packsaddle

50 years? Oh I doubt it will take nearly that long for me...especially with my tendency to **** people off. Anyway, you must remember, even after the drunk driving thing, I gave Bush my trust (although I regret my gullibility). I do understand the 'silent denial' aspect of the first campaign. Because of my personal interaction with drunk drivers I am especially sensitive to the topic...you'll have to forgive that. The lie of which I write is constituted in his words (and statements by others in his admin) that regarding WMD, there was "NO DOUBT". That statement is unequivocal, absolute. I understand that an expression of doubt would have weakened his argument for the invasion. That merely explains why he said it - he might not have gotten the necessary support to get his way. And now we know that his own security researchers had indeed expressed significant doubt...prior to the statements. And when he said there was no doubt he knew it was not true. That was the lie that caused me to trust his decision, possibly many other Americans as well. And as a result, good men and women were placed in harm's way. His monumental incompetence and ignorance are less significant to me than the fact that he intentionally misled (lied) in order to get his way. Clinton and Saddam are history as leaders. One of them lied but death and destruction didn't result. The other one was a tyrant with no regard for life as he took many thousands of them. They are both finished however. At this time Bush is not finished and through his lie, he continues to put good men and women in harm's way. And those good men and women are still dying. I care about that. So no matter what spin (read deception) anyone wants to apply after the fact to rationalize our invasion of Iraq, the resulting woven tangled web will not obscure the record. And that record is clear regarding the reasons for invading that country. WMD was a primary reason. It was a threat to us and other countries. There was "no doubt". It was, however, a very costly lie.

Hello Merlyn, Sorry for the delay. I do understand. My point is that there is only ONE way to be a Boy Scout. I guess if the Bobby Fischer club was the ONLY way to be a member of a chess club the analogy holds true. I just saw chess as more of an individual endeavor. By the way, I am aware of the different ways race and other things have been associated with greater skill or intelligence. (Thinking just now about how Jewish basketball teams dominated the pros at one time and how Jews were supposed to be especially suited to this game due to innate racial personality traits.) Seems laughable now but the prejudice was and is real. And I am aware of it.

firstpusk, thanks for the good words. There is no need for any apology. Rooster7 and I are fairly sporting in our exchanges and I know the score. In my field the skin I have developed is very thick so exchanges I have with other posters leave no hurt feelings on my part. The thing that brings me to anger more quickly than anything else is anything that brings harm to a child. And in those cases I am as offensive as I can be. Probably not the best way to be but at least I know this about myself. But thanks anyway.

For a few moments I sort of wished I had seen that episode of Law and Order. But after I nearly fell out of my chair reading the last few exchanges, I'll take this forum any day. I really like the chess analogy. In chess (and I can consistently beat the computer on a really low skill level) the only thing that really counts is a certain type of thinking skill. Unless someone knows of evidence to the contrary, I believe that such skill has never been associated with race or creed (although the very best players do tend to be, well, quirky...putting it mildly). Same for science. And if you were to substitute 'science' for 'chess' in the analogy, it would still work fine except that Bobby and his ideas have nothing to do with science. And in reality, anyone with a board can play chess. And anyone with a mind can engage in science. But one has to join BSA to be a Boy Scout. And there the analogy sadly fails. Edited part: Eamonn, could you send that Playboy over to me when you're done? I'll swap you for my copy of Scouting Magazine. And I won't remove the centerfold if you won't.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Rooster7, you ask if I would prefer Saddam. Come on, do you really think I could possibly have such a preference? For the record this is a no-brainer...Heck no! I also wouldn't prefer, if you are curious, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Amin, Kim Jong Il (nor for that matter, his brother Menta Lee Il), Khomeini, the Pope, or Jerry Falwell. Moreover, because it seems necessary to so state, failure to list other persons does not constitute my endorsement of them. I knew Saddam to be what he is from the beginning long ago. He was, if anything, consistently and predictably bad. However, I expect much better from a president. So my statement is one of terrible disappointment. I guess I should have expected Bush to be deceptive after the attempt to conceal his drunk driving. At least Cheney made no such attempt to conceal his. But Bush came into office with a virtuous act. He said things that I decided that I had to believe because I thought he had incontrovertible evidence that, for security reasons, could not be shared with the country. It was a lie. It was a betrayal of my trust and more. It was an act and I fell for it. Later, when Saddam was dragged out of his hole speaking what we now know to be the truth, I saw the delicious irony. Sad maybe, especially for thousands of families destroyed as a result, but delicious at least in its clarity.

I think the big difference between someone like Stalin and any counterpart with religious ties is that although both may cause huge quantities of death and suffering out of intolerance for different views, only one of them was supposed to be better than that. Stalin, in his way, was at least more honest and predictable in his intentions. He was what he obviously was. Scoutingagain, good one. Similarly, while Saddam tended to be everything we expected him to be, another leader who was supposed to represent virtue lied...and as a result tens of thousands are dead. And when Saddam was dug out of his hole, HE was the one who spoke the truth while the other insisted on his lie. Another delicious irony for the collection.

Trevorum, I would add that although Christians have laid claim to many well-known celebrations and rituals, many if not most of these have their origins in others (even Pagan) religions. I also add that I continue to marvel at how religion tends to divide us while science serves to unite.

