packsaddle

Scoutldr, we'd probably have to recruit Graham Greene or someone similar for that role. But I'll gladly defer to your eminence if we can't. Edited for typo, also...BadenP, shhhhhh some folks around these parts don't know yet that the South lost.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Peabody! How many times do I have to tell you guys that Peabody, not Merlyn, is my favorite character? BadenP, I grasp the issues. I just tend to poke fun at folks who try to win arguments with name calling. You've been poked fun at. Not much of a sense of humor either, it seems. I would very much like to have a t-shirt, "LOATHSOME ILK". Maybe I'll go down to the graphics shop and order a few. I'll use the old illustration of the 'urschleim' as my mascot, maybe with ol' Peabody looking at it through a microscope.

OK, so I'm wondering what does it take to be loathsome? What did Merlyn do to qualify for that status? Here's what I can find in these threads: He started a recent thread about LA Police and Fire depts. ending Explorer programs. He consistently argues and opposes discrimination based on religion. He openly states his disagreement when it occurs. He disagrees with BSA policy on membership. Have I missed something? I think there are others of us who agree on these matters, though perhaps not as forcefully. I believe that makes us loathsome as well. I think we are also ilk, whatever that is. Oh nooooooo, loathsome ilk! But wait a minute. Merlyn didn't file a lawsuit in LA. He didn't actually DO anything other than inform us of the fact and then argue its merits. This is dreadful...almost anyone who has ever started a thread might also be loathsome ilk. I....feel....so.....dirty. But DO NOT DESPAIR! This is one of those occasions when it is the perfect time for some Beebop-a-Reebop Rhubarb Pie. See y'all after dessert. Edited to apologize: to Garrison Keillor(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

This is a difference of opinion that cannot be resolved...unless all of the gods who actually exist make themselves present at the same time in a lineup or something so we can count them and see if there is more than one or not. I caution that just because some text is more ancient than another one, that only makes it older, not necessarily correct about anything. If the question is one of a historical timeline that is one thing. But if the question is whether or not there are three gods (or more) or just one (or none), that question will remain unresolved until we can see the lineup. But seeing as how we are all left behind already, I suspect the question will remain.

BadenP, I agree with regard to the differences between those three religions. I add that I have read articles in which Hebrew scholars claim their god is also different from the Christian god. I also add that I find these things very confusing. However, I believe that Trevorum is much more tolerant than might be construed from your message. He is aware of the intolerance and potentials for violence that are associated with religious differences. That said, I especially agree with your assessment of the DRP. Quite right. Edited for clarity(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

BadenP writes, "God is in reality a higher power, creative source beyond all human understanding and definition, even the Bible confirms that, and this leaves the DRP definition rather simplistic and theologically innaccurate." BadenP, this is your personal view. It might agree with mine or someone else's but as you note, the concept is completely undefined by the DRP. However in the DRP 'god' IS written with a capital 'G' and that implies not just any ol' god but the one and true GOD which, as you also understand, is different for just about every religion, perhaps individual. Not to mention that it is broadened sufficiently to allow for religions that worship no god at all or many of them. I agree with your assessment about the slippery slope and I suggest that the slippery slope is unavoidable. To make my view as clear as possible, I view the DRP as equivocal, nebulous, ambiguous, and idiotic. It obviously is applied unequally and interpreted differently by many people. It should be discarded.

Skeptic writes, "I simply fail to understand how an atheist is harmed by having to see a cross on a hill, or to occasionally hear a mention of God, or to have an miniscule percentage of his tax dollar benefit the community and the kids that reside there just because the group running it has beliefs with which they disagree." An atheist is not harmed by those things. But if his taxes support an organization that provides benefits to the community but they are benefits from which he and his children are excluded, THAT is harm. A long time ago a local public school excluded the children of a friend of mine from sports because they were Jewish. In your view those boys were not harmed. However, I see the harm to two Jewish boys who didn't get to participate in sports and to their parents who paid the taxes that supported the sports program. I see it fairly clearly. It works the same for atheists. And later, "I know that I am viewed by the "pseudo intellectuals" and PC crowd as foolish and completely out of touch." Skeptic, how do you know this is how you are viewed..and just who are these 'pseudo intellectuals' anyway? Has anyone in these threads written that they view you as foolish and completely out of touch? I know I haven't. Maybe I'm not one of the pseudo intellectuals, though, so I guess we need to see that list.

