Mr. Boyce

I've found that most self-identified atheists have only rarely studied science and philosophy. Instead, there's a watery, generic "public atheism" which is intellectually insubstantial but, for some, emotionally gratifying.

Lisa: I'm an old PS guy, and have been active in politics. I really wanted Huckabee to run, and right now, he still looks much better than the current set of dwarfs. I'd point out that "liberals" are also values voters. They like the Current Occupant's views on promoting abortion, for instance, and think it's a good thing. They want even more funding for AIDS research, when any fair measure seem to show that, per death, we're already overspending in that area. They also feverishly promote gay marriage, and our Current Occupant denies his obligation to enforce the law, as Chief Executive, because he personally doesn't care for it (the doma bill). So, yes, liberals push values on the public. Some characterize this as radical individualism or secular humanism or secularism. I wanted the best for Mr. Obama, but once in office, he dropped his guise of moderateness.

Some comments that I'd like you to consider. (1) HAZING. Hazing used to be the Big Concern. Do you know of any concrete instance where a person was hazed at an OA function? Having been in lodge leadership, having been involved in ceremonies, I never ran into any during my time as a scout. . . nor did I hear (and I kept an open ear) of any hazing in our lodge. We firmly--youth as well as adults--were opposed to letting hazing happen, since we liked the OA. (2) Parents have fewer kids, and they also have concerns about abuse. . . as well as social pressure to "bond" and spend more time with their child. So now I read of troops with a gadzillion assistant scoutmasters! So this generation of parents wants to follow Johnny around more than those in the past. (3) A mature parent should be able to sit down with the scoutmaster or OA representative, learn the contents of the Ordeal, etc., and judge for himself whether Johnny should do this. There is no particular need to physically attend the event. (4) This said, it should be fine to let a parent attend if he has serious reason to do so, and not just jerking around or curious. As a youth I was very upset that my father asked to attend, and attending, a ceremony in which I was a principal. I just felt like the man was snooping and that this was a harmful thing to the serious business that we were trying to do. (The view of a youth). (5) Developmentally, the youth doing the ceremonies take these seriously, and are perhaps even less likely than we adults to want to throw open the door to anybody, for any reason.

Some considerations, Thunderfox: Why NOT a secret organization? You have to admit that there appear to be some benefits to it. In my book, I think the fears of secret organizations is overdone. We hyper-fear things around us so much, it's a wonder we're still allowed to use scissors! I think the American Empire/Post 911 World devotes far too much energy to Safety and Security; this mission to denature and neutralize society of any blemish is enjoined by the political correcters. With that said, the BSA, and any youth organization requires scrutiny to avoid abuse. I point out above that the much-feared hazing never occurred on OUR watch; we were if anything much anti-hazing and would have stopped it. . . as the ADULT thing to do! Quick, cheap, second-hand looks at the OA, however, would make any uninformed member of the public concerned for youth safety. Makes sense to me to accommodate this. Hence, as a practical matter, why not allow seriously curious parents to know about the OA? But this, TF, is far different than broadcasting the guts of the organization to anyone. NO SMALL PART of the effectiveness of the OA comes from its shared experiences. It was with great dismay that I attended a recent Ordeal ceremony in which one boy was totally disinterested; he toyed with a lamp rather than care much about what was going on. If nothing's new, we're all jaded, aren't we? You seem from your posts to have seen some one particular instance or lodge in which the organization took the OA template and radically changed it into something different. I'm opposed to that, no doubt.

We underestimate the kids' intelligence: they know BS participation ribbons/trophies from the real thing. This said, they like having STUFF, so it's STUFF to have. What creates genuine self-esteem is demonstrating ability at a task, whether this task is looked at in itself, or in comparison to others. In scouting, it was eye-opening to me to see the value of co-operation, as a youth. But competitive events are surely good and enjoyable. They just don't need a "life or death" stress on one incident.

Count me with the Much Discretion Crowd. No small part of the appeal of the organization in the past was that scouts who weren't members were intrigued by it. Now everything's on the internet. Forget the "concern" and fright over the secrecy stuff: when I was a scout, not only adults but youth leaders ALSO FIRMLY STRESSED NO HAZING. . . and it worked. There was no hazing, since for youth it was a sign of maturity that there BE no hazing! We consistently underrate the ability of youth, and we consistently frighten ourself with imaginary fears.

