packsaddle

So, you're saying that troops get preferential treatment compared to strip clubs? That galloping noise must be the ACLU coming to rescue those oppressed clubs. Actually, here in the South, zoning is kind of rare. Very rare, actually. I guess that's why we have so many gated communities with people from up North in them. Wouldn't want them to create an eyesore for the rest of us who have a yard full of beautiful vintage cars and pickups... Prairie_Scouter, I think troops are allowed to meet in schools, just not be chartered by public schools.

ScoutNerd, Prairie_Scouter, I think another way to express it is that the ACLU is attempting to DEFEND everyone's rights under the constitution. In the sense that certain groups may expect unconstitutional support from the public, those groups may consider the ACLU's demand for fairness to be an attack. Diabolical, huh, Schleining? But while BSA and the strip club down the street both have the right to decide who gets in the door etc., they don't have the right to get preferential treatment from government. And where such occurs, I am glad, for the sake of everyone, that the ACLU or the NAACP or other similar organizations are ready to defend all of us AND the constitution.

Eamonn, I sympathize with your feelings on insurance companies, they are for us and against us at the same time. Those were a lot of numbers that you wrote, but most of them DO look like chump change considering what I have seen before (accidental death benefit of $10K?, that must be a typo). But that was all for accidents. Do you know if liability is different? And if so, how? Right now, from what I am reading here, I'm going to hang onto my personal umbrella. But I won't start worrying, OneHour, until I start catching fish.

From the day I started working with other people's children, I added a personal liability umbrella policy to my homeowner insurance (not as big as BSA's but $1 million isn't chump change either). I did this because having it (just like all my fishing equipment) virtually assures that I will never need it.

I know it's a fine point, but it was my understanding that the ACLU mostly takes action against the government whether local or national. Have they ever taken direct action against BSA and NOT a government entity?

I am curious. How can a person who has little knowledge of a particular religion, nevertheless claim to know that religion well enough to conclude that it is not a faith? Is it possible that, out of ignorance, the person could form an erroneous judgement? Edited part: Fuzzy Bear, not to take issue with your message but you stated, "When man observes an event, the event itself can be changed by the act of observation. This does not happen often but it has occurred in controlled experiments other than in Quantum Mechanics." I add that this does happen quite often and it is a huge problem for studies of animal behavior and to a slightly lesser extent, for other biological studies. Also you stated that man cannot know the future. I guess I'm wasting my money on that stock manager after all. But your thoughtful message has provoked a question in my mind. I have read the Bible and a few other religious documents. I am curious to learn how it is that you and others have been able to describe the various abilities and characteristics of God. For example there's the part where He says, "...for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Exodus 20:5 So God is jealous, clear enough - and if a dad sins, then God will punish dad's children. (I note that I have never met anyone who said they hated God, evidently this was a big problem in Old Testament times...hating God=not smart) But are all the things you and others ascribe to God straight from the scripture? Or are there interpretations or logical extensions as well? Back when I was struggling to be a Presbyterian I thought a long time about the 'omniscient' conundrum. And it seemed that a lot of Presbyterianism (and I merely offer this as an example) is based on logical extensions (that I evidently do not understand). Am I wrong? What am I missing in all this?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Back when I was a CM, we were also instructed to have the big wing-ding for the B&G. But we also recognized the need for immediate recognition (department of redundancy department). So we gave immediate recognition during the year and another recognition at the B&G. We also tried to do the AoL and crossing over as well. Probably a little long but it didn't leave time for the DE to make a speech (good thing, this) and we only did it once a year. I think the only people who didn't have fun were those who stayed late to clean up. But just once a year.

ScoutNerd, You'll live. Stick to the grindstone. It will be a much more productive labor. And good luck. Later

And one of my personal favorites..."Rare events occur with a probability of 1." Like that has anything to do with the topic, but thanks for getting away from chocolate ice cream, I was getting really hungry. Oops, I guess that was destiny for me then. Did I mention that I consider Darth Vader to be a Presbyterian...."....sucking noises....Luke, join with me, it is your DESTINY." Oh, a horse is a horse, of course, of course...

Holy moley! Let a day go by and you guys really pack it in! My compliments for a good discussion, though. Whitewater, assuming you were addressing me, I merely stated two extremes from which BSA is free to choose. I also made a conditional statement in which, if the conditions were met, BSA could be considered dishonest. The freedom of choice is there and you can't deny that. And IF BSA expects to have the rights of a restrictive private club and simultaneously the rights of a public charity, THAT expectation, if BSA is aware of the difference, could be considered dishonest. If you disagree I would be interested in your reasoning.

My opinion, as it has been noted sometimes in earlier threads, is unimportant. But it's not up to me but to the courts (jury or judges). And as mentioned by another poster, the courts are being conservative in their approach. BSA can choose to be whatever it wants to be as a private club. BSA can discriminate and be as bigoted and hateful as it wants. OR it can be inclusive, open, and tolerant...BSA has won the court's approval for BSA's right to have a private choice in these matters. BUT, if the government interacts with BSA in a manner that violates the law (and the law is fairly clear in these matters), the ACLU has an opportunity to take action. And they do because they have a perfect right to do so, as much right as BSA has to pursue its policies. There is nothing you can do to stop the ACLU from doing this and all the crying and whining won't help. IF BSA wants to have their cake and to eat it too, THAT is dishonest. The simple and honest approach would be for governments to obey the law thus leaving no need for action by the ACLU. BSA knew the score and went ahead knowing there would be consequences. These are the consequences. Live with them.

Wanna limit funding to the ACLU through lawsuit settlements? Wanna greatly limit their activities? Huh? Huh? There's an easy way to do this: As Fletcher Reid said, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW!"

