packsaddle

NJ, you're killin' me, man! You are so funny sometimes...... OK. Tim, please identify yourself as a human. Tim, Tim, are you out there somewhere? Hello, hello, calling Rangoon! Oops. What am I saying? Tim, if you ARE a robot, that is REALLY interesting. Just write something robotic. You know like, "Government regulations never produced a barrel of oil" or something like that. Edit: Wow, I almost missed a chance for an experiment! Say....how about those background checks? Are they going well? I sure wish there was someplace where we could get background checks. Or at least where we can get background checks at less cost. Boy, would it be just peachy to find a place to get cheap background checks. (How am I doin'?) Let's see what (bot) pops in....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Scoutfish, you are such an idealist...I'm sorry for you. Remember, "the purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." TheScout was correct in his assessment. Use the words of that sentence without the contraction - The purpose of religion is NOT to bring people together. Or try this - The purpose of religion is: NOT to bring people together. Make more sense now?

Lisa, I salute your courage at WB, and especially appreciate your observations about the 'incongruence' of the leader's 'latent' tendencies(?). I'm tempted to fall onto my knees in prayer for your soul.

NJ, you are so funny sometimes, I can hardly stand it.

And a wry sense of humor as well, I like that.

Clearly, we'd be in a much better place as a society if we'd followed the Ayn Rand 'school' of child rearing. I heard this line of argument posed in the 1960's....applied to the children then (including me) - who are now lamenting their own culpability in coddling the current crop. Seems like some Greek guy said something along these lines a few years back... Look, instead of wringing our hands and wetting our panties over something we think we're doing wrong right now....why not just stop doing it and get it right instead? Otherwise, accept what we are and are becoming. Adding 'drama' to it hardly enhances anything.

Eagledad, I was charged by a black bear once while collecting in the Smokies. So I vacated my collecting gear. The bear got a snoot full of preservative fluid (mix of iodine, acetic acid, formaldehyde). Bet he'll never do THAT again. I could hear him snorting as he wandered away (in disgust, no doubt, about my 'taste' in beverages).

Fred those droppings will also taste like pepper spray . A grizzly encountering a smoker: "mmmmmmm...bar-b-cue..." Edit: FYI, I've used a small hand-held marine air horn with good results...so far. I think there's not an animal on earth that likes that sound. So Fred, tell me what their scat is going to 'sound' like after they eat me....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'm beginning to warm to Romney...although as mentioned by others here, there's not much difference, but one is a really nagging difference. The thing I really want to see is: Romney's long form birth certificate...vetted by Sheriff Arpaio in order to exclude fraud. Only then can I be reasonably certain that he's not really an alien (this time the REAL outer space deal) from planet Kolob. All you Tea Party types in these forums are with me on this, right?

When I was CM I didn't get a request like this, mainly because we encouraged family camping any way they could do it. If it was an event in which we filed a tour permit and it was a pack event, then we followed the BSA rules and guidelines. If a family went on their own, or even if more than one family went on their own, they didn't have to ask permission or file a tour permit. And because those families took all responsibility for what they did as families, they were not subject to BSA rules or guidelines. I had no oversight for their family activities. So we never had a problem - even when one boy broke a bone, another boy required stitches, and yet another lost a couple of teeth. None of it was a BSA problem. We did, however, at Blue and Gold, celebrate the mending of the bone, the healing of the sliced and diced leg, and the 'rest-in-peace' of two teeth (among other personal 'accomplishments' by different boys). I gave thanks those things didn't happen on 'my watch'.

OK, I think the high proportion of single moms first made an impression on me in the late 1970-early 80s, especially when our children started kindergarten. But when I remember my unit when I was a youth in the '60s, we had pretty much the same situation with adult male involvement, maybe for different reasons. We had a scoutmaster who was a long-term SM (and a really good one, too, I'll shed tears when he dies) and an occasional father helping as ASM. The adult males all had full-time jobs (so did the SM) and not many felt they could spare the time. There weren't any single moms, however, at least not that I can remember. I doubt the Presbyterian church culture of the local community would allow "someone like that" to remain in the community if she wasn't a widow and I even then I usually heard conversations that mentioned her carefully add, "...she's a widow, you know", as if there was something intrinsically suspicious about being a widow. It seemed to me that sooner or later most of the women would be widows since men didn't seem to live as long (I often studied the grave stones in the cemetery and around the age of 6 I began to marvel at the trends in the dates on the stones - people didn't seem to want to talk about things like that. Come to think of it, my grandmother went through at least 3 husbands, all of them died after a few years. You know....you have to wonder what goes through the mind of that third or fourth guy....but I digress). Divorce was absolutely scandalous, something that movie stars did and other "lower classes" (sometimes this included Baptists, I never understood the hierarchy of Protestant flavors, still don't). Having an illegitimate child was an event for 'the lowest class of people' and if there was such a thing in the community it wasn't within my eyesight. They spoke in whispers about such things, mixed with phrases like "low-quality protoplasm" and "mud races", usually applied with racial-type prejudice. I was quite familiar with the "mud race" thing from the Bible...I searched in vain for that thing about "low-quality protoplasm". For a while (until my days of rebellion) I 'assumed' it was a well-established scientific discovery. So did they, I suppose, those wacky Presbyterians, lol. Some of them may still.

