they may be crumbling anyway, but not to the rally of the majority of society claiming that it is the "Right thing to do".. So where is the harm of two consenting homosexual partners to me? Even to society? Less babies born of a homosexual union true, and sex is all for procreation. But, isn't the world overpopulated as is.. So where is it hurting me, or society? Now I believe in God, but not religion but from my non-religious position I will agree that an athiest protesting anyones right to have a religion would not be right because he would be hurting you and taking away your rights. But not all atheist are gung-ho that you must follow their anti-beliefs, just as all people are not gung-ho to go out and convert the world.. So you feel that religion or belief in God makes a more stable society..?? With all the history of wars fought in the name of someones religion, and the religous cults that form to try to promote their right to polygamy, or pedophilia, or just to control people or their wealth.. Religion does not promise the better society.. Many atheist are good people living by a simple rule to do no harm and respect others and they do so without the fear of the almighty coming down to strike them dead.. Others may not be so good, but then there are many people who claim to be religious but use it to step on other people and claim themselves superior.. Or lie, cheat & steal 6 days out of the week and figure the 7th day abstains them of their sins. So religion improves society how??

The right-thing used to be to own slaves, The right-thing used to be segregation, The right-thing used to be to treat women as property and 2nd class citizens. Times change, the idea of what is the right thing changes, and always thoughout history the changing of ideas comes out of a small group of people protesting against the "right-thing", where people just consider them social-outcasts.. But as people start listening and learning and re-educating themselves, the veiws of what "the-right thing is, will change" and the majority will decide on-what the right thing is.. with a few diehard traditionalist.. throwing up walls to keep things by their standards and beliefs.. After a few generations, the off-spring look back and can not even figure out what all the hoopla was about.. Maybe the majority rule, is as you say, "Who has the biggest stick".. But times will someday change for BSA, don't know if I will be involved in scouting when it happens, but I don't think it is that far away, maybe it will take the current youth of this generation to be in control of the organization, but it may be less time then that.. Brings to mind something that is a "must say" in a presentation I am giving at Woodbadge.. The BSA syllabus says it is something I must put in.. After talking about the fall as a specific prejudice, I am to state the following... "We cannot become who we need to be, by remaining where we are.." Now all we need is for BSA Leaders to practice what the preach.. The mass opinion is changing towards these issues of homosexuallity and atheisim.. What use to be the "right thing" is now becoming the wrong thing.. And the opinion is not just growing outside of the Scouting movement, but with their own members inside of the Scouting movement.. To us the good of scouting still outways the bad, but have a few more witch-hunts on people.. (and I don't think this one was as the woman was open about her lifestyle. But the youth discussed a few weeks back that was a witch hunt..) Have a few more of those and you will get those members who are ignoring the parts of scouting that are not up to par with the over-all beliefs of the Scout-law.. To start making more vocal waves of protest.. The change will probably not come from those outside the BSA organization that disagree with out practices, but it will come from the members inside the BSA who disagree with the practices.. Just give it time.. It is a sleeping tigar, that is starting to stir.. And yes it may be won by beating the biggest stick, but give it 2 generations and the youth of tommorrow will not even understand what all the commotion is about, because accepting everyone as equals regardless of religious choice (or lack of), or sexual preference will simply not be an issue.

Beavah - you chose Mrs. Beavah as your partner for life, that was your choice.. If someone tommorrow turned the world upside down and told you you could not be partnered with a female and must choose a male partner, who would you choose then?? Those who are homosexual could choose to become celibate, be in a monogamous relationship with one same sex partner (like you and your Mrs.. (and the woman in the story)), or choose to be a swinging single.. One other choice, they could pretend to the world and act like a heterosexual, find someone they truly dont love, lie to them, and probably spend a lifetime making themselves and their partner very unhappy.. So in that way they do have choices just as you can choose to be celibate, married, a swinging single, or pretend to to the world and an unsuspecting partner to be homosexual.. What they do not have a choice in is they cannot make a choice to be happily and honestly heterosexual.. As I am sure you would agree that you could not make a choice to be happily and honestly homosexual.. This woman chose a monogamous relationship that was honest.. Problem is because of her choice to be open about the relationship. That makes it a right of BSA to cancel her membership. Problem is we do not have a policy against the wife swappers or wildly swinging singles or practice adultery or other sexual deviant behavior.. But, any other sexually diviation is just fine as long as it is heterosexual. Now what is this about the youth will not be ousted on a witch hunt because they are youth? If a boy goes to their Eagle court and claims to be an atheist they will not earn the eagle and the decision will be upheld at National.. Ok that is not quite kicking them out, but I would imagine if what we were discussing last week about the troop on a witch hunt over the rumored possible homosexuality of a youth where 5 adults placed him in a room with the rest of the troop having nothing to do but stand outside and speculate on the proceedings.. Where they tried to get him to confess, and he refused, and they told him he had no rights while they investigate.. While all in that form thought the proceeding was horrendous, and worthy to be brought straight to the attention of the SE.. Everyone in that forum told me I was wrong to insist that a youth who thinks themselves homosexual or an atheist should not be kicked out because they are youth and not adults.. In that thread the consensus was the troop should not go on a witch-hunt over rumors, but if the youth was open about their choices, they should be kicked out of scouting.