packsaddle

Calico, I have to report from personal experience that a Big Mac most certainly does NOT taste the same when comparing Alaska, China, Russia, various places in Europe, and the good ol' South. Especially the one in Hong Kong, I'm sorry - that just wasn't a Big Mac. Gwd_scouter, I commend your patience and restraint in that situation. There was nothing to be gained by going off on him. He vented and you've expressed a reasonable response. In case you haven't read anything by Sam Harris, here's the way he started his little book, 'Letter to a Christian Nation', you might enjoy reading it: "Thousands of people have written to tell me that I am wrong not to believe in God. The most hostile of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally imagine that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christs love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse." You can read the whole book in an hour or so. He's a bit edgy but his points are interesting. BTW, in response to something you said in another thread, I think about a commercial about insomnia in which a woodchuck looks up from the chessboard and says, "Kirk cheats". And then Spock responds, "Hellooooo!" I also think Lisabob makes good points regarding the difference between the BSA national legal stance and the actual application by units. I suppose that local option is alive and well after all. It is the way this unit executes the program but then, there's that guy. He comes on campus once in a while and yells at everyone, bible in hand. According to him we're all going to hell anyway. Fascinating.

Hunt, I am responding separately to your post. I understand, now, what you meant by that statement. However, I thought the shared experience for the boys in scouting was...scouting. I suppose that, accepting the BSA claim that it is a religious organization, there is something to your view. However, as already noted, even with the limited umbrella that BSA accepts (excluding UUs and Wiccans, probably some others) there is a broad spectrum of belief systems and they are probably not shared by everyone that BSA accepts as members. This group that you have in mind is quite diverse in most aspects except for scouting itself. To respond to an earlier comment regarding divisiveness, I think discrimination is always divisive...it would seem by definition. BSA chose to discriminate. It's that simple. Your comparison of BSA policy to the Catholic church is a comparison you might want to think about a bit more.

Late, as usual, I respond to the request to prove God doesn't exist. Although Merlyn has already provided one approach to the answer, I will attempt it using a slightly different approach. If I was an attorney, I would note that beliefs are not the same thing as facts supported by evidence. Belief in a god does not automatically make the god's existence a fact (except perhaps in some limited way in the believer's mind). To ask for proof of that god's nonexistence is to assume a fact not in evidence. Another way to put it is that it is usually pointless, if not impossible, to prove a negative. Of course, true believers are going to accept neither this line of reasoning nor any evidence to the contrary, if they really are true believers. Such beliefs simply are not available to any kind of objective test, thus also eliminating them from the category of fact.

adc294 wrote, "You and I don't know each other but I think that we could be friends despite our differences...it's called respect." Fella, I agree. From my side this is true for everyone who posts here. After all, what good is a squabble if it can't happen among friends? ASM915, A petition? Oooooooh, this sounds like civil disobedience...count me in!

I'm pinching myself but I am being persuading by the last posts by Brent and Prairie. I am not abandoning safety and property damage concerns but as a person who (for a reasonably long life, now) has gleefully tickled the tail of the dragon at nearly every opportunity, I think there is a way to do this...but carefully. As Prairie says, know your target. Actually, I think this is the place to eliminate most of the problem. Thoughtful choice of a target will identify all the risks thus allowing a priori risk management. For me this means, make sure all the risk is mine, if I am going to pull the prank. I personally do this by employing the 'tail of the dragon' metaphor. Don't target someone who is weak, vulnerable, or easily victimized. That is simply predatory behavior and there is neither skill nor fun associated with it. Target a dragon. Someone or something that really can threaten retaliation. Know how bad it can be. Decide if the thrill is worth potentially getting burned. Then sneak on up with an asbestos shield. When I was a boy scout many decades ago, I now confess that I took pleasure at summer camp in doing this. I targeted the senior staff and upper echelons of the administration. My days were mostly spent in the rifle range because I am sunburned so easily. The range was an official NRA indoor range with real target .22s with target peep sights. It was heaven (Brent, sometime I want to learn more about that high-power event you mentioned). At night, however, I did nature stuff. The first few nights of the first time at camp, I learned that skunks have very regular, predictable habits. And I learned their patterns in camp. And at the opportune time, I would figure out how to set one of those little 'bombs' off near (better under) the target cabin. There were so many risks to me I can hardly list all of them. Next morning the staff would all be laughing and kidding the target whose dour expression was just spectacular. My SPL and ASPL suspected something because in subsequent summers, before we went to camp, I would predict which staff member and approximately which night. But I never revealed the details. Needless to say, no one in my troop ever pranked me. And I never, ever got caught. Whew, I'm glad to finally get that weight off my chest. Hey, wait a minute, this place has an administration....h'mmmm. Now to select a dragon, MUHH HA HA HA HA HA !

