packsaddle

Shortridge, you're not from the South are you? Down here, telling someone they're going to burn in hell is practically a sport. Someone accidentally spills beer on a photo of Richard Petty's beloved #43..."You know you're going to burn in hell for that, don't you?" Or you accidentally spill your spit cup in someone's pickup...same thing. There's nothing quite so satisfying as to put someone down based on their appearance or what they think so religion is just perfect for the latter. I've come to anticipate it in certain social circles...often where there's a Unitarian Universalist around to stimulate the Baptists, you can practically 'smell' those UUs, they're so....heretical. It's not all Baptists, though. I have Baptist friends who think very much like UUs (I try not to mention this though) but rather just certain ones that I've stumbled on around here and don't ask me to try to dissect the flavors of Baptists, I doubt that even a Baptist can do that. Anyway, true confession time again...I have a hobby of putting photos onto Google Earth so I almost always have a camera with me. I try to focus on certain types of subjects, especially if it's in my field of study, but once in a while I see something I just HAVE to get onto the record. So I was shopping north of Asheville and just enjoying the mountains, and then I spotted it...there was 'that' banner. I couldn't have been more pleased if I'd found an exact replica of that George Bush "Mission Accomplished" banner. No...actually, that would have been better. Anyway, so I pulled into the convenience store to get something to drink and then to get a photo. When I came out of the store, a guy was in the process of taking it down and saw me scrambling to get the photo. He asked what I was doing so I told him I was just trying to get a photo before it was too late. It was about this time that I noticed that his t-shirt had the name of some church but the only word I could recognize was 'church'. There are so many flavors in that area I have no idea which one it could have been, there was a cross so I'm just guessing Protestant (Catholics are kind of rare and Jews are really rare, not to mention that 'cross' thing). But then he asked how I felt about the whole issue...and I told him I supported the idea that gay people should have the right to marry. There was a silence and then he started in with the arguments and I just responded that since he had won the vote, it's not that big a deal now. Then he asked me "Do you know God?" Normally these kinds of questions 'out of the blue' catch me speechless so I have stored up a few quick responses ranging from 'yes' for a sincere person to 'is his last name dam?' for someone who seems to want to pick a fight (it depends a little on how big the person is and whether I think I can run faster...and I learned a long time ago that you can't run as fast when you're laughing) . Anyway, in this case the guy seemed very sincere so I responded, 'yes', knowing that it was going to bring a flood of 'then how the heck can you think...etc.' responses...and it did. He eventually slowed down and I had my photo so I said to him, "I'll just stick with my opinion, thanks, nice to meet you". And then he suggested, as others have, that I had warmer climes in my future. And with Global Warming on the way, I guess they're right. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

The libertarian ideal, I'm with you. Trouble is, there might be some group of other like-minded people who think they've spotted something they don't like about you and because they've formed a government/theocracy/organization or something they might use the power of the majority to take away your freedom. Any such organizations come to mind? Edit: Oops, almost missed this: BS-87, me, Beavah, Merlyn...we're all connected!!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hi....BS-87....you, me, Beavah....we're connected! So after the NC vote to amend the Constitution, Asheville has pointed out that if the argument about local control is valid, THEY have voted as a majority to recognize gay marriage. Therefore, they argue, they should be allowed to. This is going to be interesting. I can see the outcome though. The 'states rights' people are going to slap Asheville down. Can't allow those uppity counties to take power from the State central government, lol. If they let that snowball get started, first thing you know, local municipalities are going to allow alcoholic beverages, gambling, and who-knows-what kinds of other sins.

