packsaddle

As I understand it, the BSA membership policy is not based on some kind of fear of molesters. That is pretty much covered by the G2SS rules and guidelines. Rather the BSA membership policy, as I understand it, was based on the claim by BSA that homosexuality does not meet the "morally straight" part of the oath. BSA claimed, convincingly enough to the Supreme Court, that it is a "religious organization" and based the moral judgment of homosexuals in religious beliefs. If I have this wrong, someone please set the record 'straight'. The fear of molestation is something that frequently is invoked in these threads, though, for the tiny bit that it's worth.

I realize I am sometimes guilty of being the pot that calls the kettle 'black' but here I note that the 'tit-for-tat' approach to interactions tends to escalate things away from 'scoutlike' while the 'turn-the-other-cheek' tends to moderate things. I guess that also depends on what 'cheek' we're talking about, lol.

EmberMike, I don't want to enter the argument about whether or not one group or another is likely to molest children. I do want to note that AZMike is correct about the lack of actual science in these studies. These are mostly statistical exercises or the result of uncontrolled comparisons and hardly meet the rigor of actual science. To be sure, they do employ some sophisticated mathematical methods of removing bias, etc. but in the end, they still, at best, suggest interesting hypotheses...and do not in themselves constitute scientific tests. And, given that we're concerned with human subjects, those kinds of tests are unlikely in the future as well. And that means that the argument is likely to continue, unresolved, as well.

jrush, you are not an atheist. But you seem to think you KNOW about atheism. Moreover, you have just categorized atheists as if they are some monolithic group with exactly the characteristics you just mentioned. Is that REALLY what you meant to do? Do you really KNOW that this is a fair characterization of all atheists? If so, I would like to understand how you know these things? If not, then you must be able to understand why Merlyn takes exception to what you wrote.

Or it could be that the CO was just 'waiting for some reason' to do this anyway, for that matter. But regardless, it's done. They will hopefully find a supportive CO. From the sound of things, the unit itself and the leaders are going to make a 'go' of it one way or another. As far as 'teaching' goes, I need to defend blw2 on that because I was the one who brought up the idea of 'teaching'. It was the way I naturally interpret what happens as a result of experiences and the idea of a 'moral experience' was not clear to me. It still isn't, at least not as it relates to the topic of membership policy. But I certainly did NOT have in my mind that anyone was going to be 'taught' about sexuality. Rather it was about morality. So my confusion of the idea of a 'moral experience' is where all that came from. And that's ok because I'm often confused about a lot of things. Sigh, I'm used to it.

OldGreyEagle,...h'mmmmm....doesn't 'sound' Polish.

I'd like to celebrate the 540th birthday of Copernicus (according to the Gregorian calendar, about 13 days or so off if by Julian). Google has a really cool celebratory doodle.

It works best to do everything in some other photo editing program...and get the dimensions just right...before you submit it. Then repeat the exercise if it still looks wrong.

Blw2, Please explain. What IS the "moral experience" that is being "watered down"? How does the exclusionary membership policy qualify as some kind of experience? What does that policy teach boys?

Yep, that explains it. Makes perfect sense now. I guess I didn't anticipate the artwork issue. When I write book reviews, the only way artwork enters the review is when I note errors or inaccuracies in technical graphs or illustrations...not exactly what you'd often do with reviews of children's books, I think. I'm glad you eventually managed to outlast the scavenger.

Beavah, some of the confusion is understandable. I inserted my post in a different thread and somehow it has moved to this one. Earlier I responded to one person and my response also showed up under the other member's name. Weird. I think the forums are still not quite 'ready for prime time'. But I can detect occasional fixes (I think). BTW, this is NOT science based on the evidence, lol.

Here is the link, if anyone would like to save a dollar: http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/rts.pdf The 'Irreligion' section is on page 100.

Heh, heh, I was just trying to find that Ersatz brand the other day...."If it's Ersatz, it has to be good" My children, bless them, (due to peer pressure) turned up their noses at my Vermont Maple Syrup and went for the Karo....(I'm having an urge to wretch just thinking about it). But they're older now...maybe I can turn them again to the side of true flavor.

I am donning my 'neo-Luddite' hat now, I would like to add that there is still nothing wrong with those 'old-fashioned' paper pamphlets. They work without electricity and you can jump page-to-page a LOT faster than on some d***** iPhone or similar electronic crutch. And before you go on about pages getting wet or something, dunk that infernal electronic contraption in the creek and let me know how that works for you.

