packsaddle

Hunt, I'll offer a mild disagreement with Gern on the Elvis thing. The analogy would be better in my mind if there existed a private club for boys for which the goal was to offer opportunities for boys to grow into good citizens while learning about outdoor skills. One of the recognized values, with equal importance to honesty and friendliness, is reverence. If one of the membership requirements, however, was to demonstrate reverence through belief that Elvis was king, THAT would be a better analogy. No, even that is a bad analogy because Elvis (IMHO) was not supernatural, invisible, and without any evidence of his existence. Reverence, as expressed by Kudu, is something that IS more inclusive and available to nearly everyone. The God thing, is not. The benefit I keep looking for is the benefit derived by excluding boys who would be good members if not for that supernatural part (or the divinity of Elvis). Your answer to the benefit question is 'none' and I agree with you. No benefit. Huh? As Gern implies, exclusion on that basis elevates reverence for god, any god, or to Elvis... to a status greater than that of honesty or friendliness. Whether anyone likes it or not, the effect of such elevation is that of a core component. Those who promoted the Jim Crow laws thought they were good too. But I doubt they would have called them 'inclusive'. JeffreyH agrees, "Scouting is not for everyone and never has been." Indeed...benefit: none.

We do this every year and have since I was Cubmaster eons ago. I started it by inviting the troop to join our pack's family campout. I knew the troop was in trouble and thought that letting the little guys have fun with the big guys would help. It did. We camped up in the mountains at a lake and surrounded by forest, streams, and trails. The troop had their own camping site and everything was primitive (except for the cub moms and dads who brought boom boxes and TVs, LOL). But the cubs got to participate in some of the troop activities and everyone went canoeing and swimming. During the day we built fires, went for hikes, learned about knife and axe safety, and subsequently learned about first aid . At night they went hunting for frogs and water snakes. And then we scared the moms and little sisters with them. The big guys ran relay races with the little guys on their backs. We all played frisbee golf, did a trail maintenance project and we engaged in highly illicit activities like eating bacon and sausage. The troop competed with the cubs for skits at the campfire. It is one of the best memories of my life and, I think, for some of the boys too. I really miss the cubs.

OGE, that was a great idea! I can hardly wait to spring that on some unsuspecting victims around here. MuhHahahahahaha!

SSScout, in this forum we make sport of plowing and then replowing the same field so feel free to Knock Yourself Out on the 'pledge'. Should be fun! BTW, I'm with you on that food thing... Now, let me see....we're pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth (idol, graven image, craven image?) that represents something.....yep, serious business for sure. Sometimes it's just too much fun.

SSScout, I'm envious. Sadly, this council is in similar condition to that described in the original post. I think, from reading these forums, that a majority of councils do a fairly miserable job of organizing the MBC force.

Hunt, my apologies, I do remember that reply now. However, NONE is still the answer to the first question. In the grand spreadsheet I was hoping for more than a "0" or an "n/a" in the 'benefits' column, you know, something 'positive'. And if you read it carefully, I think you didn't actually answer the second one. On the surface your response appears similar to the 'tough luck' approach to benefit that you articulated in your first answer. Your answer is also reminiscent of another poster whose identity was a type of quail. Merely explaining the facts of how membership in private clubs works is not necessarily an explanation of benefits. Here's why: If membership requirements are crafted in a manner that actively excludes certain persons for specific reasons, there must be some perceived positive benefit for doing this (health, safety, profit, better crops?) or else perhaps the benefit is the good feeling of having excluded someone. Hard to quantify, I grant you, but I could see it as perceived as a positive thing by some groups. Jim Crow laws, for example, were definitely seen as positive by some who offered explanations to me that were similar to yours when I questioned them as to their reasoning. If only they had thought of the Elvis example, that would have made it OK. I concede...the concept of 'positive' may merely be a matter of perception? I don't believe that I have accused BSA of being controlled by religious fundamentalists although that might be a parsimonious way to explain their decisions. I'm not sure of what 'a fundamentalist' really is except a label that can be applied for some prejudicial purpose. The characteristic that comes to mind for me is that 'fundamentalists' think men and dinosaurs were alive at the same time. I haven't noticed mention of that in issues regarding membership. IMHO, the BSA is most heavily influenced by the LDS faith, simply by virtue of their dominance in numbers. Are they fundamentalists? As already mentioned, it is a matter of perception, but LDS members have mentioned to me their personal ambivalence about the 'fundamentalist' label...depending on the specific issue, I suppose. Elvis is not dead, he just went home. And finally, the only flying monkeys I ever see are the ones frequently unleashed on me by my wife.