adc294, I am confused by your post. I attempted to offer an answer to Scouting Mom for her question. I'm uncertain as to why she asked it but it certainly has been asked many times in these forums. But mostly I'm perplexed as to what your intentions were in starting this thread if discussion of this topic was the reason you left the forums in the past? Or have I misinterpreted something? You evidently are aware of past discussions. You must have known that this thread would attract similar discussions. I don't understand your frustration, the thread seems to have gone on a perfectly natural and predictable path. Hunt, I asked how the discrimination benefits the boys and you responded, "To me, the simple answer to this is not everybody can belong to every club, even if his peer group belongs...." I didn't see an answer to my question. Please identify how discrimination is of benefit to the boys. The way I interpret what you wrote is, "Tough luck" or "BSA, love it or leave it". Is this what you meant to communicate?

"I've always been curious why an atheist would choose to join an organization or to have their child join an organization that requires them to say an oath to do duty to God. How do you explain to the child the discrepency in swearing duty to something that they believe doesn't exist?" Scouting Mom, if that was all there was to the issue, I suspect you wouldn't need to ask the question. As they say in the commercials, "...but wait, there's more..." There are many reasons for concern about the membership requirements, and not just whether an atheist parent would want their child to join BSA. First, as Merlyn can elaborate, BSA often benefits from special subsidies that are connected to tax dollars. This is illegal and many in these forums have demonized the ACLU for kicking BSA's butt in court, regarding this issue. This relates to membership. If BSA collects these subsidies, then they should not be able to legally discriminate against atheists on the basis of religious beliefs. I ask the question, who benefits from this discrimination? Another concern arises from a more personal problem. A boy often will develop a peer group. If he invites one of his friends to join his club and the friend is subsequently rejected by the club because his religious beliefs don't conform to standards, then both boys have been negatively impacted by this discrimination. Again, I ask, how did this discrimination benefit either boy? One aspect of your question has to do with choice. For all practical purposes, BSA has a monopoly on scouting for boys in this country. It is chartered by Congress and the monopoly is jealously defended in court by BSA. There simply may not be other good choices for a parent who is not willing to wink at a requirement to believe in supernatural forces. As implied by Merlyn, some units do pay little attention to this requirement, leaving the decision up to the parent. I suggest from personal observation and conversation with atheist parents, that they recognize the reality of their lives and the back-of-the-bus status they are given because of their beliefs. They know their children must also learn this reality and learn how to live with it if the children are to live in this society. Therefore, just as the Jewish child or the Hindu child in this troop merely silently endures the prayers to Jesus, so does the child who does not recognize supernatural forces. And then they ALL go camping and have fun. BSA doesn't have to be so divisive in society - they choose to be.

A cartoon appeared on my bulletin board outside my office last year. It think it's from New Yorker. Two ladies in black are standing in front of a grave. Some student (I think) put my name on the gravestone. Anyway the widow says to the other lady, "I told him it wouldn't kill him to try to be nice once in a while, but I was wrong." Welcome back, Bubbabear! Oops, I mean 'adc294', wink, wink.