The way I understood OGE's statement was as a parable about logical arguments. Call it the parable of two morons. I considered it to be quite humorous. It could have been called the parable of two geniuses but I suspect that two geniuses would both see the fallacy and thus avoid the whole situation. I took no offense. I suspect Ed didn't either and that his response had a touch of sarcasm. Ed knows he's not a moron. Right, Ed? (Hey, someone get the bucket, so-and-so's drooling again) Actually, if someone really and truly thought they were being labeled a moron, I would wonder how a moron could 'get' something that subtle in the first place. More likely, an offense like that would be a case of thin skin and a way to 'get back' at the person writing the parable. That would make offended persons more like a bunch of sadducees or something like that, indignant that at the way a parable ridiculed their logic. Edited to change tense.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Shortridge, The DRP uses "God" (capital G). The term 'higher power' is thrown around as a PC attempt to broaden the application of the DRP so that faiths that clearly should be excluded (such as Buddhism) can be included. I view it as a self-deception when it's used by someone...and a pretty transparent one at that, perhaps hypocritical.

Skeptic, you stated, "So, I guess the real question might be what happened to make a "very few" so suddenly become injured somehow by something that really had no effect on them, except in their heads?" As I understand it, people who paid taxes were excluded from membership in an organization that now claimed to be a private religious club. At that moment if even one penny of that tax money was used to subsidize the private religious club then those who were not allowed to be members were harmed. It's pretty simple really. Governments are finally responding by removing the subsidies and rightly so. BSA knew this would happen and they made their decision anyway. This is called living with the consequences and taking responsibility for our actions...something I thought most of us embraced.

What is this 'higher power' that so many of us refer to? The word 'higher' is ambiguous. Sometimes it is synonymous with 'greater' but often means at a greater elevation (ngvd). Or it could refer to someone smoking marijuana. 'Power' on the other hand is a well-defined physical entity. Or it is sometimes misused as synonymous with 'energy' or 'work' or 'force' or political influence, etc. On the assumption that this is a reference to some religious concept, why not just say what the 'higher power' is? ...Why pussyfoot around with the term when Flying Spaghetti Monster is what you're talking about, or maybe just Rah. If we believe in Rah but fail to give Rah the direct credit Rah deserves by referring obliquely to some 'higher power', does anyone think that perhaps Rah might feel a bit slighted? Rah just might exert some of Rah's power to smite someone who didn't make Rah's position clear. After all, Rah is a jealous god, right? Visiting iniquities all over the place and all sorts of other mischief. Good thing for us that Rah is just a myth though. Things on the planet might start warming up. Kahuna, good point. Edited typo(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Sorry Kahuna, you're not my type. If I'm going to 'check someone out', that 'someone' will definitely possess two X chromosomes.

OGE, I applaud your success at shedding 15 pounds. I have managed to avoid gaining anything since your pledge and I think I'm down about 2 pounds. Plus cutting and splitting wood from a bunch of trees that died in the drought and are now down. Great exercise and for some reason I really enjoy it...almost therapeutic. Keep up the progress and I'll try to do the same.

Sure, it is easy to look at things like everything's going to 'that mythical place that doesn't really exist'. But a good capitalist, one that is an effective competitor who makes good choices and invests wisely, will find this economy to be a wealth of opportunity. Right now it is possible to take a little bit of capital, combine it with an understanding of how things work, and turn a huge amount of profit. All these dire headlines are just theater in comparison.

