Peregrinator

One wonders what people did 20 years ago before cell phones were common! National needs to remember that facebook is a double edge sword.....If they screw it up....the world will know instantly..... I don't think there even have to be any screw-ups. There are going to be times when certain boys are bored at summer camp. If they have cell phones, then they will Tweet that they are bored or post it to Facebook. "At camp ... so f'ing bored!" After camp they might not remember that they were bored, and look fondly on their experiences, but during camp is quite another matter. It might be better for leaders to post during camp, tagging the boys in their photos and posts. If boys want to post then let them do it after camp.

The original Scout promise as given by Baden-Powell (1908) read as follows: On my honour I promise that-- 1. I will do my duty to God and the King. 2. I will do my best to help others, whatever it costs me. 3. I know the scout law, and will obey it. It was later modified (1911?) to read: On my honour I promise to do my best-- 1. To do my duty to God and the King. 2. To help others at all times. 3. To keep the Scout Law. As an aside, I wonder if the gains seen in Scouts Canada and the Scout Association (UK) can be attributed to the fact that both now admit girls to their cub and Scout programs? I'd be interested to know whether the number of boys involved has gone up or down, as well as whether they are gaining members at the expense of the Girl Guides.

It is not my employeers buisness what I choose to do in my personal life It is if you accept employment knowing that your contract makes your personal life your employer's business. A typical contract states that a teacher's employment can be terminated for "gross immorality" or "behavior not consistent with the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church" (IVF would probably fall into the latter category). If she didn't want to make her personal life her employer's business, then she should not have accepted employment there. If she could not live up to the standards of the employment contract, she should have sought employment elsewhere. If she got bad advice (from a nun who ought to know better), then that is tragic -- perhaps she should bring suit against her nun friend instead.

Baden Powell came up with his Handbook for Scouting as a tool to teach youth to be tough outdoorsman to make them good soldiers. "I've seen enough of war to want to keep away from the military idea. Woodcraft, handicraft, and all those things are invaluable. First aid and all that goes with it is excellent; but the boys should be kept away from the idea that they are being trained so that some day they may fight for their country. It is not war-scouting that is needed now, but peace-scouting. The explorers, the pioneers, the persons who are always on the lookout to do something for the benefit of humanity, are the ones who count, and that should be the motto of every boy scout." --Lord Baden-Powell, Chicago address, 1912 (my emphasis) http://books.google.com/books?id=AYlGAQAAIAAJ&vq=%22It%20is%20not%20war-scouting%20that%20is%20needed%20now%2C%20but%20peace-scouting.%22&pg=PA197#v=snippet&q=%22It%20is%20not%20war-scouting%20that%20is%20needed%20now,%20but%20peace-scouting.%22&f=false

You missed the other part of that piece. They fired a women due to her personal decision (between herself, her husband, her doctor) to try an insemination process the catholics disapproved of.. None of their buisness what she choose to do.. It's their business if her employment contract had a morality clause ... it's their business if she told students how she conceived ... etc. If she didn't want to uphold Church teaching, she shouldn't have sought employment from a Catholic school. Was she confused about the terms of her employment contract? or did she just not like them? And if you're talking about the latest case, it was the teacher who chose to make it the Church's business ... she told the school when she took sick days in order to undergo IVF.

Catholics buisnesses don't have to put it on their health insurance, just their employees can get an add-on for it through the insurance company. The insurance company must provide it. It is not an add-on. So the Catholic business is still paying for it through premiums. I know, I know they would prefer regimenting their employees lives It's not a matter of regimenting lives. How does an employer not paying for something mean that the employee can't do it? My employer doesn't pay for me to get my hair cut, yet I'm still free to get one (or not). Nor does he pay for my car, but I am still free to travel. be they Catholic or jewish or atheist, like the women they fired because she went for a medical procedure they disapproved of. You'll have to be more specific.

Peregrinator - are you hinting that now that they have started to win in some of the battles to remove government funding and public org. support from BSA, they should now stop protesting against BSA policy? My apologies - I assumed by "they" you meant government officials, not people protesting policy. I was only saying that the government is not stopping by simply removing funding but is also trying to regulate. And I did not have the BSA in mind but rather Catholic hospitals etc. For example, the HHS mandate does not say that Catholic organizations have to carry insurance that will pay for their employees' contraception or risk losing funding. It simply says that -- if they offer insurance to their employees -- their insurance must cover contraception.

Actually if you read the article they are starting to do just that. It is true that they are doing that, but it is also true that they aren't stopping there.

BSA like catholic hospitals have blurred the lines of if it is public or private, By taking government assistance, and so is open to similar scrutiny. Rather than passing laws and regulations, then, the government could simply withdraw its assistance. But that isn't what is happening.

as long as they don't have hangups over emergancy care, like a pregnat women in a car accident where it is they may need to perform an abortion to save the mothers life. A Catholic hospital would not be permitted to perform an abortion in such a circumstance.