If I were an atheist, I would know I'd be uncomfortable in a religious program, an ecumenical program or even a program of ethical uplift. I wouldn't join. I have tried but failed to find the logic of someone joining the BSA. . . and then complaining about it. I suppose, with respect to (vacuous?) rights, I think: (a) what gives an atheist the "right" to enter an organization in an effort to substantially change it? . . . and (b) does not such an atheist disrepect the rights of those who are in the organization and support its goals? By the same token, perhaps all those opposed to the NRA should join the NRA, get involved in NRA politics, and then change the organization's mission to something they feel is morally better. No concern for other person.

Very solid comments above. I would flip something you said and ask, "what if you are a well-trained liberal artist, and want to actually make something, or build something, rather than talk about aspects of it"?

I was a couple of months old. The world event that made the biggest impact on me was the Fall of the Berlin Wall. I was shocked to hear of this on the radio, while getting a haircut at the barber shop, and as the news talk continued, and the idea got more and more real, I realized that everything shifted. It did, that day. A new global world; two billion more free consumers and participants in the economy. Shapes the way we live today.

It's interesting to see how this general question has turned into an "us vs. them" thing of "damned conservative" vs. "weird liberal." Here's a good article, and I encourage you to read it, despite the work of clicking the mouse. http://chronicle.com/article/From-Technologist-to/128231/ (reading period) OK. I like the liberal arts considerably, but there still IS a disjunct between what the liberal artists can do, and what the local HR director has been told he has to find. . . and we all know, by now in the year 2011, that Brand USA needs more STEM folks.

I'd welcome him. Looking back over those days, I think having an off-campus, non-academic, non-school, non-always the-same-peer-group, social outlet would have been a very good way to clear my head, get some fresh air and stay in touch with the real world. It surely would have benefited me as a student.

I have just completed reading Diane Ravich's book on her career as an education policysetter. She's made me a bit skeptical about many of the efforts of the past 20 years. Of my own accord, I can only offer two recommendations: (1) pay teachers more money. This will broaden the range of the field's attraction, and help draw in young people who otherwise might get sucked into law. (2) use psychological research to find how kids develop good stick-to-it, stay on task, skills. A kid with an iron butt, able to make himself stay on task, is likely to have a much greater education.

I can't blame entirely the gay advocates for this kind of issue. I think the media generally has latched upon sex as a sales tool, and that's why our culture is drenched in it. Give me a break! I'm more than a pair of gonads. At age 11, what kid REALLY understands sexuality. Oh, there may be bare knowledge of the facts and such, but not too likely an understanding of the emotional levels involved here. I'd shut my mouth up on the whole thing. Let the kid grow up. Let him realize he didn't know what he was talking about. Homosexual males are what, 1-2% of males? Unlikely he's gay. I feel sorry when I see the gay pressure advocates pressuring teens to try out the idea of being gay. . . perhaps knowing that teens are susceptible to such tricks. Serious studies show that homosexuals are much more "tolerant" of pedophile sex than your basic heterosexual males: we'll see the "normalizing" of homosexual pedophilia soon, given a fancy bit of propaganda narrative to sugar it up for the general public. All told, I suspect that gays will end up wishing they'd stayed in the closet.

re: Obama and the Democrats My take on them is that they'd LOVE the Occupy Movement to go away! It's distracting in so many ways, especially with the election coming up. And we've already seen the Democrats, when handed MANY OPPORTUNITIES to reform Wall Street, shy away from doing so. The Democrats are on the Wall Street Dole just as much as the Republicans. It's a shame. There are nutcakes and lunatics involved in the Occupy Movement, and conservative slammers always will point to the froot loops. In reality, the bulk of the country wants a free and fair market. . . rather than Crony Capitalism.

Without getting so much into politics, in my area it has been the business establishment, the manufacturers association, that emphasize the "social engineering"/get a practical degree, kind of thing. But that's not entirely unreasonable.

The economy's changing, and in a bad way. So it is prudent to advise a young person to see how they can fit into a vocation. It's important to make a living. It's also important to live well. The liberal arts are what it takes to fully enjoy the richness of life. So you need this, too. I don't see it as "either-or." I see it as "both."