Lisa, so you couldn't resist huh? No one speaks for me but me, either. Edited: OGE, he may not have spoken those exact words but in the statement, "Say what you will Leroy but I and everyone in this forum view you as nothing more than an invasive nuisance that obviously has an axe to grind against scouting." he not only implied that he knew what everyone thinks, he went on to communicate what those thoughts are. That, to me, is speaking for others. If he had taken a poll or actually KNEW what everyone else thought, he could make that claim but he didn't and he doesn't. But he made the claim anyway. He was wrong and so far, he is refusing to admit it and take responsibility.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"How do we solve the conundrum of a boy meeting all the requirements but still not being Eagle material in the eye of a beholder?" You can please all the people some of the time.......but you can't.... OK, that was glib. But that is reality. I've dealt with this in the past between scouts and adults who viewed those boys with a personal view in which the boy didn't 'measure up'. Once this kind of opinion has formed, it is difficult to change it. This is why I also asked questions that also have not been answered. I'll ask them again and expand on them. How does it benefit a boy to prevent him from advancement even though he's completed the requirements? How does it benefit the program? I'd like for someone who sees clear benefits to present to this forum the wording of the criteria that he would apply to all boys in order to make sure no boy created this conundrum in the future. Really, if someone out there can write a clear, unambiguous requirement that all boys can read and understand, a requirement that all boys would understand they have to meet in order to gain approval, I'd really like to read it. C'mon, give it a try. Ought to be simple, right? Edited part: Here, I'll help you a little with a quote from the end of the parent thread, jblake47 wrote: "Thanks Beavah for the thread. It speaks directly to the problem I'm facing with a lack-luster scout who's earned the rank but shows nothing as even an inkling of anything beyond the minimum." "....who's earned the rank..." but someone thinks this is a real problem, and maybe the boy doesn't deserve it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I was half expecting the author to be named, "Geppetto". Was kind of a rocky process in that case.

I see your point about the charter, Brent. I also recognize that there is 'pressure' for units to 'carry' members who are not very active. But you're right, such a decision would have eliminated the concern along with the boy. But that never happened. The boy met the requirements. Any boy who meets the requirements, yes, should be awarded the rank. The requirements are there for any and all of the boys to meet. Once they all meet them then by all means, they all achieve Eagle. However, the scout spirit question has been discussed many times. If the SM has given the proper signatures then it is a dead issue, assuming he passes the EBOR. If the SM has not given the proper signatures then there is still a decision to be made prior to the EBOR. Folks, requirements are written to be what is minimally 'required'. Not as some baseline above which we pass or fail boys on the basis of how close to the minimum they come. They either meet the requirements or not. If adult leaders signify that the boy has met the requirements then unless BSA has other means redress, the boy should be awarded that which he has earned. The difficulty is that some of us have an ideal in mind that we cannot reconcile for boys whom we judge not to have met that ideal. In this kind of view we are engaging in something even more subjective than the process is already.

Huzzar, you wrote, "What would you do if you had a Life Scout that did not attend a meeting or camping trip for 2 years show up with 21 merit badges signed off and a completed Eagle project?" We've had situations that are similar. This is where the perspective of the individual accomplishment is useful. This boy knows what he did. If he has passed the written requirements and the leadership has signed all the appropriate places then give him the EBOR. If he passes that he should be handed the diploma...even if he holds contempt for the college (I have seen diplomas hanging in bathrooms). In situations like this, I like to ask the question for perspective: What is to be gained for the boy or the program for him to be denied this advancement? How does creation of another obstacle - just because he has not met some criterion in someone's mind - how does it benefit him or the program to create that obstacle? As you say, once he has attained Eagle he will be gone. That just might be the best thing that could happen for him in his life. Why would anyone want to exercise such control over his life at this point? The best time to influence him has long passed. What is the outcome if he gets the award? He will have the award and he may consider it as having minor importance in his life. He will also know for the rest of his life that he could have been better and wasn't. These kinds of things are also good learning experiences. Perhaps he will think about this and later use the lesson to do better at some future endeavor. Or perhaps he will merely spiral into a destructive pattern of denial and deceit. He could go into politics! Or law! Either way, unless you know different, he has met the requirements. If he passes the EBOR he gets the diploma. I always wish them luck.

