packsaddle

KDD, "Science is like that." Indeed. GAMom, "Then, I can choose to involve my kids in a CO where I know most of the leaders and kids well and I'm comfortable with the example they set for my child." Which is practically the way it works anyway. I agree. Why not just admit what is obviously the practice anyway and formalize local option? As for the FOS thing at Blue and Gold, that is a vacant threat that you can ignore. They are not going to pull the plug on a unit for something like failing to invite them. When I was CM we were told the same thing and after one particularly egregious presentation by the DE, in which families left scouting as a result, I simply did not notify anyone outside of the unit of our B&G. The DE, in particular, was not invited and I would have done whatever it took not to have that guy inflict himself on the families again. And as if I need to repeat my feelings about parasites (which is what most administrators are), if the host wants to rid itself of the parasitic effect, one way is to starve the parasite.

A peek into a failed attempt, lol...but I get your point. Just an idea...I think there's no law against playing nice in all the threads, unless I missed something along the way.

In matters of faith, there's just not much way to change someone's mind if they don't want to change it. And each of us has some kind of conceptual model of the world that we use to structure our lives, whether the model is supplied through a system of faith or through some other source, even from within ourselves. So why do people ask about the faith of others? No one is likely to change any ideas. For that matter, words alone are unlikely to completely allow one person to understand another's faith. So why bother? To me this is a question that I have with this entire topic. I accept that people believe things. I even partially understand some of them, at least the outward manifestations. I have my own beliefs. But I don't enjoy being asked about them. And mostly, when asked, I give polite but cryptic responses, whatever is necessary to get this person (whoever it is) out of my face. I've done that in these forums on a couple of occasions when someone was trying to pry into what I 'believe'. Sometimes I haven't been very polite about it. So why would I do this to someone else? Why would I question anything about a boy's faith? Who am I, being profoundly ignorant of what his faith is, to question anything about it? Obviously, my answer is that I don't question these things with the boys. I can't possibly understand someone else's personal faith and if I really try hard enough through questions, I risk acting as if I'm being critical or a jerk or something. So I don't. But I have observed that many people seem to think they CAN understand what is in another's mind. They seem to think that other people WANT to be questioned about their faith. They seem to thing that other people CAN use words to convey true understanding of their faith. They seem to think that other people WANT to hear all about some other person's faith. They seem to think that they can somehow bridge a gap between people because they think (and I disagree) that they even know what the gap is in the first place. Why? Is this a human characteristic that is unavoidable? I hope not because I shun this personally, thus making myself seem apart I guess. This is something I've wondered about ever since our minister gave a sermon about the fact that Satan's demons really exist in real life, not just as metaphorical characters in people who do bad things, but as real supernatural demons that if our faith was strong enough we could see just like we see trees or people. [i suppose this would be somewhat like the TV show, 'Grimm']. I just couldn't get my mind around the fact that I was somehow flawed that I couldn't see these things. And when I started asking questions, as a middle school boy in a very, very conservative Presbyterian church, well, things went badly. I just couldn't figure out how it is that all those people could think I was wrong (or bordering on evil) when all I was asking was for the evidence, some way, some method by which I could see things the same way they claimed to. Of course this was during the Civil Rights struggle as well, and this church had just ejected a really nice man as minister because he advocated for the Golden Rule and replaced him with the guy who can see demons. I was too young to really understand the complicated basis for racial prejudice...heck, I barely understood the unspoken social rules that separated the races at that time...but I DID understand that the consequences for breaking them was severe. Severe enough to get a really nice guy put out of the church because, well basically, he was a nice guy. He died a few years ago. I didn't find out about it until quite a while later but I managed to visit his eldest daughter and thank her for having had a father that thoughtful. So I guess I'm questioning is the idea that people need to or even CAN discuss faith in any kind of meaningful way or, in particular, that an entire forum for doing this would somehow enrich us beyond what we have now. Time to get back to work.

Far out!

I'd consider it if they embraced the outdoors the way I wish BSA would.

"I will reward absolute obedience with high-ranking crony jobs in my new regime" Wait a minute! You're supposed to be DIFFERENT from the current system!

"The UUA said they would include references to other publications in the manual (or at least with the manual)." Which is what they did. But even IF the UUA was sneaky and underhanded, that does not diminish the FACT that BSA took action against boys who had no way to defend themselves, an action that did not change any of the circumstances of the disagreement, an action that did not contribute to resolution of the disagreement, an action that was gratuitous and taken because they COULD - against the only vulnerable target available, defenseless boys. It was cowardly. It was vindictive.

Peregrinator, are you prepared to similarly embrace the rest of the document, especially starting on page 40?

