Peregrinator

132 boys / 9 patrols = 14 boys per patrol? You could easily have 16 patrols with a troop of that size!

Which would you prefer, the drop & go parent, or the helicopter parent? Frankly we're concerned enough about the latter that we tell all parents to drop their kids off at the meetings.

The leadership of the GOP is wrong about a lot of things and its propensity to back foreign wars of choice is probably the biggest ... that said, there is a difference soldiers and civilians being killed in the course of war and the intentional murder of those not yet born. Similarly, on the subject of health care, there is a vast difference between someone's dying or suffering from lack of healthcare and the intentional murder of those not yet born. It's the difference between omission and commission. packsaddle, are you really saying you don't see a distinction between sperm cells and egg cells on the one hand, and an egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell on the other? In the natural course of events, does an egg cell grow into a adult? or a child?

AZMike, I am with you, but you will never convince someone who thinks that it's better for a person to be dead than to be suffering.

Peregrinator, by the time we noticed what was going on, it was over. I'm sorry, that's not how it sounded from your initial description. You seemed to be saying that you and your fellow leaders were laughing, but the scouts didn't even notice because they were too busy looking at the bikini-clad girls. Did I misunderstand?

Im with Pack, dont punish instinct, just teach control. Nothing could have been said in that moment that would have improved the boys character. Who said anything about punishing? How about simply saying, "Turn around, fellas"? And setting the example rather than laughing about it.

As far as 'hornyness', that comment reminded me of the drooling stares I observed as the boys peered out the church van windows gazing (lusting?) after a particular bikini-clad passerby. I so wish I could have gotten a photo of those leering faces behind the glare of that window, completely consumed by fantasies of desire, some of them didn't even know what was happening to them. How sad that you didn't correct them. I will come right out and say that a man who goes to strip clubs and doesn't see anything wrong with it is not fit to be a leader of boys.

It's primarily a reflection of the dramatic growth of Asian and Latino populations, which BSA has found difficult to penetrate If that is true, then there should be a dramatic spike in BSA membership when they are able to penetrate those populations, which tend to be tight-knit, family- and community-oriented, etc.

You can't seem to understand the different between private acts vs. a government employee acting as an agent of the state. I understand the difference just as I understand the distinction between "promoting" and "imposing". For example, the U.S. government "promotes" population control, while the Chinese government "imposes" it. Under the Supreme Court cases, the government (including a school) cannot organize a prayer or other religious observance. And that is one of many reasons why the Supreme Court is not taken seriously and its decisions viewed with suspicion and even derision.

Why are you arguing for an all-powerful government? You realize that prohibiting governmental prayer in schools is a restriction against the government, don't you? You're the one arguing for government force to prevent atheists from being offended, not I. If the Constitution and the XIVth Amendment taken together mean that prayer can be forbidden in schools, then government power is truly unlimited. But that is what atheists must believe of necessity anyway, since they cannot believe that human rights come from something greater than the State. You even have your own definition of "omit"? If I were attempting to give more than a brief summary, one could say that I "omitted" something.

Well, I'm confident that it's interpreted that way now. Of course it is, which is one of the reasons why ordinary people have so little confidence in the federal justice system. If the Constitution plus the XIVth Amendment can be used to ban prayer in schools, for example, they can be used to do anything. You omitted the part where people were killed over which version of the bible to use in public schools. I'm not sure which incident you're referring to, but yes, there were riots in Philadelphia, for example -- I didn't "omit" them, I gave a brief summary.

Public schools had prayer for nearly 100 years following the adoption of the (non-ratified) XIVth Amendment. So I am confident in asserting that the XIVth Amendment was never intended to overturn prayer in schools. In the XIXth century, yes, children were forced to say prayers in school and forced to read from the Bible (in many cases, the KJV). Those "offended" by this practice (e.g., Catholics, who were actually more than merely "offended," since Catholics were not permitted to read the KJV at the time) sought redress at the local level and when that didn't work, started their own school system. Which is exactly what those opposed to the BSA policy don't appear willing to do - start their own program.