Kenk, your son deserves the award and you deserve to be proud of him. The requirements are the bar and he made it over. Your son earned Eagle and he can be proud of it and you of him. The fact he has it means that BSA agrees. I have long advocated that this award and the other ranks, for that matter, are individual achievements for each boy. I object when adults start to make these kinds of comparisons, both to their own expectations and between boys. It is not constructive. Please do not minimize anything about your son, his aspirations and abilities, or his future. I have seen many young people who did not 'bloom' until much later in life and when they did, they excelled. Sometimes not until their senior year of college. No one but your son knows what promise is hidden in his mind, he may not know it himself. But do not let anyone minimize that of which they know nothing. Your son's Eagle might be the spark that opens the rest of his life. Congratulations. Edited to add: I agree with OGE, it's a diploma. IMHO the problem is IN the beholder. The solution is for the beholder to look at things differently.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"I would grade him maybe a solid D or a D-." That is still a passing grade. Your letter doesn't have to glorify the boy. It merely needs to reflect that you think he met the minimum requirements. It takes maybe two sentences. If you refuse to write this letter, as I understand your predicament, you are effectively grading him with a failing grade...which you just did not do. Write the letter. Hold your nose if you have to, but write it.

That is not similar. In the case of the principal, the students have their diplomas (i.e. they have been awarded Eagle). The principal's decision is with regard to ENTRY into another program, not with regard to whether they get the diploma or not. I get requests for letters all the time for students seeking graduate school. If I cannot write a good supportive letter for the student, I tell them so. The principal in your example is in the same situation. My refusal has no effect whatsoever on their current degree program. But to expand on the difference: regardless of whether I or the principal write that letter, that student is still free to SEEK admission to a program and quite possibly might succeed. This is quite different from what you described for the situation with your scout. I also have to note that when a student has a GPA designated with a certain number, it is based on objective grades assigned to a large number of milestones and objectives for each of which he must receive numerical grades. I'd like you to show me the equivalent for the milestones and objectives in the requirements for advancement to Eagle. THEN I might be persuaded by your subjective opinion that the boy has a 1.0. Hi to you too, Vicki!

SSScout just somehow reminded me of events that took place in my old troop back in the early '60s. There was a similar concern. Some of the boys were using words that alarmed the leaders as well as church elders, etc. So there were talks about the right thing, scoutmaster minutes, visits by the pastor, etc. I had not been involved up to that point but after it was apparent that we were really jerking them around, it became a grand game. We abandoned the specific words to which the adults objected and invented new ones as surrogates...and flung them around liberally. The effect was just sublime. The adults had no idea what to do about it. We could invent new words faster than they could figure out what the recent ones meant. I mean - we were so quick and they were so stupid! They kept trying to prevent us from doing this when what was really needed was some conversation that treated us as equals in that conversation...with equal respect and equal responsibility. That eventually happened but not at the hands of those who tried to ban, outlaw, reject, prohibit, etc. certain words. Like I said, it's all in the mind. The mind is what needs to be engaged.

If the boy has not met ALL the requirements, then the SM should tell the boy he is not ready for the final SM conference and no date of such conference should be entered onto the application. If the SM does give him the conferenece, however, and the date is entered properly on the application, that should be sufficient for the EBOR and there should be no need for further interrogation of the SM on that subject. In our council, the SM or another leader is allowed to be present, but not participate in, the EBOR. This is not a matter of percentage. Either the boy has met the requirements or he has not. If he has just barely met the requirements and I have serious doubts about something about him, he has still met the requirements. My doubts are my problem.

If "Everyone, including me, wants this boy to be successful and have the Eagle..." then why place the additional obstacles in the first place? Why not just use the official requirements? I understand your position in this so the question is largely rhetorical. The steadfast insistence on these added requirements could be viewed as evidence that "Everyone, including me," DO NOT "want this boy to be successful and have the Eagle..." Either way, I hope that in the future this kind of thing doesn't infect the process around here.