Pinching myself...I agree with BS-87 as well, at least with regard to the part about handing 'marriage' over to churches. This would essentially accomplish everything that the gay-marriage movement could ever hope to accomplish. Wow, I am surprised that BS-87 came up with this. Beavah makes a good point as well but when he stated, "Let the Churches trademark the term "marriage" and just get on with it", I had to wonder about that term 'trademark' and which churches Beavah thinks would be the 'chosen few'. Or could ALL of them do it? Me, I'd go for 'All of Above' on that part. And yes, the legal eagles would have plenty of work. Interesting times, indeed. P.S. Some coincidence, just this morning I was driving through NC and saw all the banners in support of the Amendment. Anyway, at a convenience store, I was informed once again that I am going to burn in you-know-where. This time by some flavor of Protestant I can't quite identify yet. He couldn't either...h'mmmm. (Still not using the 'M' word!!!)

Moosetracker, I've been told that by Baptists and Presbyterians for years. I've gotten used to it. Even Rooster7, in these forums, intimated as much once. He's probably right. (Note that I didn't use the 'M'-word.) I'm glad Obama took the plunge. It took courage on his part. I doubt that it will persuade racist homophobes to change their minds about him. One of them recently told me that he is glad that he has 'the economy' to use for his opposition...he's "still afraid that the 'n******' are going take over." What a guy!

The world was just fine 'before' the words "under God" were added to the Pledge, as well as after. If we removed those words from the Pledge, what would be the harm to anyone? If we removed the 'duty to God' part of the oath would it really cause harm? I don't see the harm. If I wanted to make a contemporary connection between the Pledge of Allegiance and the 'duty to God' issue, it would be to compare the political fears of the 1950s with regard to those "Godless communists" to the phobias some of us still have about atheists in scouting. It's all so unnecessary. What I DO see is that there are good people out there who would make a positive contribution to the boys and to scouting if they weren't excluded by the membership policy. And I DO see the harm in that. In my case, either way it doesn't affect me personally. I just tend to pull for the 'underdog' and this translates to defending minorities if they're being treated wrongly. I side with the boy who's being bullied, I try to help the struggling student, I am a sucker for little kids or people who need clothes or food, and I react defensively if I see people being treated unfairly because of something they are or something they think. And IF that is the result of a couple of words in some oath or pledge, I'm ok with removing those words. I happen to think that it goes deeper than that. Like I wrote before, I wish BSA (and scouters) weren't so obsessed with sex and religion. Edit: TT, I used to employ lots of ice cream...just before their parents arrived...diabolical.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Moosetracker, this thread started on 2/23/2010 and the first time I responded at all was after perdidochas asked KC9DDI this question, "Do you suggest we change the Scout Oath when we allow atheists in?" to which KC9DDI responded: "Sure". That was when I wrote to say that I am with KC9DDI on that single word response. There was no explanation except that I agreed that I would support changing the oath. But previously jrush had stated his belief that, "atheists should be barred because atheists hold that NO religion is valid." And KC9 responded that he thought jrush was taking some liberties with the term 'atheist'. He also wrote, "I'd rather just welcome our atheist friends into the program, rather than asking them to re-define their philosophy to fit into some loop hole or work-around that we've tried to devise." I agree with that as well. It was not until AFTER, that you and KC9DDI had your extended exchange leading up to statements about the Pledge of Allegiance. I wasn't part of that exchange unless you can find something that I've been unable to find in this thread. The first time I responded to anything about the Pledge was when I posted about its history. And then YOU wrote about my logic, "So, why is the fact that "under God" being recently added to the Pledge have anything to do with your logic that "duty to God" needs to be wiped out of our Oath in order to accept Atheists in.." What logic? I have not made any such arguments. Show me where they are. I have NEVER written that because of something in the history of the Pledge of Allegiance, the 'duty to God' words "need to be wiped out in order to accept Atheists in.." I did not connect these issues. YOU did. What I did write was that I'm OK with removing the 'duty to God' words. If BSA considered that mandatory in order to allow atheists in then I support that. I'd like to see it happen. I don't necessarily see this as required for atheists to be allowed in but I'm OK with removing the words, that's all. YOU are misrepresenting what I have written. But here's the one that I really can't quite place: "In that last post, you just said that you agreed with my idea that like the Pledge it should just respect the wishes of the atheist to stay silent at the "God" section.. And that you never made a reference that you wanted it removed.." What last post are you talking about? I can't find a single post where I stated agreement with you about your exchange with KC9DDI, or that I claimed that I never made a reference that I wanted it removed. Actually in my last post I claimed that I DO support its removal. Is it time for me to write, "HUH?" yet? I stated what I think on this. Here it is again: "I do understand how a person might find the idea that they cannot be the "best kind of citizen" if they don't have a certain religious belief to be prejudicial. It IS." and "FWIW, I'm not an atheist and I support removal of the 'God' reference from both oath and pledge. I consider religious faith to be a personal matter and I object to having it shoved in my face by other people (although I tolerate it dozens of times every day) and as a result I find that kind of 'in your face' projection of what ought to be personal to be rude, perhaps offensive. I also realize that I'm in a minority opinion so I just shrug and get on with life." I've been fairly consistent about these things. I do support the idea that 'duty to God' be removed from the oath. I'd be OK with it. I don't think I've ever written that removal of 'duty to God' is necessary to allow atheists in but if others felt that way I'd support it. If I wanted to make a comparison I'd make it to the 'gay' issue rather than to the Pledge of Allegiance. In both cases (G&G) BSA's attempt to exclude does nothing more than put people 'in the closet' as a matter of either conscience or nature. They're 'here' anyway, you just don't know who 'they' are. They're unknown, unwelcome, and unequal..but they're here. Congratulations, BSA, on an apocalyptically stupid and divisive policy.