I don't know, maybe it was Murphy, or nature, or a higher power, or something...but it seems to be some sort of law that even smart people have to have things 'spelled out' to them. And the smarter they are, the greater the need for the 'spelling'. I think that in this thread and its previous incarnations, you are actually hearing reasonably smart people (anyone who isn't smart please raise their hand) implicitly ask for clear, specific rules that allow no options for imagination or self-deception. I think SR540Beaver got it right.

mhager, I think I understand your feelings on this as well as how emotion tends to take hold of us in matters of faith. However, I would like to come to the defence of evmori here. He is human just like the rest of us and is susceptible to emotion in just the same way as you and I are. I sincerely doubt that, under the surface, he has any malice toward others. Just my opinion. Besides, if you look through the forum a while, you'll see that he is a cream puff compared to some others. Ed, you hear that? You're a cream puff! I just can't get away from food for some reason.

I'm beginning to have a nebulous idea of what is seeker friendly by the conventional Christian definition. That replaces almost no idea at all before. Now, though, I must also ask, what is 'the great commission'?

I would trust the guy who best knew outdoor skills and who could best handle an emergency. I would put faith healing near the bottom of the list of emergency procedures.

Eamonn, very interesting and informative.

What is seeker friendly by the conventional Christian definition?

Trevorum, nice. And yet if not for that 'label' thing by BSA, this might not be an issue at all.

mhager, welcome to the forums. I am curious...how did your rejection happen? Did you refuse to sign the form? How did BSA discover this? Trevorum: Interestingly, I have made the opposite observation, that atheists I know have thought deeply about their beliefs and came to atheism after a long struggle. I think perhaps I could see the 'lazy' characterization for someone who simply hasn't thought about much of anything, but that could also apply to self-proclaimed religious persons who merely listen to the pulpit with no further thought. Wingnut, if your son was in this unit I also may not meet your expectations because in doing so I might conflict with the values of other troop families. I would leave matters of religion to you and your family. An atheist would likely do the same. As for the original question, it is discriminatory, it does exclude some outstanding individuals, and I don't agree with it, but the Supreme Court has ruled so that's that. I think that SemperParatus has a good feeling for the forces involved with this issue although I disagree with a characterization of an 'atheist community'. Atheists are part of our community (and gays for that matter). They may band together forming a political movement but that doesn't qualify as a community.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my superior usually ends his requests with "by COB today", meaning that people at my level have little or no notice about many tasks. I'm used to it so the MB thing doesn't bother me much. However, if a boy starts under one set of requirements he ought to be able to finish under those same requirements.

I have often wondered, given that all the letters in support of the boys are likely to be glowing endorsements, how does the committee decide? What are the other factors considered? How are they weighted? Anyone know?

SemperParatus, whether true or not (and I try to use caution when I hear such things) such claims sure make great bumper stickers. But it was an interesting site. I keep thinking of a university historian (I won't mention the university but it rhymes with Southern Mississippi) who claimed that the two favorite books carried by soldiers for the South during 'the war' were "The Holy Bible" and "Les Miserables". My point is that it is difficult to identify the actual religious elements driving one or any other destructive actions. Many of the actions listed certain did have a religious element to them but perhaps not the dominant force. By the way, he taught that "Les Miserables" was popular, not because they liked the story. Far from it, few of them (the South, you know) could read. They merely thought the title was Lee's Miserables...meaning it must be about them, of course. Have a nice day

I see we're getting a little 'cheeky' here. Perhaps Acco40 was thinking about a different cheek? Anyway, I, indeed, HAVE experienced a scoutmaster attempting to push his religious beliefs on boys of different and diverse religious faiths. This was in the form of a troop activity to pursue the religious award. That idea wasn't bad in itself, except he decided that the troop would do it in HIS faith alone. When I noted that only one boy in the troop was a member of his church he became a little indignant. So I read him the DRP. That, fortunately, did the trick (thanks for the post, scoutingagain). Our adults, around the campfire, do not discuss religious issues. I think we all recognize that such debate is pointless unless the point is pointless argument. Instead we devote discussion to topics in which we can find more agreement and productivity, such as politics. Believe that? The solution I have long-ago adopted to solve these issues with the boys is to accept that a boy's religious development is a matter for his family. Period. I have been told in these forums that this is merely avoidance. Perhaps, but it also is neither interference in the family nor can it be viewed as proselytizing. And none of the families have ever complained about leaving private matters of faith...to them.

OK, I give up. CajunCody, I agree. The ones who are trying to rationalize access to their addiction are engaging in a deception that is transparent to those of us who know 7-year-olds.

I take that as a 'no'. The book is a historical satire. Very entertaining, search on the word "sot-weed" to get a hint of its relevance. You will never view an eggplant quite the same again, ever.

SemperParatus, thanks for the post. I grew up in the South that was the subject of "To Kill a Mockingbird". And although I saw a HUGE amount of racial bigotry, hatred, prejudice, and worse, I never fell for it nor understood it, at least I never personally accepted it. Today, things indeed have improved for everyone regarding civil rights. I think, however, there is still a lot to do to fully achieve King's goals. But we will overcome, someday.

Any of you folks ever read the book, "The Sot-Weed Factor" by John Barth?

Playboy had written articles? Do tell....!

Trevorum, I am probably in a minority but I don't much care for lobster either. They're not bad, just not worth the price. I'd much rather eat oysters, crabs, shrimp, or crawfish (that'd be 'crayfish' to all you yankees ). When I was very young, my friends and I would roam the flats after dark at low tide out in Charlotte Harbor, dipping shrimp. We'd eat 'em raw. Then I found out they had guts. But when in Louisiana, I still like to get a bucket of crawfish, and then eat tail and suck head. Doesn't get much better than that!