packsaddle

Don't forget the Vitalis on the hair (do they still make it?). In case they don't the stuff is also bottled under a different label and sold in liquor stores as Chartreuse.

Do they watch Disney movies? I know churches in this area that prohibit their members from anything Disney. Has something to do with gays, I guess Disney World has 'gay days'...actually I took my family there once on a 'gay day', we had a lot of fun. I'm going to burn in that mythical place for sure now!

I wonder. What is it that LDS gains from its 'purchase' of scouting? They are obviously willing to pay many $thousands for youth who are not participating in any meaningful way...for a youth organization that they could easily reproduce on their own with the money they invest, truly owned and customized to their unique needs. What advantage do they get from the BSA brand? It seems obvious why the non-LDS BSA leadership is joined at the hip with LDS. It just isn't obvious what the motivation is for LDS. Who has access to BSA membership records? Does the LDS church have access to records of all BSA members? By submitting an application, do we automatically get entered into their FamilySearch database for proxy baptism? Or what? I just don't understand the underlying motivation for a faith that could so easily go it alone (and sort of does anyway with their 'local option') to quietly (let's face it, most of us wouldn't know about this if not for forums like this) infiltrate and take over the BSA.

Think this spirit of 'local option' could be extended to OTHER COs, not just LDS?

Gary noted, "Last I looked LDS people were also Christians." I thought I'd remind everyone of this discussion from years ago: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=175663#id_179689 the title of the thread was, 'LDS, Christians, and Politics'. It was related to politics but the question was with regard to LDS identity as Christians. Thought I'd just throw this in.

I've dealt with this question for decades now and if it is possible, I recommend that you actually visit an outfitter who has a wide variety of packs in stock. Find an experienced sales associate who knows how packs are supposed to fit. Make them aware of the multi-generational need and then, with the boy, pick a pack that has the features you like (pockets, adjustments, compartments, etc.) and then have the associate fit the pack (loaded if possible) to the boy. An experienced associate also will be able to show you and the boy how to adjust the pack as he grows. Since this is going to do multi-generational work, I'd stick with well-known brands. Try not to wince at the price.

Thought I'd remind everyone of this old thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=92435#id_92569 It was also about hats.

I'll echo Eamonn's message and welcome you back as well. If you're up to it, I might call and try to re-schedule a BBQ lunch....still looking for escargot.

Again I am reminded of the statement by The Scout, "the purpose of religion is not to bring people together."

So, as promised, I asked vol_scouter about friendship in another thread. How do you define 'friendship' in your life? How do you decide when another person is a 'friend' or not? What criteria have to be met for you and another person to qualify as 'friends'? I understand that some of us categorize different levels of friendship and some of us have a very narrow view (mine is this latter one). Just curious to see different views on this.

Vol, I guess I keep forgetting that you consider homosexuality to be a choice. I don't equate homosexuality with deceptions such as alcoholism or infidelity. I have real friends who are homosexuals. I trust them and they can trust me. I don't trust alcoholics or people who engage in infidelity. Therefore I cannot consider them to be friends. I simply can't reconcile your desire not to associate with someone - with your claim to be their friend. Worse, I can't see how you would allow someone to reveal their personal lives in a trusting interaction if you feel that way about associating with them. They may be open with you and they may trust you, but you do not reciprocate if I understand correctly what you wrote. A strange idea of 'friendship', no? I'm going to spin a new thread to explore this question.

vol_scouter, In one sentence you mention the desire not to associate with a certain group and then you mention that you are friends with members of that group. I am curious, do you really think the person with whom you profess a desire not associate really considers you to be an actual 'friend'? To me, such rejection is evidence of nothing like friendship. I could never view or treat a friend in that manner.

I think Oak Tree is right about this. Think back: all the medical or genetic things that were opposed on 'moral and religious' grounds - transplants, interracial transplants, xenotransplants, transfusions, tissue culture, cloning, genetic engineering, etc., etc. Many of these are simply taken for granted now. I remember a very short while ago the religious arguments for the immorality of interracial dating or marriage. Today these couples stroll casually in places where a couple of decades ago, they would have risked their well-being. A little longer back and the state attempted to deny me the right to vote on religious grounds. That one went down very quickly. I think that it is possibly because of these obvious shifts that there will remain resistance to changes in official policy and rejection of personal freedom in favor of strong central authority. I think that church leaders understand that if the policy changed, the changes would be quickly accepted and without much effect to their chartered units. BUT, one thing would change for sure. They would no longer have a stranglehold on the organization in which they can dictate the terms to the rest of us. To me this is also a control issue and the successes of other social changes provide even greater incentive for our current masters to resist even more strongly the attempts to gain our freedom from them. Our masters who currently dictate terms from their central authority understand that such changes will cause them to release some of their power. But the greater they tighten their fist around us, the more of us will slip through their fingers by applying 'local option' in practice. Thing is, by maintaining their effective 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, the central authority accepts this practical and inevitable reality. In time the practical reality will take hold.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

BadenP, your statement on Benedict ending the dialogue..is that in reference to the beatification of Pius XII? I'm trying to catch up on this so some clarification would be just great. Also, that quote about "the Jewish people were responsible for putting Jesus to death": where can I read the whole thing? Is that version of the eucharist available online? Is the source document available to read? Thanks.