Moosetracker, I'm not making that connection. YOU made that connection. "I still think the Oath would be best and easiest to follow the path that the Pledge of Allegence has." If you can find a place where I actually made the logical argument that you just attributed to me, I'd like to read it. I merely would not object to having 'duty to God' removed from the oath. I do understand how a person might find the idea that they cannot be the "best kind of citizen" if they don't have a certain religious belief to be prejudicial. It IS. FWIW, I'm not an atheist and I support removal of the 'God' reference from both oath and pledge. I consider religious faith to be a personal matter and I object to having it shoved in my face by other people (although I tolerate it dozens of times every day) and as a result I find that kind of 'in your face' projection of what ought to be personal to be rude, perhaps offensive. I also realize that I'm in a minority opinion so I just shrug and get on with life.

Scoutfish, which OP are you talking about? The real OP was a couple of years ago. Fishman OTOH is only a couple of pages back and I can't find a question in his OP. As a matter of fact, because he has tried to be religion-neutral, he seems to have done a pretty good job of letting his son do what you say you want your son to do.

Moosetracker, I remind you that after Bellamy wrote "The Pledge" it wasn't adopted by Congress for 50 years until 1942. And then it was modified four times before the last addition of the "under God" words in 1954. And THAT was mostly in response to the 'red menace' by those "Godless communists". This isn't some kind of sacred thing that has been around for millennia. It's a political statement as much as anything. The way I read Merlyn is that it isn't the 'God' thing in the oath that he objects to...rather it's the exclusion of atheists by BSA from membership, based on the idea that an atheist cannot become "the best kind of citizen." Merlyn can probably say it better than I can though.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"...atheists should be barred because atheists hold that NO religion is valid." I'm with KC9DDI on this. And I've read somewhere that atheists are actually barred because they "can't become the best kind of citizens" or something along those lines...I'm not sure where those words come from. This unit has a mainstream flavor of Protestant church as the CO and yet, most of the families in the unit are either areligious or, I suspect, have parents who are closet atheists. It's just not a big deal. I wish BSA wasn't so obsessed with sex and religion.

