Proud Eagle

I really must thank everyone for the intelligent replies. I never expected any based on what I first posted. I must say I stand corrected about Judge Moore's oath of office. However, the idea that US Federal Courts supercede any State/Local government oath of office automatically is false. In practice the federal government can impose its will on any state or local government and the officers thereof. However, if Judge Moore's oath of office had not included any obligation to uphold the US Constitution (which others have testitified that it did, and I take them at their word) then he would have faced the choice of upholding his oath or upholding a court order. That would be quite a position to be in. Though from what I understand Judge Moore doesn't fully recognize the jurisdiction of the federal court in this case. In reallity Judge Moore is trying to argue that many of pre-Civil War concepts of law and the Constitution are correct. From all study I have done it does seems that judicial activism really did become an issue after (or perhaps immediately prior to) the Civil War. The Civil War did two things: it ended slavery and showed that State government has no means to resist any of the powers of any of the branches of the federal goverment. I would hope that everyone agrees about the good of the former, but there is much dispute about the good of the latter. Really if you look at the pre Civil War US government it was more like the UN, EU, or US gov under the Articles of Confederation than the current US government. What was once a union of the several States, formed with powers granted by the soverign States, has become a government restrained only by the unlikely threat of general rebellion against the current whims of vocal minorities, pluralities, and majorities. I doubt we would recognize, in practice, the government created by the Founding Fathers, nor would they likely recognize the government we currently tolerate. While we may still have the original text within the Constitution, I think only a fool would argue that we have the same goverment as the framers and founders. I am not arguing at the moment weather or not we are better off with our current system or would be better off with the system as it was. I am just pointing out it is not really the same system. I hope anyone who reads this has a good day/night/whatever. I don't really want to start an argument over these issues. I am just trying to put a few closing thoughts on this thread I started.

Why couldn't a thread started a year and a half ago with its last post being over a month ago be allowed to die? This same issue keeps coming up and coming up and coming up. Nothing new is added to it. No progress is made. The only thing that is ever accomplished is to deepen the devide between the opposing sides and scare away the undecided/moderate croud from gitting into the debate. I imagine we all have our views on this issue and will probably not change them based on on some post on the internet. Therefore further posts on this issue, while perhaps entertaining, serve no legitimate purpose on this forum. We are hear to advance Scouting. Wasting time doesn't advance Scouting. Why can't we just move on? If others insist on bringing this topic up ad nauseum I will eventually wade into it, but I am trying to resist. Watching the debate on this topic is like watching someone beat their head against a wall. Also, can anyone explain to me the merits of resurrecting a 13 page thread that no one possibly remembers the details of?(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I am going to give this in story form. I will summarize with numbers at the bottom of the post. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I joined Tiger Cubs in first grade back in the fall of 1990 I think. I stayed in Cubs all through the program including 2 years of Webelos. In spring of 1995 (or maybe it was fall 94 ?) I went to a Council Camporee that had invited all Boy Scouts and Webelos (with parents I believe) to attend. My father and I were the only members of our pack to attend. When we arrived my dad checked us in and then went a leaders meeting that had just started to find out what to do next. (He was the Den Leader.) The SM of a troop from my town was one of the organizers and invited us to share his troop's camp site. So that is what we did. That was my first encounter with the troop, its members, and leaders. Based on the experiences of that weekend my dad decided to do the AOL requirements for our den with that troop. All members of the den earned the AOL and bridged to this troop. I was the only one of that entire den to remain in Scouting for the full tenure as a youth. I turned 18 in fall of 2001 after having completed all Eagle requirements save the BOR. I immediately became an ASM and have remained in that position ever since. My BOR was delayed until January 2002. In May of 2002 we finally managed to do the COH. This past Saturday evening I had the honor and privlidge of attending the Silver Anniversary Celebration for Troop 280. (Though the troop was founded in March of 1977, what can you say, the current SM is an English teacher.) In 1999 I was elected to be an ordeal candidate. I completed the ordeal in spring of 1999. The next year I joined a ceremonies team, became a Brotherhood member in spring, and took on my first chapter committee chairmanship, and became chapter vice-chief before the year was out. In 2001 I served as chapter treasurer, then vice-chief, and finally chief, as well as a Lodge committee chairman. In fall 2001 was elected to be and took office on January 1st 2002. On December 31st my term expired. In early 2003 I recieved the Vigil Honor and again became a Lodge Committee Chairman. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I have had: 5 years as a Cub Scout 6.5 years as a Boy Scout 2 years as a Scouter. All totaled I have had something like 13 years and 3 months in Scouting. (August 1990 - November 2003.) So for at least 65% of my life I have been doing Scouting stuff. Actually, that isn't quite right. At some point Scouting stopped being something I did. Scouting became part of who I am. (This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Well I really do learn something new every day. I had never heard of such a thing before. Now I know that they are. Here is a question- What in the world do you need those for at a summer camp? I can't imagine wanting MORE heat during summer camp.