Even if true, how does that justify excluding all atheists? Hey, some black steal; certainly that's justification to exclude all blacks, right? Belief is an act of the will, skin color is not. Nevertheless if a private organization wished to exclude blacks (or whites), then why not? Perhaps atheists ought to form their own scouting organization(s).

He means suspenders.

You might be able to get a belt with a D-ring buckle for cheaper than the centennial belt, then just replace the buckle.

Something like this (via Google)? http://www.countrybrookdesign.com/1-1-2-5-yards-olive-drab-green-nylon-heavy-webbing.html Oh, never mind -- you need cotton. In any case I'm sure a Google search will turn something up. You might have to buy in quantity though.(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

BadenP, Your attitude toward the Catholic Church is completely contrary to that of our founder, who sought the approval of Church authorities (specifically Cardinal Bourne) before proceeding with his work. I might add, at a time during which the Church was much less tolerant of educational methods that were not specifically Catholic. While you are, of course, welcome to your opinion, it is incongruous with the name you use in this forum. I would add that there is no organized "smear" campaign on the part of the Church against the Girl Scouts, and if the Church is asking questions about the Girl Scouts it is because members have brought concerns to the attention of their bishops, who are duty-bound to investigate those concerns.

shortridge, What rights are the bishops defending? Sorry I wasn't more clear. I was referring to the Obamacare mandates, not the Girl Scouts.

No letter. That is the "easy" way out. As has been mentioned in a number of posts here, the SM, and CC, should have a sit down, face to face, real discussion with the Scout and his parents to talk about his behavior and come up with some solutions TOGETHER. I agree that a face-to-face conversation is best, but it helps to have a written record of things in the event of any legal action. Sad that we have to think about that sort of thing, but that's the way society is today.

Seems to me that an ignorant hick would have a real hick accent! It can't be both.

The Church isn't inciting anything, only defending its rights.

I agree that a sermon inciting people to civil disobedience is not about love, peace, and forgiveness; but then I don't think a sermon should be limited to love, peace, and forgiveness. The Church has seen the fruits of 40 years of nothing but peace and love sermons and it ain't pretty! That said, it's hard to see how a sermon on Obamacare is appropriate for a funeral. That is not really a time to get political -- perhaps the priest thought it was a good way to reach people who aren't normally at Mass. That's the most charitable thing that comes to mind.

BadenP, Counter-references to what? You talk about the Church preaching hellfire and damnation but don't offer any references. You make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I can't prove a negative. What about the Church's "attacks" on the GSUSA are "vicious"? Is it "vicious" to ask questions of another organization? Wouldn't that just be due diligence? Should an organization not check periodically to see if other organizations with whom they have relationships don't contradict their values?

"Threats of eternal damnation and hellfire"? LOL. For someone who claims to have many Catholic acquaintances and to be a former Catholic, your view of the Catholic Church seems more informed by Hollywood movies than actual experience. The statistics you cited early in this thread, if true, hardly seem like they could apply to a deluded and fearful congregation.

qwazse, You are quite right that it is more than just a property issue but I am speaking in terms of practicality. In all likelihood, even if the GSUSA were banninated from Church property that would have little real effect on the Girl Scouts' membership, even among Catholics.

Who says boycotting a group whose main purpose is outdoor adventure, when the boy scouts are into outdoor adventure, due to a side issue they support, that the boy scouts do not get into, is staying neutral on the subject? I think most people associate the Sierra Club with environmentalism, not with outdoor adventure. But YMMV. That by all definition is standing up and taking a side on the issue.. In the girl scouts case, they are expected to be strong armed into supporting or boycotting everything the Catholic church is??? The Catholic church has no rights to tell a group that simply uses it's building that they have to stand up and fight on all the issues it deems they should.. Girl Scouts are not the right arm of the Catholic church.. I didn't say anything about strong-arming. The Church is definitely within its rights to ban the Girl Scouts from meeting on its property if they can't answer questions to the bishops' satisfaction. But that is not likely to happen. No one has said that the GSUSA must help fight the Church's battles.

You must not have read this thread well, because the point has been made repeatedly that GSUSA does not have COs. The bishops thus have the same standing to GSUSA as the equality advocates have to BSA. Many people here have argued that the equality types should shut the bleep up and go start their own group if they dislike BSA's policies. I could thus say the same about the bishops were I so inclined. I know the GSUSA doesn't have COs. But when parishes "sponsor" them they do meet on parish property do they not? That is why the Catholic bishops do not have the same standing with respect to the Girl Scouts that equality advocates have with the BSA. I agree that you could say that the Catholic bishops should start their own scouting organization if they don't like the GSUSA's policies. I might even be inclined to agree with you! I'm not sure, at this stage, if the GSUSA is capable of reforming itself in such a way as to be palatable to conservative Catholics. As far as the Sierra Club is concerned, I think one could argue that its support for "family planning" is not on the same scale as Planned Parenthood's. Nevertheless, if the BSA is going to take a truly neutral stance on the subject they probably should not have a relationship with the Sierra Club. Take that for what it's worth as I'm an outsider.