Something vaguely similar happened while I was Cubmaster. A leader from another pack began spreading false information about this pack in order to convince families to switch to theirs. But what happened to me isn't as intense as what you describe. I took a bimodal approach. First I did what Beavah described to some extent. I focused as much of my attention and energy as I could on the pack, the program, and the boys. Our program was good and in time it thrived. Second, at the same time I brought the problem to the attention of the DE (commissioners were worthless) who proceeded to start ANOTHER pack and ignored my requests for help or guidance. So...in my experience, don't expect ANYTHING in the way of help from anyone else. Take it for granted that you are on your own and deal with problems on that basis. If you have a strong program and get that information out to the community, all the noise that your detractor makes will eventually whimper into oblivion where it belongs. And importantly, you will have filled your time and memories with all the good things that come from watching and working with those wonderful cub scouts.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Sure, you seem to be wanting to avoid conflict. That kind of disqualifies you from the Tea Party doesn't it? As for topics, stay away from the ones you mentioned already, and anything that might belong in Issues and Politics (like that Tea Party thing ) Saying 'hello' isn't going to get much argument. Asking for links to resources is good. Somewhere later asking for skit ideas might generate some argument maybe. Recipes seem to fare well. Favorite books, movies seem good too. I can't remember anyone getting bent out of shape telling embarrassing stories on themselves, or things like that. You'll probably figure this out better on your own though. Good luck.

You must not be a member of the Tea Party movement. The answer is that there's nothing you can ask that doesn't carry the risk of people ending up arguing about things. But wait, there's more.....for example you can start with a question about, say, merit badges and end up arguing over whether or not washing hands is affected by BSA membership policy. Is that COOL or what? So it's best if you don't try to understand or make sense out of any of this.

Anyone ever wonder what the world would be like if the 'code' had been called the 'Xiaobao' or 'Kulakov' code (Chinese or Russian, respectively)? I wonder how the fact that it was invented and spread using the English language (at least initially) must have affected what we now view as history? Or....WAS it first invented by the Maya and we're now terribly mistaken about the interpretation of what's predicted for, what was it, December 21, 2012? Or as quite a few of us around these parts are fond of saying, "Save your Confederate money, the South's going to rise again!" maybe on 21 December. Or not.

Moosetracker, I answered him in a PM. Beavah's question didn't address anything about the idea of "morality by degree". I'm not sure, even, what the point of Beavah's question is. Is there anyone out there who would do NOTHING about a young person involved with drugs? Duh!!! My question was about "morality by degree" and intended to see if DLChris71 could articulate his thoughts in a way that I could understand. So DLChris71 stated his choice in my scenario. He made the same choice that I would make based on my use of "morality by degree". As far as I can tell, DLChris71 did not explain how his choice did NOT indicate his use of "morality by degree" in making that choice. But his answer was heart-felt and seemed to satisfy others. That's about all I expect at this point.

Oh PLEASE, Eamonn, please tell me that there's a way I can get a copy of that letter! I will immediately post it on my 'Bulletin Board of Ill Repute'.

Brings to mind Mencken, who may have been describing the folks in Irving. Paraphrasing, "BSA rule makers: persons who are haunted by the anxiety and fear that somewhere, sometime a boy scout may be about to have fun."

Jonathanbaker, the best answer I can think of is for you to watch "Independence Day". It's part of 'Be Prepared' that could save the planet!

UHHHHHH, let's get back to those Rugby songs. I'm intrigued. I played rugby as part of a club a very long time ago and I'm wondering what Rugby songs are? I'm thinking I'd like to learn a few..maybe?? Maybe I just can't remember much of what happened after the games....probably a good thing.

Adult leaders shouldn't need BSA to be their 'nanny' when it comes to their responsibilities as leaders. Seems like we preach something along those lines with the boys?????

...sweaty feet...TMI, Eamonn, TMI!

Right you are, OGE. Good catch. I'm going to let the force fade for a while this weekend...and just relax with the grandkids. Hmmmm, did I say 'relax'?

The outcome I desired was to understand your reasoning. At one time I thought it was a simple enough goal. I was wrong.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"God did?" I'd like to hear that from God, please.... Eagledad, you have an 'odd' sense of humor. I like that.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)