I am kind of partial to the idea of having a guy on your troop committee who is an enforcer, say a confident, in-shape, ex-Marine who is up for the idea of taking various offenders "out back" for a "serious talking-to" with a helpful piece of lumber.

Some serious reflections. . . (a) "gay people do not choose to be gay." I think this is true. But this does not necessarily mean that it is genetic; it may be a cumulative development over time. (b) yes, I'm going to do this, say this: there are studies showing that pedophiliac behaviors are more associated with homosexual men than heterosexual men. And no, right here at the computer as I'm typing, I do not have the proper reference, but it exists, so don't shoot the messenger (me). Dig it up; it's there. © to my great consternation, science does not help us. There is no definitive scientific answer to the causes of male and female homosexuality. There are strong suggestions of various sorts, but despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars in social cost are involved, no one's studied this. The early Kinsey stuff was fraudulent, and apparently current researchers are frightened from studying the topic due to the personal and professional costs.

Some serious reflections. . . (a) "gay people do not choose to be gay." I think this is true. But this does not necessarily mean that it is genetic; it may be a cumulative development over time. (b) yes, I'm going to do this, say this: there are studies showing that pedophiliac behaviors are more associated with homosexual men than heterosexual men. And no, right here at the computer as I'm typing, I do not have the proper reference, but it exists, so don't shoot the messenger (me). Dig it up; it's there. © to my great consternation, science does not help us. There is no definitive scientific answer to the causes of male and female homosexuality. There are strong suggestions of various sorts, but despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars in social cost are involved, no one's studied this. The early Kinsey stuff was fraudulent, and apparently current researchers are frightened from studying the topic due to the personal and professional costs.

Some serious reflections. . . (a) "gay people do not choose to be gay." I think this is true. But this does not necessarily mean that it is genetic; it may be a cumulative development over time. (b) yes, I'm going to do this, say this: there are studies showing that pedophiliac behaviors are more associated with homosexual men than heterosexual men. And no, right here at the computer as I'm typing, I do not have the proper reference, but it exists, so don't shoot the messenger (me). Dig it up; it's there. © to my great consternation, science does not help us. There is no definitive scientific answer to the causes of male and female homosexuality. There are strong suggestions of various sorts, but despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars in social cost are involved, no one's studied this. The early Kinsey stuff was fraudulent, and apparently current researchers are frightened from studying the topic due to the personal and professional costs.

(h) and the BSA doesn't help itself by being secretive about its membership facts.

Here are some of my concerns: (a) there are new pastimes and activities for youth which didn't exist 10 or 20 years ago; (b) professional educators/schools are now getting interested in Outdoor Education kinds of programs; © given negative academic critiques of the USA, and subsequent media tones that repeat this negative view of American history, it is very tough for an American to feel patriotic in a nonpartisan way; (d) since Vietnam, the American public has mixed views on the military, and uniforms and the BSA are affected by this; (d) Aggressive sports leagues, sports leagues on steroids, have developed, commanding and demanding more attention; because of TV, sports participation ranks higher as a value among youth; (e) Parents are more focused on getting Johnny into the meritocracy, which means more academic activities, and they are less concerned about how well-rounded Johnny is. This concern, given the movements on the American economy, needs to be respected and considered by the BSA in some fashion: people want their kids to ultimately have good jobs. (f) With two-income families, it is tough for the father as well as the mother to have free time to do volunteer work; (g) The BSA was known as a community service organization and won public respect for this; now "community service hours" are compelled by schools.

Why not have or allow both? That's how they used to do it. Might even sell more shirts that way.

I think this is a big gap in the lineup. I'm tempted to have my tailor knock off the collar. Really makes the neckerchief work well.

I have joked with this fun topic to be sure! But consider: (a) the general public already has some pretty fixed notions about "scoutmasters." George Orwell pointed out a good many years ago that, at least in England, that was a euphemism for pedophile. (b) men don't wear dresses. © we live in America, not Scotland. (d) men wearing shorts generally exercise discretion, as to time and place. It is already tough enough for adults to pull off the scout uniform wearing shorts. (e) the purpose of a uniform is to unite people. The "clannish" aspect here (of one ethnic group asserting itself within U.S. scouting) certainly would be offputting to others and would reasonably be seen as opening up possibilities for the Boy Scout Hula Skirt, Boy Scout Lederhosen, Boy Scout kaftan, etc. It's a box that just should not be opened.