packsaddle

Hello Hunt, I'm not sure to whom you addressed your post but I'll take a crack at it. Here's what I just got from Webster: "Main Entry: bigot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." I see no mention of religion in this but even if a religious belief is the basis for the above, if such a person fits the definition the basis for their bigotry changes nothing. However, what I sometimes observe seems to be the other way around. The prejudice is there already and the religious scripture is subsequently used to confirm that bigotry. People do this all the time...it is one of the mechanisms that makes prejudice so difficult to overcome. Another way for you to think about this is to substitute another term instead of 'gay', perhaps 'black' or some ethnic slur, maybe the 'N' word. I know people who have equally honestly held beliefs (prejudices?) regarding these groups, not to mention Catholics, Jews, Moslems, etc. Are you ready to argue that these individuals are NOT bigots, simply because it is their honest belief, supported by scripture?

Wow, TJ, it's good to hear from you again. PM me sometime, I'd like to get back in touch. I'll add to the post...my neighborhood is an older one with quite a few retirees (I guess I teeter-totter on that threshold as well), and some widows. The younger residents are about a 50-50 split between gay couples and other types of arrangements (students, families...married and not). I think there might be one or two people out of hundreds (maybe none) who react badly to the gay couples, the local kids just take it as the way it is, no big deal. My old neighborhood was the same way and that was in the rural South. Wow, have things changed in a very short time! So I agree, that particular type of prejudice and fear is on the decline, at least around here. I continue to state that gays ARE in Boy Scouting. The ones I know of pose no threat whatsoever to the boys and there is no reason for the kind of fear and prejudice that I see driving the policy. To answer the original question, YES, I do know some scouters - both volunteers and professionals - who have expressed prejudiced and bigoted views regarding gays (and certain religious beliefs and certain ethnic groups as well). It's not that I automatically see a BSA leader and think of them as bigoted. It IS that I see a bigoted leader and think, "what a shame" for all of us.

Me too, Gonzo. I just got off the Chattooga and, man, I need to do that more often. Low water though, we ran Bull Sluice and Woodall and it was kind of tame. When it cools a bit, I'm up for another backpack too. Regarding questions, I have often learned new things form this forum, actually I continue to learn. But this mostly comes from reading many responses to many other questions. Sometimes they're questions I never even thought of but they're interesting anyway. I'm not sure what that 'get a life' thing is about but, depending on the circumstances, it can be a put down or a humorous jab. When I start talking about my work, my daughter sometimes tell me to 'get a life', upon which time I begin to sing rap music in my own unique manner. I love the way she rolls her eyes. Someone tell me that THAT's not having a life.

Welcome to the forums! I agree with Acco40 regarding sticking with cubs for a while. I still miss the cubs and I'd go back if I had the chance. It's the best way to be involved and still remember it's about the boys and not us.

Similar experience, usetobeafox. No problem. In addition I have written scores of letters for student applications of various sorts and had hundreds of students through my classes. Only rarely do I ever get a 'thank you' and I'm just fine with that. The best thanks I could get would be for them to be successful in life and perhaps (on a hopefully rare occasion), to be competent if they ever become my surgeon. My expectations are aimed at MY behavior more than at others'.

I agree with the need for a little more detail. There was a time when I would try to second-guess or otherwise try to make some kind of pre-emptive decision because of something I suspected. I have learned that for me it is always better to get the issue out in the open. In this case I would state my concerns about confidentiality and ask them directly if anyone 'leaked' past conversations. I would do this in as non-confrontational manner as possible, tact is very important. If they're big enough they'll say 'yes' or 'no' and then, depending on the answer, you can address the problem, if it exists, at greater length. Either way, they'll know your concern and probably be especially careful about confidentiality this time around...assuming they were cavalier with it before. If I think I can't trust the group with a confidential statement, I will tell them that concern as well. They deserve to know either way.