Again, no answer. Instead a question whose premise seems to be that no boys have been thrown out because of this policy. Merlyn answered your question. So did Gern. Even if only one boy has been turned away, my question remains the same. And it remains unanswered. However, as Gern notes, the premise of your response - that there is no harm if no boy is ejected - is an incomplete premise and blind to the broader impact of BSA policy. Boys may not be in scouting as a result of a number of other reactions to the policy. Parents may quietly decide not even to consider allowing their sons to join because of the policy. I know a few of these. Parents also may have considered scouting but later decided they are unable to agree with the DRP and therefore cannot sign the application. I know a few of these as well. Gern is quite aware of these situations and I agree with him. Others 'hold their noses' while units turn blind eyes to their signature and the collective deception. This is the pragmatic 'local option' approach that is a predictable result of the policy. If BSA does nothing to vigorously enforce the membership requirements, their acquiescence might as well be a quiet endorsement of this 'local option' approach (and this seems to be the case). If BSA knows of the local option practice and does nothing then BSA itself is also an integral part of the deception. I only know of personal instances. But the policy is the root of the problem for each of them. As a result, boys have missed scouting. The question remains the same. And it remains unanswered. What benefit to these boys has arisen from the policy? Here's a new question since no one seems to have an answer for that one: What benefit is it to the boys who ARE in scouting for these other boys to be turned away for religious reasons? That one should be easy, right?

John, your statement, "In other words, 'Religion of the Woods' is NOT, imo, a construct to get you almost to an agnostic sorta godhead; it's a tool in the toolbox to get the young man to the Almighty God he already believes in." implies something that I am not sure was meant by Kudu. You imply that 'religion of the woods' is intended to "get you almost to an agnostic sorta godhead". This is not the way I understand it. I believe this was not Kudu's intention. I think that the 'religion of the woods', as a concept, is a way for all boys (and adults) to experience the outdoors in a way that brings more meaning to whatever religious feeling they have. It is a way for scouting to be inclusive, not divisive...as things are right now. Kudu is right. Want to create a nasty, divisive social interaction? Play the 'religion card'. It's worse than the 'politics card'. Unfortunately, while I strongly sympathize with Kudu's feelings on this subject, I am not optimistic. I think we will continue to waste lots of time addressing the "hypocrisy of religious fundamentalists who inflict this policy". The policy is divisive. It's is hypocritical. It is irrational. It limits access by boys who could benefit from scouting. It spawns units who rationalize a 'local option' approach which, while effective for religious beliefs, might be tragic when applied to safety. And it divides...us. I have asked the question many times and no one has supplied an effective answer: What is the benefit to a boy who is excluded because of his religious faith or worse, the faith of his parents? The absence of answers is, in fact, the answer: None. But I'm also realistic enough to understand that, having rendered unto Caesar, conservation of my energy involves applying it to one of those 'local option' units, and not to BSA. Except, perhaps, for spending some time recreating on these threads. Edited part: oops, typo(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Someone call the moderators on that guy! Yeah, Dolly is still floundering around. One minute I hear her singing 'Nearer my Cod to Thee' and later, 'The Impossible Bream', neither of which you will every hear on Sole Train. My personal favorite is not Dolly's at all but Dean Marlin's: When the moon hits your eye, like a biga pizza pie, That's a moray.... Beav, You go ahead and eat that lunch. I'll stand back and wait for about 30 minutes and then watch for the explosion, heh, heh.

Picking up that good-natured gauntlet.... On average, each of us produces about a quart of 'snot' every day and we swallow most of it. So get used to it. But Corn? You have to be kidding. You stew a bunch of grass seed and call that 'good'? I guess it's next best thing to chewing a cud. I suppose it has a lot to do with upbringing. For some reason I can't seem to explain, I'm mysteriously drawn to the smell of fish and seafood in general. As a matter of fact, it's 1100am here...time for lunch!