OK, I'd like to know where I can see one of those Gay Atheist Baby Seals.

C'mon folks, we already know that gays and atheists are IN the membership already, just not openly. Think about it...how does anyone really know what is in the mind of another person? We don't. If an idea (atheism) is absolutely undetectable, who are the 'geniuses' who think this absurd DRP is actually enforceable? What this means is that the whole issue of exclusion is a smoke screen to allow the religious extreme to feel comfortable with an illusion of being free of 'undesirables'. I agree with eamonn that these things will eventually loosen up. It IS possible that some chartering organizations will choose not to continue as a result...this happens anyway for whatever reason. What also is possible is that the whole legal issue regarding government and religion COULD go away and a huge number of potential new charters could be formed. Who knows, maybe the 'geniuses' at BSA will even figure this out.

"...we could have a "Conservative vs. Liberal" debate from now until Jesus comes back." Sorry to inform you: that already happened. Back in 1996. You and I and all the rest of us have been 'left behind'. Have a nice day.

Agree with twocubdad, we also leave this honor to the boy and his family. Sometimes more than one family will combine to have a big shindig. All other awards are done at troop courts of honor in various venues.

Merry Christmas to you too, Pint. My wife and I just came back from some last minute shopping and by good fortune bumped into two of my students, brother and sister, both of whom graduated a couple of years ago - home for the holiday. I remembered them immediately because they were so superlative. One is pursuing graduate school at Harvard and the other at Johns Hopkins. Both in biomedical research, nice. This, to me, is the best present I could ever get...to know students of this caliber and to watch them grow and succeed. So Merry Christmas. I will sleep well tonight.

I endorse what NJ just wrote. It makes perfect sense. It is an example of how BSA could practice a 'free-market/individual freedom' approach to membership rather than the 'supreme soviet/central government' approach that they dictate now.

vol_scouter, 1) What ARE those reasonable adjustments to the use of fossil fuels? 2) Why do you think they are needed? 3) How would you implement them? 4) What makes you think the adjustments would accomplish whatever goal it is you think makes them needed?

Correct Eagledad, I was still fairly new to the troop at that time so I was watching from a distance, figuratively speaking. It was indeed a problem with the change of the Eagle requirements as you suggest. As far as I know, this was something communicated by the council. No one thought about taking it further...we were 'just following orders' at that time. But I remember thinking that this was just not fair to the scout. Fortunately, no one made a big deal about it. My point is that this HAS happened. But not with the merit badges, as again you noted.

Vol, I wish people would not use the phrase, "believe in" with respect to scientific matters. I am not even certain what it means outside some kind of religious context. It seems to connote a matter of some kind of faith. It is unscientific. You will not find it in scientific journals. You will not hear it at science seminars and symposiums. Sorry for the tirade but I guess I've read it just too often. Edit: Brent, no problem. It just keeps coming up as Kool Aid and I keep trying to get it right. I know I'm paddling upstream.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

There is one detail I defy anyone to disagree with: it was FLAVOR AID, not Kool Aid that the Jonestown people drank. Sheesh! With regard to AGW, suffice to say that there are plenty of scientists who do not engage in these kinds of arguments in forums like Scouter.com. Skepticism is a wonderful thing. I wish more people applied it to ALL aspects of their lives. But it appears to me that it is sometimes applied selectively, perhaps to promote one's preconceived notion. A good scientist will first be skeptical about his own ideas. He will avoid stating them publicly until his peers have done their best to find the problems with the ideas. He may publish in the journals of his field. He will then present the ideas to slightly broader audiences of perhaps scientists of other fields to get a critical view from different perspectives. And then, if it all seems to be ready for prime time, and if the public even cares about it in the first place, he will take it to the public. Go to youtube and look up the public announcement by Pons and Fleischman. It is a sobering demonstration of what can happen if scientists DON'T follow the above sequence. Look up what the eventual fate of Hwang Woo-suk was. Science is absolutely unforgiving of fraud. The scientists who have been involved with AGW issues understand what is at stake. They know what personal risks they are under if they lie. The punishment for fraud is professional and academic death. So, I cautiously listen to the arguments and the evidence. And I don't pass judgment unless I am convinced by objective evidence. I don't see much of that here. At least you guys are not humbling yourselves by trying to discuss genetics.

"BTW Alfred Kinsey was an Eagle Scout from the class of 1913 which would make him among the founding members, wouldn't it?" I would say he would have to have earned it in 1911.