For some reason, this guy always captured my imagination back when I was active: http://www.chesscorner.com/worldchamps/capablanca/capablanca.htm And he was a much nicer person than Bobby.

Perhaps sincere desire and actions by individual attorneys to state and arrive at actual 'truth' would be a good start, rather than depending on the system or the process to do this? Or is personal 'honesty' a hopelessly naive thing to ask?

One more for the list. So I'm going to another country with an X-ray-proof pouch for sensitive film. I have no problems on the way out. On the return, I get to the USA and during the second TSA screening, they stop me because of the (now empty) pouch. "What is in this?" "Nothing" "Why are you carrying it?" "I took some sensitive film to (its destination) and now I'm returning with the empty pouch." "Can I examine it?" "Yes" The guy opens the pouch and looks at the empty interior. Now...the good part: He informs me that he will now put the same pouch that caused this extra concern because they couldn't 'see' anything with the x-rays...back through the x-ray...so they can't see anything again. When I try to think of a term to describe this, 'thoughtless' just doesn't quite say it.

Somehow I still maintain the faith that regardless of the problem or need, ignorance does not enhance solutions or understanding. So as far as I'm concerned, it's about time to open this to the public.

"but the evidence is there and my observations and experiences in my life have supported what I believe." Thanks, Eagledad, for answering my question. I picked out the above part of one line because I'm hoping it is the key to unlocking the rest of your thoughts. I think all of us have a tendency to use our observations and experiences to form our ideas and I think that is good. From my observations and experiences, I always try to ask myself, "Do I believe because of the evidence? Or do I 'see' evidence because I 'believe'?" I was raised by persons, and in a manner, that nurtured the idea that black persons 'truly' are inferior, that black persons have an evil tendency that qualifies under most of the things you just mentioned as counter to 'family'. And this 'truth' was based first and foremost, according to their claims, in evidence and in Biblical scripture. It was a 'belief' first...and every observation and experience after 'naturally' tended to support that belief. At the same time, I also heard my teachers (ALL of the adults around me) often use the phrase I read in these threads about condemning the behavior (sin) while loving the person (sinner). It was when I began to trust my own observations and experiences that I began to question persons who held the above beliefs and who excused those beliefs with the above phrase regarding sin and sinners. This was also when I realized that it is possible to view individuals as individuals, not part of some 'category'. The contradictions between this realization and what I had been taught all my life are obvious and this became the basis for my 'exile' from the Presbyterian church - by mutual agreement. Incidentally, it is on this basis that on numerous occasions I have been advised in these threads over the years to leave scouting and form my own youth organization. I probably should have remained Presbyterian as well, lol. .....thinking......NAH! But the essence of the problem, to my mind, is opening our minds to 'know' the individual rather than to categorize them and then reject them as part of a category. And the only obstacle that I can see to this, in my observations and experiences, is the pre-existing beliefs, sometimes justified using scriptures. To me the solution is at the individual level. It seems only at the level of the 'category' that prejudice pretends to be 'evidence'. At the individual level we see the person more clearly and while in forming whatever opinion we might form there also might be error - but at least that is error about an individual, not a whole category into which we thoughtlessly place many other individuals. In BSA membership policy, INDIVIDUALS are accepted as members. It is when they voluntarily allow themselves to be viewed as a CATEGORY by openly 'avowing' something that they are rejected. Do you see the fundamental problem with this? In the subject of the OP in this thread, do you really see the individual gay woman whose son is an Eagle scout as 'anti-family' or something along those lines? Really? Your answer categorized people. It did not view a person, this person, the person named in the petition, as an individual. It ignored the fact that everyone around her, including her FAMILY, who viewed her as an individual, see her as a good person whom they want to remain as a member and a leader...except that she has now fallen into a 'category'. Do you not see how thoughtless her ejection from scouting is? There is no pedophile threat. There is no criminal activity. Nothing but a thoughtless category. The person who is accepted as an individual but rejected categorically is the same individual in both cases. The only difference is the way that BSA (and some of us) 'categorizes' those individuals. To me this approach, as with black persons before, finds its strength in allowing comfort with prejudice and its weakness in ignoring the individual. And THAT most certainly IS a 'choice' that we make. Sadly, IMHO.