SeattlePioneer, welcome to the forums. Thanks for bringing a sense of humor.

fgoodwin, thanks for the link. That was actually very useful information for me. I will also forward it to some guys who are having a tough time getting a good fit. Thanks again.

OGE, "As I have often said..." I'm not so sure about that... I searched your archive and you have only written it once before. Perhaps you were SAYING it often, and we weren't listenting.

From the book, 'An Inordinate Fondness for Beetles': "Asked what could be inferred about the work of the Creator from a study of His works, the British scientist J.B.S. Haldane is reported to have replied, that He has "an inordinate fondness for beetles." Some people suggest that Haldane never uttered these words, but no one can argue with the truth they contain." (FYI there are more species of beetles, many more, than anything else on Earth) Dj Vu all over again, it seems. I think Trevorum and Prairie Scouter have it about right. The time/length thing on the other hand, I recognize as a self-deception. For hundreds of years the Church suffered from a self-deception that Galileo was wrong and did this because there was no other way to rationalize their way out of a conflict between infallible interpretation of scripture - and objective facts. In time (actually fairly recently) the Church finally admitted the mistake and apologized for Galileo's rough treatment (not to mention excommunication). For a humorous reference to this see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/pda/A218440 The time conflict also lends itself to self-deception by those who cannot accept objective facts that contradict a popular literal interpretation of myth. The self-deception occurs by rationalizing additional unwritten (and imagined) features to the myth in an attempt to reconcile myth with the obvious power and success of those conflicting objective facts. The beauty of the self-deception is that the embellishments, like the myth, are unavailable to any kind of test and as matters of faith, they are therefore unassailable. But I do enjoy them so. Edited Part: Sorry Hunt, I guess we were typing at the same time. I think you have it well in hand as well although I am not as charitable with the so-called 'Intelligent Design' idea. ID is an idea whose validity is inversely proportional to our understanding of the biological mechanisms that produce complexity. This is to say, its validity depends on ignorance - in that the less we understand about such mechanisms, the easier it is to 'explain' the complexity as a mystery whose answer must be found, perhaps, in some supernatural source. ID is in many instances, a straight-forward deception by unscrupulous persons. I view them as examples of design by an 'unintelligent' supernatural force. For some reason we often don't want to admit the possiblity that we simply aren't smart enough to provide an answer for some questions...yet. But you are correct that ID is not science and it must not be promoted as such.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

In one case, the trek is for the proper distance with a backpack on. It could qualify for either MB. In the other case, it is only a hike. And therefore cannot possibly qualify for the backpacking MB. That is the difference as I understand it. But it is still up to the counselor, I think.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

One of my wife's favorites: What's the difference between herpes and love? thinking thinking (Apologies in advance) Herpes is forever.

Watson is an interesting choice for an example. I guess his name recognition makes it a good choice. However, although he seems to have been right about many things in science, his speech is a double-edged sword - he tends to say whatever he feels like. And sometimes it could have been said in a less inflamatory manner. Finally, regarding his suitability for a hypothetical application to BSA, I wish there could be some way to extract an apology from him for his (and Crick's) somewhat questionable interaction with Franklin. I have great sympathy for her in that story.

Ooookedokeee. Think I'll take my leave now and see if that lady at the trading post still has my medical form....

He most certainly is NOT dead! He's just gone home.

Wow, there seems to be a lot of variation in how different councils do this. I agree with Unc. To my knowledge, this council does not normally ask for letters, just the names listed on the application. In fact, they don't ask for anything more than the signed application, no project information or anything. Hey, maybe local option is in effect after all!

Ed, isn't that just slightly incomplete? A couple of questions come to mind. First, if morality is "living as a Christian", then does that mean that living as, say, a Buddhist or Unitarian Universalist is not moral? (In the recent past, I have actually been told exactly this by Baptists and Methodists) But if your statement DOES allow those other faiths as moral, then isn't morality MORE than living as a Christian? Neither of the above questions, furthermore, address the arguable probability that different people who claim to be Christians will have different ideas about what it means to live as a Christian. I'm not sure that your personal statement can be transported easily to anyone else.

Like I said, sometimes I can't help myself, sorry. Unc, now YOU'RE killin' me. You loved that book as a kid? Holy Toledo, you're makin' me feel really old right now. Gotta go look for some Gelphling's essence now....

Candle flame dead ahead and I can't help myself. You're killin' me again. Thought experiment? This is the second time that I can remember that I've read this term throughout the forum and I think there is a large distinction to make. Unless there is a way for more than one person, preferably everyone, to share exactly and precisely the same thought (and there isn't), an experiment on such is improbable. This doesn't even begin to tackle the addtional sticky problem of providing a 'control' for comparison, not to mention a testable hypothesis in the first place. Moreover, the claim that god can, for example, make a triangle whose angles add to 200 degrees is whimsical at best. Says who? Nothing about that in the bible. And, by the way, why would god trifle with a man-invented concept (the triangle) to prove some point anyway? I thought that was what floods and plagues and brimstone were for. Not to mention that the definition of a triangle demands the 180 degree characteristic...the idea that a multiangle figure can total to 200 is possible - it simply, by definition, won't be a triangle. And the primary color thing...eeeeaaaiaiiiiiihhhhh....a primarly color also has a strict definition. Now if you are considering our PERCEPTION of a color, that is just full of possibilities, few of which are easily studied because ("there you go again Jimmie") we can't exactly, precisely share the thought (perception). Or for that matter, if we could, how would it be relevant to god anyway, much less some 'god test', given that it is all a matter of faith.... I'm liking Bokononism better and better. Edited part: forgot the smiley thing, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)