The God question, or issue dependiong on your take on it goes further than the BSA or any other national Scout organisation Well, of course -- because that is what Baden-Powell taught in his own writings. Those who want to delete God from Scouting (which Baden-Powell called "applied Christianity") want to make it into something other than Scouting.

Peregrinator, from what I have read here, you are indeed a bigot. In what way? No atheist (that I know of) condemns an individuals right to practice their religion however they please. How about atheist government regimes? Now, you may think that saying group prayer in school, or even just seeing a prayer banner in the school, may not be an imposition. Right, I do think that because it is not an imposition. What is an imposition is the eradication of religion from public schools. No one is forced to take part in prayer (that would be an imposition). The only force employed is to make certain that religion doesn't show its face in public schools. When an atheist (especially one in school, who is often a teenager and just discovering his lack of a belief) sees that banner, it is a big sign reminding them that a large number of people around him firmly believe that he will spend an eternity suffering for his "sins." I've often heard it said that people don't have the right not to be offended.

I assume that volunteers on outings are covered by a group insurance policy, while a volunteer driving to an outing is covered by his own car insurance policy. That would be my guess as to why safe driving training is not required.

I had no idea the Moodies were still having shows. I saw them over 20 years ago and they were on the older side for rock stars then.

And yes, you might say that civil disobedience can only apply to the government, but I think the concept applies broadly. Yes, I would say that it applies only to the government. I don't know what to call this. They appear to want the benefits of BSA membership without the restrictions of BSA membership.

First of all, who here is advocating "breaking" the BSA's rules? Pack 79. I'm not trying to call out the participants in this thread, and I apologize if it sounded like I was. As far as I can determine, they are breaking the BSA's rules.

If half the battle is just showing up (attributed to Hunter S. Thompson) and knowing is half the battle (G.I. Joe), then victory is virtually assured by knowing and showing up.

I don't rule out secession as an option, if that is what you're asking. There's no inherent reason that, say, Texas and Massachusetts must be part of the same country. I don't know what the Tea Party stands for any way. I think they've been assimilated into the neocon Borg.

Every time we talk about the founding fathers we are talking about men who defiantly broke the rules. Perhaps those who advocate breaking the BSA's rules should take a cue from the Founding Fathers and start their own organization.

I am not sure how pertinent it is to the discussion here, but I would say that you're both late and early, and that there's no real "bright line" for when democracy "in the modern sense" came into being. It's been developing for centuries, getting closer and closer to the "ideal" that we have now -- which is still not perfectly ideal. I realize there isn't a "bright line" but I thought the XVth Amendment was as good a line as any. I think that was probably the start of the "ideal" of direct democracy. I realize that this is not how many government officials are elected in the United States, but I think if you asked the average person the definition of "democracy," he or she would respond with the definition of direct democracy.

No. It isn't "arbitrary." You can characterize any change in the law as "arbitrary" (and therefore tyrannical) using that bizarre reasoning. I think you're confused about the definition of arbitrary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary If a government has the authority to redefine words against their traditional meaning, or to redefine institutions that pre-date government, then government's power is truly unlimited -- arbitrary, tyrannical, despotic. I would say that government has become your god, except that your ideal government can do things that God can't -- for example, lying.

And no, gods are still myths. Well, as Tolkien pointed out to C.S. Lewis (an author whose works you would profit from reading) many years ago, "myth" is not synonymous with "falsehood." Why would you claim that God is responsible for miscarriages if you do not believe in Him?

How is that "tyrannical"? "unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic" You don't find that redefining a word as something other than its traditional meaning, attempting to redefine an institution, etc. -- arbitrary? Isn't that the definition of "arbitrary"? Of course, perhaps you also believe that it lies within the power of a government to change the meaning of "arbitrary" as well.