SPL and SP include in the list of items to bring: an addressed, stamped, blank post card or letter to be written and sent soon after arrival at camp. SPL and PLs 'tutor' new guys on how to thank their parents and let them know not to worry but just the same bring lots of snacks on parents' night. It becomes a troop activity during the evening of the second day. Some boys ask, "why not just text them?" so I hand my phone over...no signal. Nice. Really nice.

Indeed, I agree with Trevorum.

Eagledad, could you please explain what "gay style of behavior" is? Again, I feel compelled to note that I am asking this question of Eagledad because he is the person who originated the idea. I am not asking for others to try to channel him and provide his thoughts for him. I just want to understand from Eagledad himself what a "gay style of behavior" is.

Moosetracker, for the sake of argument let's consider the possibility that homosexuality might be a matter of choice. Why would that make a difference in whether or not they get the same rights as others? For a while I chose to 'be' a Presbyterian. If for some reason society decided that Presbyterians should not be able to marry (or if, say, BSA did not allow Presbyterians to be members), would it make any difference that it is a matter of choice? If homosexuality does have an element of control that is not purely genetic, why should that diminish their rights? At one time, a culture that I hold very near and dear passed laws that allowed persecution, even execution, of persons wearing dreadlocks. Did the fact that dreadlocks were a matter of choice somehow diminish those individuals' rights to life and liberty? Evidently, some of us think so...and that restriction of rights because of such a choice is reasonable. I think the answer is that 'choice', if that's what it is, should be irrelevant.

drmbear, I sort of answered your initial question in my note to Merlyn: It is because people in some religious faiths WANT "to impose their beliefs or at least limits in society which are based on those beliefs, on others who don't necessarily share them." They WANT to limit freedom as a matter of their faith. As has been noted earlier, it is the same rationale as those who made inter-racial marriage illegal on the basis of their faith. I think this tendency to repress those who disagree with us is a basic human impulse that can be seen in many societies, for example the Taliban, etc. Sad that we can't do any better sometimes.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"If you don't follow these religious tenets of other religions, why should you expect people who aren't members of your religion to follow yours?" And yet, Merlyn, it seems to me that is exactly what people in many flavors of religion do expect...to impose their beliefs or at least limits in society which are based on those beliefs, on others who don't necessarily share them. Which to me is the significance of the Loving decision. Again I'm reminded of that quote from TheScout, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together".

When you look at how the requirements have changed again and again over the years, I see no evidence to reject the idea that scouters are and always have been - a bunch of malcontents with regard to rank requirements.

Good riddance to both.

"Yah, BD, I reckon we all hit that point from time to time. Scouters are generous, community-oriented folks, and at times we all feel that our generosity is being taken advantage of." So right off the bat I want to state that I don't disagree with Beavah's comments. I'm using his first line just to emphasize something it took me a while to realize. Yes, we tend to be generous. We tend to be altruistic. And we tend to be taken advantage of - at least that's what "we all feel" sometimes. Basementdweller, this is going to sound harsh and I don't want it to but I know it's going to so I'm going to write it anyway. You were suffering from a self-deception. Actually, lots of them. On the surface you felt that you were making sacrifices for others and you just might have been. On the surface you had yourself convinced that the time, the money, etc., was justified by the 'good' you were doing for others and the example you were setting for them. And now you feel betrayed by them. In fact, in putting yourself in this situation by giving time and resources with no stated expectation of anything in return, you betrayed yourself. And you know it. And THAT is why you're angry and disappointed. 'Other People' did what other people almost always do - they took advantage of a situation. What is it about scouting that made you think that 'other people' would behave differently in a scouting program than they would from any other part of life? Answer: there's no reason to think they're any different...UNLESS, you think they all follow the ethic that YOU follow. Guess what? They don't. They are selfish. They are driven by all sorts of diverse interests and motives that may (or probably are not) similar to yours. This was nothing more than a reality check for you. Don't be angry at people who merely are what they are. Direct your anger at yourself for having been self-deceived. And then forgive yourself. NOW, you're better prepared to do what you thought you were doing back when you started into all this. So the decision is yours. Take a hike...or return with a new outlook. 'Other people' will continue to be themselves either way.