This is a shameless attempt to hijack the thread but Dan is responsible. I'm with you, Dan, regarding that chowder. I'm hoping it was CLAM chowder, my favorite. So what's the best. The best clam chowder I've ever had has to be split between 4 sites. One was at Copely Place in Boston. Evenly tied with that was a bowl of chowder I have not eaten often enough at Multnomah Falls, OR. Close to those two would be Ivar's in Seattle and a place in Newport, OR, I think it was called Mo's. Yum, I'm ready for another bowl right now. However, if it was seafood chowder that Dan mentioned, I go for the gumbo around the Deep South. Gumbo, the right way, is just wonderful. My favorites keep changing on that one, though. I guess I'll just have to keep sampling... Now...what was the original topic?

I agree with Trevorum. I don't personally see that BSA should have religion as a core component. However, I do see that some in BSA seem to be on a quest to make religion a core component. And finally, I think I understand what Lisabob is trying to do and that is essentially to 'call the question' on this issue. Or to put it in terms I often hear around here, to 'put up or shut up'. I am trying to stifle the glee I feel when I consider the possibility that BSA would actually try to do something like this. As much as I sometimes minimize the intellect of BSA top brass, I simply don't see them being THAT stupid. (...h'mmm, is that damning them with faint praise or something?) I think BSA does see the morass they would enter if they actually tried to go beyond the current status with formal religious advancement requirements. And the current status is already not very clear. As it is, to quote a line from another thread, anyone who has "the most vague and nebulous belief in any kind of spiritual reality" is allowed in (thanks Hunt, I'm going to enjoy this one for quite a while). BSA has painted themselves into a corner on this issue. They staked out their private club status based on religious mores and now they are faced with the consequent exclusion based on their nebulous standards. The more they specify the standard either during the application process or through the advancement process, the more potential members they exclude. At the same time they really would kind of like to have more money to support their bloated salaries (sorry, couldn't resist) so they compromise by inventing units and, perhaps, including members who don't actually exist (so if they don't exist, they can't believe in God, can they? Just a thought). This entire situation is ridiculous and is a predictable outcome from BSA policy decisions applied to the legal arena. Just like contemporary politics, there are so many levels of deception they are nearly impossible to enumerate. So Lisabob, I salute you! I wish you success. The show is really going to be a good one.

Ed, unless you can read his mind you do not know that Newdow is 'mocking' anything. What you do know is that you disagree with him and that his presence as a religious figure may offend you in some way. I urge you to look around at your fellow Christians if you want to see true mockery of your faith. If mockery IS his intent, Newdow is profoundly incompetent compared to the things that avowed Christians do and say from time to time.

Yes, then there's Newdow. While I agree with restoration of the pledge to the original form I also recognize that this is a trivial matter and may be a distraction from more important issues regarding government discrimination based on religion. His church is another thing, however. Yes, by establishing a legal church he and his members should be recognized by the BSA religious club. However, as a scientist my caution lights come on whenever I read anyone claiming to possess 'the truth', Newdow included. I recognize that Newdow's church is one of the very few that have ideas open to scientific examination and test. This alone, however, is enough to pose a logical inconsistency for them because 'the truth' (as understood by most other religions) is neither subject to test nor subject to change should evidence show it NOT to be 'the truth'. Newdow's 'truth' is subject to critical test and as such is automatically recognized by HIM as not necessarily absolute. This uncertainty places Newdow's 'truth' in a quite different category from the so-called 'truth' of other religions that are based on supernatural spirits. In this sense, not only does he have a logically weak idea behind his church, but he also loses the advantage that other religions have which do not rely on rational thought at all and are therefore immune to reasoning. That said, I still think his church members ought to be allowed into the club. Lisabob, he may be eccentric but, as opposed to North, I don't think he's a liar, and therefore I would place him a little higher in the role-model hierarchy. Merlyn, actually I think traditional religion IS better founded in myth. Otherwise, as Augustine cautioned many centuries ago, religion might otherwise be subject to objective examination and found to be incorrect - precisely the way things went regarding Copernicus and Galileo and the way things are going today regarding modern biology. While Freud argued that ignorance was a poor basis for a belief, I note that it might be a necessary component of belief for many persons.

This stuff is interesting. Perhaps a rewrite is in order? http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185708 The bones of Jesus and his family found in an ossuary? Fascinating.