I think I see CA_Scouter's point regarding the clays. We don't know the source of the clays and it isn't necessary. The speculations, assumptions, and suppositions are not helpful. If they stole them then that is another issue for which the response is simple and obvious. Let's not get side-tracked on that issue when the more important one (and a bit more difficult) is the subsequent behavior that could have erupted, for that matter, over a box of doughnuts. Concentrate on the hard problem...the easy one doesn't need us.

Thanks for sharing that great week. I guess we've all had some really good experiences as well as the other ones we often talk about. Nice to be able to remember those good ones as well.

As I've admitted before, I voted for Nixon back when I was young and stupid. But I'd take Nixon (or ANY of the previous guys) today in place of what we've ended up with. In the end, we can't blame anyone but ourselves for reacting to Clinton or anyone else with some element of prejudice that allowed us to blindly elect someone worse. But this is all in the past and we merely have to suffer until the end of the term. I wish we had a parliamentary system....oh well. But let's face it - anyone who comes along is going to look good in comparison, at least initially. But that's only going to whet our short-sighted expectations and the fact is, whoever is next will inherit gargantuan problems that may have no solutions. The next administration is going to have a tough row to hoe and there's a perverse part of me that hopes the Republicans can hang onto everything. For that matter I'd vote for Rudy or Fred to help it along. We as a people deserve to see this through or else get it put to us all the way. As Jim Carrey might say, "Can....You....Feel....It?" Yeah, bad vibes, sorry.

OK, enough is enough. Everyone who wishes to rewrite history is free to do so. But regarding the whole internet thing, I wish they'd rewrite it after they read: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp The alleged claim by Gore that he invented the internet was, in fact, a statement that was made in Bush campaign commercials, not by Gore. Oh well. If you have evidence to the contrary, Snopes is eager to see it.

LongHaul, I believe we're thinking along the same lines here. I was indefinite in that statement because I don't know the specifics or facts. The meetings could clear some of that up though. Hopefully everyone will learn from this and perhaps grow up a little.

I'm glad there were no serious injuries. Two things arise in my mind, a need for consequences for the boys and a need for everyone to learn from the mistakes. You have acted as well as I could have expected so far. In this unit, we would also identify all the boys who were involved in the locked bathroom and tent incidents and have a conference with them and their parents to determine what the parents think would be appropriate action. The situation crossed an important threshold in my mind when the knife incident occurred, but S is already gone. While the clays themselves are unimportant, it is important to make sure innocent boys are not punished as a result so the joint conference is an important way for all to agree on the sequence of events and the facts that are important, namely, who was inclined to violence and who actually engaged in it. The other boys besides S who were involved must realize some consequences as a result. I would request that everyone who engaged in violence or was inclined to violence be sent home. It would also be a good time to discuss all of these things with the troop...a good object lesson from which the other boys can learn. I will be interested in reading the other responses

Gonzo1, I am looking to the future when I consider the economy. I know we're having good times right now, even with the high gas prices (which, BTW, I am not particularly concerned about). My concern is the less tangible (for now) price we're going to pay in the future for today's gluttony. The national debt under any measure has gone from bad (under Reagan/Bush) to obscene (under W)...administrations that masqueraded as conservative. I hope I'm wrong about the consequences of such massive debt but I'm not optimistic. I can't under any circumstance agree that we are stronger as a nation when we owe more than when we owe less. And I think that even with his obvious failings you'll agree that Carter was, as Beavah mentioned, honest and honorable. Same for Gerald Ford and we unceremoniously dumped him as well. I can't say the same for the present administration, not any part of it.