Awwww, I was rather fond of the 'wonderful tarbaby' story, even the way it was warped by Walt. Zipitydooda, zipityay, my oh my-y what a wonderful day.... Edit: Oops, I'm with you on getting the program outdoors. AZMike for president!

Well, it sure looks like professional workmanship, really nicely done.

Great project!

Even more-importantly, Harrison, Nebraska is the home of Sioux Sundries which has a 28 oz hamburger on the menu: http://roadtrip.beimers.com/morning115.html The biggest I've ever seen.

As you wish

Fred, I think I agree with every aspect of your OP. I'm not quite ready yet to move this to I&P although it is trending in that direction. Moms, both of you, I have a daughter who was also quite frustrated, doubly so, because she not only wanted to do all the cool stuff the boys did, she did it better than most of them AND the GS unit she joined didn't do any of it. This was a source (maybe still is to some extent) of frustration and resentment for her and I can't blame her in the least. FWIW, local option wouldn't completely solve this issue but it would help in some cases.

AZMike, I used those 'neutral' times for other sensitive topics as well. But once I planted the seed, I just had to sit back and let the questions flow, lol. As for preaching, I think most of us want to tell someone what we think. We sometimes have difficulty listening.

NASA has a nice map of worldwide frequencies of lightning. As one might predict, the places that get the most rain come out on top. Plus, of course, our Midwest (must be a lot of atheists quoting the Bible out there). http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/intense_storms.html I think Fred was injecting a little levity, at least that's the way I read it.

You know I'm just not sure what violation is going on but I get the feeling that the spirit of this thread is not being served just now. Perhaps MattR could assist?

Peregrinator, I have actually read that literature. Factually stating that the UUA disagrees with BSA on the membership policy could be considered 'criticism' by some, I suppose, but it was their manual, UUA's own literature, after all. They had the right to inform their own church members of their disagreement. BSA, in response, could have just let it go since there was nothing factually incorrect about the UUA statements. But BSA didn't. They took the low ground by denying recognition to their own members who happened to be UUA scouts. Those boys were not part of the argument and BSA didn't have to do anything. But they did. They did it to the only truly vulnerable individuals available, the boys. It was vindictive and cowardly.

OK, after 5 fairly solid pages of this thread and fairly close moderation, does anyone have suggestions regarding the 'experiment' so far? I'm particularly interested to know if the level of moderation needs to intensify or back off. Opinions?

Of course, no one is going to jail for wearing the emblem on the uniform regardless of BSA'a approval. Their approval carries almost no real significance compared to the actual achievement and recognition by the boy's own faith.

Having BSA accept the emblem is, as NJ noted, ambiguous. I do know that once accepted, all you need to do to get it 'un-accepted' is to note in your literature that you disagree with BSA policy. Edit: I scanned the P.R.A.Y. website but didn't see an answer to the OP question. But you might see something I missed. You may have to ask specifically for each faith: http://www.praypub.org/main_frameset.htm

Careful, fellas. Read rule #1 again. It's ok to discuss transcendent objective moral systems in an informative way... but NOT in the context of BSA membership policies and the politics that usually follow along in that discussion. You, Merlyn and AZMike, are doing ok but remember to tiptoe away from the hot zone if you get close. NJ, I think a purely philosophical discussion may be OK as long as it doesn't cross a really fuzzy line to seeming to be critical of a faith system. If you think an objective system of morality can be found without God, I think that even if you adopt my suggestion of 'moral thermodynamics', and it just doesn't get much more objective than that, a person who believes in God can still respond that God set those rules as well, so it all still works.

@KDD, baaaad dog! bad, BAAAAD, dog!!!

It wasn't you. It was le Voyageur and it's possible that I turned up the 'sensitivity' too much on that one but he seemed to diminish that particular faith on the basis of the small number of followers, called it a UFO cult, and worst of all, associated it with Tom Cruise. Edit: le Voyageur, hope you'll be back. I very much appreciate anything you can add on Buddhism. I like what I've read so far.

le Voyager suggested a self-imposed penalty and I am intrigued but SSScout just made a comparison of religion to the hokey pokey. I guess I did ask for some help with a sense of humor and I really appreciate it, guys. OTOH, this might also be a violation of #3. This is getting complicated. And as much as I would like to overlook another comment, I can't....the comment about Scientology. I'm still smarting over the spanking Beavah gave me for using the 'M' word. So even though there may not be a single Scientologist in all of scouting (and I have no idea, really) you can't make disparaging comments like that in this thread. There are other threads in this forum where you can probably get away with it. And remember, the hokey pokey isn't the worst that can happen.