H'mmm, I wonder if they've ever driven through my neighborhood. I've replaced my mailbox (and that of my elderly neighbor) three times in the last two years. The boxes cost $10-15. The wood is scavened from construction leftovers. But it has cost me about 9 or 10 hours of time altogether. Ask that neutral judge if he'll send them over to my place for about one full day of yard work. I'll feed them and give them all the water they can drink. About the interview... Remember, interviews work both ways. You decided to work for the guy anyway. You were gainfully employed. You added to your resume. And I suspect the guy wasn't really a jerk after all. Even if he was, you learned that you can successfully work with people who are disagreeable, a skill that serves everyone well. So what's the problem?

Hops, The honest person would answer 'yes'. The dishonest person would answer 'yes'. The person who answered 'no' would be an idiot. But I guess I would reject him on those grounds as well.

nldscout, The award is a personal achievement and as such it represents things quite different to each recipient and to people who merely consider it. The responsibility for crimincal actions belongs to the young man alone and does not diminish the achievement of another young man who happens to have the same medal. The public appearance (that seems to be part of what bothers you) is, in this sense, unimportant unless we intend to use the rank of Eagle for some kind of public relations goal. But the young man who earns it most likely does not earn it to achieve a public relations goal. He earns it for whatever personal meaning it has for him and that, as you note, is variable. SR751Fox, I think most of us would recognize the question by that man as rather nonsensical. Who on earth would answer 'no' to it? Your best response would have been simply, 'yes'. Your achievement means a lot to you. But you must remember that YOU are the only one who can truly understand that meaning. Others often have quite different views. But I guess experience has been a good teacher this time. As for the scout who later admitted he was an atheist, no one can know for sure whether or not he really was an atheist at the time, or whether he's just pulling your collective chains now. Ignore it. I do, however, note that being an atheist is not comparable to being a criminal. Just a thought.

ASM915, perhaps there are new changes of which I am unaware but this topic has been discussed in previous threads. At that time the application only required names and contact info of persons willing to act as references, NOT for actual letters. However, as I remember from that discussion, there is some variation from council-to-council as to how that requirement is applied. I am looking at the Eagle scout rank application, effective April 1, 1999. http://www.nesa.org/trail/58-728.pdf Is there a new one? As for the other part, I read your message differently from Trevorum but I understand his sensitivity on the subject. I agree with your basic approach of tolerance. However, what I observe in many religions is an attitude of arrogance (ours is right, yours is wrong, heaven is ours, you are damned). Those of us in the minority tend to be a bit sensitive as a result. So at the same time I share Trevorum's pessimistic view of a world dominated by what passes as Christianity today. I doubt I'd be much happier with dominance by many of the others either and yet, in the meantime, they fuss so over who will be dominant.

Welcome to the forums, adc294. I commend the search for truth. In practice (and regulations notwithstanding) you'll find a great variety of thoughts on this subject among scouters. While I maintain that religious beliefs are personal and not subject to examination by BSA (or anyone else), I think you are engaged in a healthy exercise by asking the questions you ask. I also caution you to apply the same critical view to your own thoughts as well as to the thoughts of others. And above all else, try to maintain a sense of humor.

what Beavah said.

BSA is the natural way to address the 'nature-deficit disorder' mentioned in the articles below: http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/06/02/Louv/index.html http://www.edutopia.org/1629 This is a real problem and if BSA addressed it, many more boys would gain the benefit. Just a thought.

OK, I'll try to steer this into the realm of ethics. This topic is ripe for the observation that on one hand there is the legal way...on the other there is the ethical way. An example: Not too many years ago, it was legal for larger boats with marine heads to dump raw sewage directly into some (but not all) of our lakes and rivers. The legality of this continued until relatively recent times for some lakes because of the weird way EPA and state agencies interact to address interstate waters. So the practice was technically legal and many people acted under that authority. But was it right? I say 'no' for all the good reasons everyone has mentioned. I think this ethic also applies to the trail. Like Beavah says, there are some places where 'pack it out' is the right thing to do whether or not it is legally required. THIS kind of ethic is what BSA could address more directly for the boys. And it carries less baggage than all that religion 'doody' we like to argue about so much. IMHO. P.S. OGE, I'm on my way to lecture and I've got that d***** song stuck in my head. Thanks a whole lot!