I guess because of what I do, I'm constantly comparing what people thought in the past with what actually happened and what they're saying today. In science it's fun but as they say in the commercials, "...wait, there's more..." Anyone who takes the time in the library to go through some 20-40 year old Popular Science magazines will likely fall on the floor in laughter. Same for almost anything that makes a prediction. We very rarely get it right...or another way of putting it is that nature usually makes liars out of us (one of the reasons I'm wary of the whole global climate change thing). Same for politics. So this old thread was ripe for some humorous retrospection. I didn't vote for the guy but I didn't really dislike him back in 2000. I actually liked some of the things he was saying in the campaign. And then the reality of the thing hit. The thing that disappointed me the earliest was that I really hoped that W would provide the unifying influence that he said he would. That ended pretty quickly. And then - wow, where do I begin? But the things that really bother me are the fact that W is more than merely the worst president of all time, he is the representation of the worst collective decision the American people have ever made, and at many levels. And I'm not certain that we've learned anything that would prevent a similar blunder in the future. Another thing that bothers me is the very real possibility that the damage that has been done is permanent and unrecoverable. Yes, I know this is already true for many thousands of families who've been destroyed as a result of his decisions. But beyond that I worry that he has done damage to this country from which we may never recover. Think of it: the economy (debt), energy, education, environment, health care, foreign policy...it goes on and on. To use a different metaphor, I worry that having driven the vehicle over the cliff, it doesn't much matter who we put behind the wheel from now on - the landing is pretty much going to be the same. That, I suppose, qualifies me as a glass-half-empty guy so I apologize for that. I just can't shake it, or my gallows humor outlook. But looking back on this thread still brings a smile. I hope my dark prognostication is, in retrospect, as laughable as some of those old Popular Science magazines.

When my Baptist neighbors occasionally divert their attention away from their submitting wives...to remind me of the warmer climes I'm likely to experience in the afterlife (heh, heh, as Rooster7 used to mention here in these forums), I note that if a 'warmer clime' is my fate, unfortunately it is likely to be the result of things I DIDN"T do, sins of omission or something like that, I suppose. Somehow I feel I have missed out on so much... Anyway, I confess that this includes the Pope. I have no strong feelings toward the guy personally (although I understand why many of my women friends feel diffferently). I couldn't care less what he did when he was 14 or what his view of scouting is. Nevertheless, I appaud BadenP for airing his view. Even if some of us disagree with him, we have to admit that it is an open and honest opinion. I suggest that if we had a stronger theocracy with greater control over this country and its laws, such views would be more likely to be held privately, possibly for fear of punishment. So I celebrate BadenP's ability to state his view without fear, even if I am indifferent to the content. This marks great progress for all of us in my mind because, at one time the Pope indeed had the ability to respond to such criticisms with great prejudice. This progress means that today, for me at least, those 'warmer cliimes' are merely fantastic possiblities for an indefinite future.

Heh, heh, I stumbled across this dinosaur and had to chuckle at the deafening silence that it suffered for about the last 4 years. I wonder how many of us would like to be able to turn back the clock a few years, say to September 2000? Or did we decide that we ARE happy with him and I just didn't notice?

OK, what are you willing to wager and how do we decide who's right? P.S. I'd like to see Old Nick too...know where I can get a glimpse? Or was that a typo and you really meant 'Santa'?

Yes, the brood parasite is a much better comparison and, unlike Satan, the cuckoo really does exist! Moreover, your point is well taken.

Welcome to the forums! I have watched this show on many occasions and even though I know there's a film crew and that some of the stuff is contrived, I enjoy it. When he crashes through a hole in the ice it is real and you can really see how difficult it is to do some of the things he does. I was recently impressed when he picked up a big double handful of fresh elephant dung and squeezed the fluid out of it into his mouth and swallowed it in order to demonstrate an extreme source of water for survival purposes. It is hard to fake something like that and I suspect he didn't. If you take apart the shows and focus on the individual skills, you can high-grade them for the ones that are worth remembering. And if you 'read between the lines' during multiple episodes, you can glean broader messages that reveal a more general strategy for survival in a broad range of situations.

Hi, I have observed bone-headed actions of all types. In almost all cases, the boy(s) simply haven't thought through their decisions and did not intend to offend or slight anyone. They are sometimes completely clueless as to matters of tact, diplomacy, or grace...and sometimes tactlessly simple in their thoughts. You know the boy better than any of us and unless you suspect he intended somehow to be rude, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. There might even be an opportunity to have a friendly chat to discover his intent and perhaps clue him in if he simply was suffering from that defective chromosome.