In my first real paying job, bagging groceries for Colonial Stores (out of the business now, no thanks to me), one day we were stocking the shelves. My job was to unload boxes and bring them out where the skilled labor was putting the items on the shelves. One late-middleaged lady who I think might have been used as the model for 'Selma' in 'The Simpsons' was upset as I arrived. There wasn't enough room for everything I had brought. She shouted at me, "Quick, go ask the manager for the shelf stretcher!" I hustled on off to find the manager who said he was pretty sure the guy in the meat section had it. After I made the rounds through nearly every experienced person in the store and was beginning to get frustrated, I reported back to 'Selma'. She started to vent and then couldn't hold back the laughter. I then noticed echos of laughter from all directions in the store. About an hour later I figured out that I had been HAD. It was embarrassing but I knew that at least I was liked enough to be worth the effort. At the end of the day, my mild dyslexia had its way as well. We were closing down and preparing to lock up when someone mentioned the prank. I laughed and joked about how confused I was going all over the place trying to get a box stretcher for 'Selma'. Everyone got silent. 'Selma' started to blush. Then I realized what I had said and I started to blush. And then the produce guy lost it. And then the rest of us. Sweeeeet! Selma, for some reason, was a lot friendlier after that, h'mmmm, can't figure it out.

I sympathize with the libertarian viewpoint. At the same time I see strong disagreements on banning certain other things such as smoking, abortion, the UUA religious award, loud noise, trans fat, gays, atheists, CFCs, alcohol at scout functions...you get the idea.

OGE, good question. It is open to a little interpretation though. I am guessing that a devout Christian might think BSA is a Christian organization. Furthermore this might be restated with an element of purpose, Boy Scouts of America IS and SHOULD BE (remain) a Christian organization. At the same time a pagan might think BSA is predominantly Christian but should NOT be. Same for any number of other minorities. If the Mormons are included as Christians the Christian lock on the organization seems secure. But when I asked that question in another thread, there was some disagreement among Mormons themselves about their status regarding Christianity, so even that isn't necessarily clear. I think the only statement that can be made clearly is the one that BSA makes in court. BSA is a religious organization, no question. Beyond that, BSA's religious identity is either obscured or else it's confused and undetermined.

Gunther Toody says, "Ooooo, Ooooo" its a riddle, I know, I know. The answer is that a nice prank is any prank that DOESN'T involve a deception. Did it get it? Did I? Sorry, my wife often says my mother should have pinched my head off. She's right of course, but now it's too late. Your point is taken.

Kudu, I admit - I find your logic impeccable and your argument persuasive. As to that last thing about creation false-science, shhhhhhhh......they might be listening!

Oh, I think I heard that he was taken during the mini-rapture of 2006. The rest of us slimes were left behind again.

Thanks for that example, Brent. It goes way beyond simple pranks. I suspect that Sutton's character was going to be strong with or without scouting. He was certainly a big (in the sense of character) man. I'll read the book.

I too, think it is a great idea. Probably should ban weapons though, I'd hate to get shot or something. I don't discuss my personal beliefs publicly but might make an exception for such a jamboree. I was raised Presbyterian. Memorized vast portions of scripture, earned the God and Country award, tried my best to understand predestination...and failed. So I mostly poke fun at 'em now. I would also suggest that each of us bring a joke about our own belief system if we can think of one. That shouldn't cause conflict should it? Seriously, I'd be interested to see if each of us could identify and share with the group the most difficult question or criticism we can think of for our own faith. THAT would be interesting.

Dan, good for them! Your post reminded me of something my daughter asked years ago, "Dad, do pagans eat people?" I nearly choked on my breakfast. So I responded, "Only during communion, punkin'." At which time my wife smacked me on the back of my head with a sausage. Doesn't get much better than that!

Trevorum, I think that you are only partially correct. Given the 'special treatment' of UUs and Wiccans with regard to religious awards, I would not exactly say they are welcome with status equal to other faiths. They are allowed in. Their faiths are not treated equally. Do you disagree? Edited part: I think OGE and I were typing at the same time. OGE, I think his point was that the Protestant/LDS dominance of BSA has its roots in Europe (you know, Luther and all that) or (in the case of LDS) a person of European origin and not one of the indigenous tribes . Unless you think that Hinduism and Buddhism, etc. dominate BSA, do you?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)