My understanding of things beyond the unit is rudimentary and I like it that way. But as I understand it, the pros at the bottom of the heap are evaluated on the basis of these numbers. The ultimate reason for this is that the numbers result in more or less funding, for a variety of reasons. So the pros at the top of the heap see numbers in a manner that is different from the way I, for example, see them. The top pros seem to stress numbers while I stress all the program stuff for the unit and for individual boys. When our unit was in a similar situation to the one Eamonn described, our leadership engaged in the same deception. And I, too, felt guilty for it. But as long as we continue to feel guilty for things like this, there's still a lot of hope.

Thank you DE4BSA, for your candid assessment. I was about to reply with something more positive but your perspective brought me back to reality. It is good, though, to know there is someone in your ranks that is willing to tell it like it is. I appreciate that.

Hi, I could believe pretty much anything you said about 'Beav, as long as it was nice. I would like to note one slight misconception, though. 'Poop', as those of us who are not into scatology sometimes call it, weighs no more in a plastic bag than it did in its previous residence. You were carrying it before as well, just in a different container. So I don't buy the 'weighs too much' argument. And sort of on topic, I knew a guy who had a potential solution to this. We were on a 5-day canoe trip on the Okefenokee and we had a very crude portapotty, a chair frame with a plastic bucket under it lined with a bag. No privacy. He dosed himself and cleaned himself out with laxatives prior to the trip and then held it the whole time. What a guy! I really didn't want to see that big pudgy backside anyway...remember, America has a growing crack problem! Edited part: mispelling, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

So...let's say you caught one...how were you going to cook it?

I second Hunt's question. There are plenty of BSA events that are, let us say, less than 'real' camping experiences, so the 'scouting activity' wording is no guarantee of quality - if that was the intent. Like Hunt, I'm still curious about the reasoning behind this wording. As for when to begin the count, that's probably best left to the MBC but I would start it on the day the boy first pitched his own tent on a campout. And another general question, also probably up to the MBC discretion, if a boy starts a merit badge under one set of rules is there a regulation that says he has to change to the new rules if they begin before he finishes?

If I was the MB counselor and I was asked if adirondacks 'counted' toward the 20 nights, I would respond that "I'm disinclined to acquiesce...it means 'no'." Some troops are assigned adirondacks or they get the fourth wall and are assigned cabins for summer camp and eat meals in a cafeteria. Some cabins are air-conditioned. And none of that stuff is camping. I think that part of the requirement is clear: under the stars or in a tent (tarp, whatever) but not with a solid roof and three solid walls. I would, however, consider sleeping in a natural cave. Regarding pitching the tent, I tend to agree with LongHaul...the intent is for the boy to master the skill of tent-pitching and be comfortable enough to teach other boys. This, in my mind, requires that the boy pitch it himself, successfully, at least once. If he's up to a dining fly (probably not) that's great but if not then a smaller tent is fine. I'd still like to know the BSA reasoning regarding the "Scouting activity" part.

Agreed, I have done the same thing before. Good decision, Baden.

I can't stand it...what is the origin of the term, "bangers"? I understand the "mash" part and, for that matter, why the tool is called a "spanner" or the trash can a "dust bin". But "bangers"? For that matter, how about "spotted dick"...and quite a few others? "Two great nations separated by a common language..."

I agree with the sentiments about at least 20 nights per year being available in a good program. And I understand that it is good to have patrol or troop events. What I don't understand is why a good, real campout outside the BSA umbrella isn't considered a camping experience with regard to the MB. I can imagine all sorts of rationales for this change but I would like to know the TRUE reason for the change. Anyone know? Just curious.