I'm trying to envision how a book review would go crosswise of copyright laws? Did she use extensive quotes from the book? If so, and if she referenced them appropriately, as a scholarly paper she was within the realm of 'fair use'. Of course that won't stop an attorney who smells a case but in this case it would be a losing one for them. Or did she use the intellectual property in some other way for that review? Like I said, I can't figure out how something like this would bring out the attorneys.

Now I have an evil twin! I don't even have to write anything and stuff just shows up under my moniker.

"So why don't they make them available on Google play or itunes?????" LOL, Basementdweller, haven't you been a participant in some of the threads in which we complain about National's ability to maintain a database, or their websites, or, or....? Do you really think these guys are THAT modern? Me, I'd use the approach championed by Ronald Reagan and let some private entity do this work...WHAT AM I SAYING? BSA itself IS a private entity.....nevermind.

"The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." I just love this quote from TheScout.

Copyright is a big deal and violating that not only asks for legal remedies, it is a clear violation of the Scout Law, at least one of them, and the Oath. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with creating a 'lending library' for the troop to use. Old copies of the pamphlets can be donated by boys once they're finished with the merit badges or they can be purchased directly by the troop. OR multiple boys who intend to work on the same badge can share the cost and purchase a single shared copy. But Copyright does prohibit MAKING COPIES, no matter what form they take, even if not for profit. Krampus, telling someone about a criminal activity is not a crime in itself, even if the reader decides to engage in the criminal activity as a result. However, the better action would be to inform those who are breaking the law that they should stop, BEFORE they receive that stiff note from an attorney.

"if scouts lie - they are out" Teenage males. H'mmmmm. I suspect that on that basis, scouting can just close the doors. "Scouts, who ate more than their share of bacon?" "Did you bring candy into your tent?" "Who stole the other patrol's flag?" "Were you guys playing with matches?" or back when I was a scout, "Boys, do you know who was shooting firecrackers?" A lie is breaking at least one point of the scout law, that much is clear. But are they also 'out' if they are not thrifty? How about brave? or clean? Or are some laws relatively more important than others? Seems like the better way would be to teach them why lying is wrong and give them an opportunity to repent, or reform, and do better in the future...rather than slamming the door on them. It continues to be my observation that most of us make mistakes and sometimes really bad decisions. Why would we close scouting to boys who have just demonstrated the greatest need FOR scouting? What was that thing about casting the first stone?

"the reasons that BP founded the Scouting movement could be traced to the changes in society brought about be the industrial revolution." In that spirit, I could just as well trace it to the development of language and symbolic logic as well as the rise of agriculture, and the inventions of fire and the wheel, lol.

Krampus, the boy is in trouble on several levels. It seems to me that the fate of scout advancement is less important than to trying to help him turn things around somehow. Yes, if efforts to HELP the boy fail, then I would support closing some advancement options. Big deal! If that's the case the real damage is already done. I happen to know many cases in which teenagers who make really stupid decisions turn their lives around and serve as great examples for others. Would you slam the door on all those? Is there no room at all for redemption? Let me put it in different terms. If a boy tried to cross a stream at high water and was swept away, I would gladly risk my life to try to save him. Here, the boy may have tried something that could be just as life-changing down the road. The risk is that he will eventually lose his life. The last thing I'm going to worry about is some stupid advancement question. To me there is a much more pressing threat that I am willing to sacrifice greatly to avoid if I think I can help this boy avoid that 'cliff' that he's running headlong toward. (this mixed metaphor was brought to you by Packsaddle) Whether he makes Eagle or not, to me, is just not as important a question and certainly is one that can be answered after the real problem is addressed. Speaking hypothetically, of course.

That is very interesting, AZMike. I think you're correct about the legal challenges and I would think that a 'Reformed BSA' would probably grow and prosper partially BECAUSE of those factors, while the 'Orthodox (read: exclusive) BSA' would become increasingly marginalized. I think Hoover has a good idea, though, that just might work. The effect, essentially, is what is happening anyway.

This is the unreliable thing about hypotheticals: until we actually confront a real situation and know the specifics, we don't REALLY know what we'd do in response. The thing is, despite the tiny amount of information we have about this situation and the fact that we KNOW almost nothing about it, some of us HAVE been quick to provide their reactions AS IF the worst scenario was true. And it's ok for them to have those kinds of thought excercises. But I think it is equally easy, IF they want to play with those scenarios, to respond FIRST with how to HELP those hypothetical boys in that hypothetical situation.

Uhhhh, which ones are unacceptable? I was under the impression that when it came to gods, it was 'anything goes' for BSA. One more thing, do you think BSA started during the Industrial Revolution?