I will proselytize just a bit: Knot-tying is a profound intellectual activity. Beyond hand-mind coordination is also the strategy and logic of the process, designed to most efficiently accomplish a specialized goal - namely to securely attach a flexible object to something else. The process is mathematically precise and the proof of success is in the resulting knot...that either works the way it should or it doesn't. Beyond the rote memory exercise of remembering all the steps in each knot, there can also be a fundamental understanding of why it works so well for that application, possibly an understanding of how or why it was developed as well. This basic awareness of the strategy of knot construction is the greatest value because the strategy can then be applied to new situations and the knots can be modified in a logical and effective manner to best achieve those new goals, to solve those new problems. Knot-tying, in this sense, is a metaphor for all of life. And as such, it serves scouting at nearly all levels. IMHO(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hunt, I don't believe that we are in strong disagreement. What I meant by that first quote you mention is that persons who don't want to do the work of thinking about their actions can take the easy way out and just follow a mandate from someone or something else. Of course those who DO choose to decide for themselves after careful study - are indeed engaging in a rational process within their own mind. That said, I add that 'altruism' is a concept that is the source of great discussion among philosophers as well as biologists. But you already knew that, I suspect. It is possible that altruism may not actually exist in pure form. And I agree up to a point regarding communication's advantages. However, I think that prejudice, while enhanced by ignorance, can flourish quite nicely even with good communications. All that prejudice requires is fear and a willingness to embrace it as a means of answering that fear. The result, sadly, is often the hatred that we see...sometimes also enhanced by communications that are not 'fair and balanced'.

Do you suppose that's why it was called "The Enlightenment", when we discovered that we could move mankind and society beyond the limits of the Bible?

First, I want to say that I really like Kudu and for many reasons. I see his post as potentially antagonizing or even outrageous to some who may read it. So I want to offer pre-emptive defense and say that I read his post as advocacy of getting the boys into really fun, active programs in the outdoors. I consider thoughts such as his as sort of 'fundamentalist scouting' ideas. And I am very sympathetic to the spirit, if not the details. I recognize that an Eagle advancement conference would be a rare event if adults were required to meet 25 miles from the nearest parking lot. Come on, I think the number of places on this continent that meet that qualification are quite limited, at least east of the Mississippi R. I am in sympathy with his wariness of the 'sedentary' merit badges. But I believe the so-called 'Great Satan' of scouting is less well-defined than his rendition and his comparison to a myth tends to distract from the message...which is a vision of an ideal that almost certainly does not exist in real life. My troop, when I was a boy was pretty close, though, and I continue to marvel at how lucky I was back then. But I, for one, appreciate the thoughts that Kudu's post has stimulated in my mind. I hope for others as well.

I have similar thoughts to Beavah and Trevorum but personally, I wouldn't credit religion itself either way. Rather, I think that the arena of faith is one that sometimes provides a refuge for persons who don't want to exercise rational thought. Prejudice of any kind is simply the easy way to go whether based on race, religion, nationality, political view, or anything else. And this can be found in any environment where people exercise blind faith, including 'secular' environments such as cults or certain totalitarian regimes. Human weaknesses don't automatically arise from the supernatural or belief in the supernatural. The one thing I do wonder about, and I strongly question the students regarding this - is how much our empathy, or sympathy, (expressed as aid or other assistance) depends on relatively cheap energy. The ability to communicate needs and solutions, transport food and materials, manufacture goods and medicines, respond to needs and disasters, all depend on energy. As the cost increases (read: population increases while energy supplies flatten or diminish), I wonder how much such future concern and help we will choose to afford for our fellow human beings. I try to sober my students by noting that they ARE going to live long enough to see the answer to such questions, for better or worse. Is this progress merely a luxury, easily afforded while we enjoy all the other luxuries of cheap energy? Is the progress merely an unexpected expression of conspicuous consumption? I wonder. I occasionally enjoy relieving some of them of that cocky youthful swagger.