I don't think there is any problem with females on camp staff, generally speaking. There can be problems related to female camp staff. If females are hired because they are females, or to provide girls to keep the boys on staff from getting lonely, that would not be a good thing. However, if the female is the most qualified person for holding the postition at Scout camp, then I see no reason not to have them. (As long as facilities and such allow for it.) In fact it would be great if we could replace some of the so-so staffers with top notch staffers of either gender. I am a bit concerned about using female youth as staff at a boy scout camp. That always seemed a bit odd to me. At a Venturing camp, or a Venturing area in a regular scout camp, it would be perfectly natural. On the other hand to change the camp staff Troop into a staff Crew just to have female youth staff at the Boy Scout camp in Boy Scout program areas is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. The only other problem with female staff is that the immature campers (and staff) often do stupid things to get the female's attention. Others preffer just to make very crude and derogatory jokes about the females on staff. Those things aren't the fault of the females, but can be a by-product of their presence.

The reason we have problems with 3 to a tent is all the gear. Each Scout seems to bring a duffel full of stuff at least half their own size. Plus 3 presents greater opportunity for personality conlfict. It just isn't an optimal situation. Now, for backpacking the packs stay outside so no issue with gear in the way. When we have odd numbers we handle it one of two ways. If the odd number is with the group of younger scouts we go 3 to a tent. If the odd number involves older Scouts, they have the option of one tenting alone. I don't really see this as a buddy system problem because the older Scout is still within spitting distance of the other members of the patrol. (usually just a few feet away)

This could get a bit off track. Sorry. DS, what is wrong with "The Great Southern Region"? oh, is the BSA website correct that current starting salaries are 32k ? Most of us in the volunteer ranks don't really know what anyone makes. We generally are lead to believe that new DEs get paid worse than teachers (which would not be true in our area if that number is correct). We are also generally lead to believe that our council SE has a 6 figure income. No one really seems to know. That is just what rumor mill usually seems to think. Oh, and how much of a bad sign is it that the council has gone from 8 DEs, an assist SE, and SE, to 6 regular DEs, one Learning for Life DE, and the SE in just a couple of years? (These are permanent reorganization things, not temporary vacancies.) That seems to be a somewhat bad sign of things, especially since we all keep hearing rumors of mergers. -------------------------------------------------- Oh, and back to the Venturing issue. I would certainly like to see Venturing grow. Though it seems to be growing at the expense of the Boy Scout program in some cases. (Not all cases, just some.) That I do not favor. I would like to see all three major programs (does Varsity Scouting actually have a purpose anymore? are there any Varsity Scout Teams anywhere? I don't know of one.) grow. However, I am biased towards the BS program. My personal least favorite change of a BS troop into a Venturing Crew is our council summer camp staff. It exists as a Crew only, not a Troop. That seems very strange for a Boy Scout camp. It also causes the staff troubles because many need new uniforms just to serve on staff. The story seems to be that staff wanted to set themselves apart from the campers a few years ago and decided that being Venturers would do it. It also had the advantage of allowing female youth to serve on staff. Generally I am protective of the BS program. I see giving away some of the traditional BS activities to cubs to be an undermining of the program. If there are less new things for a BS troop to offer there are less reasons to bridge over. While cub scouts is a great program it can not have the level of effect on individuals boys that the BS program can, in my opinion. Also, in communities with a small number of Scouts, Venturing might be good for those that become involved in it, but it could still be bad for the program. If people leave the troop to join a crew (yes, I know they could do both, but many wouldn't), then there are no older youth to act as mentors and leaders to younger Scouts. That causes a vacuum in the troop program. That vacuum will decrease the likely hood of younger Scouts remaining active. Maybe I just have a one track mind. I see the BS program as being the primary program of the BSA. All other programs are supplements, supports, or additions to it.

OldGreyEagle, My SM likes a simpler version of that same saying. He just goes with, "Semper ubi sub ubi." Apparently it was the actually his patrol moto for a while way back when. That is one of those perks of having a college English teacher as an SM. That and many whitty jokes, comments, come backs and the like. Few of the boys can ever match wits with him because of his excellent command of language. I was never a great student of Latin. I remember some bits and pieces of it and how to look up most of what I don't remember. I think I would be in deep trouble if I had to translate something of any complexity at this point.

I hate to accuse anyone of anything, or make claims about someone else's actions. However, I think it seems justified in this case. BSA is not doing a good job of explaining the patrol method and its current form of implementation. The blame goes to the pros, the volunteers, to everyone in the BSA in a leadership role. Certainly some people, programs, places have the system working fine and are teaching it well. That seems to be far from universal. Back when I was first elected to be SPL I went out and got as much information on how the troop was supposed to function as I could. I studied the BSA Handbook, the Junior Leader Handbook and whatever else I could find. My conclusion based on my studies was that patrols were supposed to be semi-mixed age. Not a patrol with 12 year olds and 17 year olds. Patrols with enough difference in skill level and age so that members of the patrol are capable of teaching at the basic level to other less experienced members of the same patrol. I understood the NSP to be a temporary home for the new scouts until they moved into a permanent patrol. I also understood that the Venture Patrol was more of an optional older Scouts patrol. While I do not doubt that Bob White and others are correctly representing the BSA program, I think that the average adult leader would disagree about some aspect of the patrol method and its implementation. This is not an indictment of those advocating BSA policy, it is a charge against the training system and those that do not actively seek training. I think BSA is right that patrols should be of similar age. That doesn't mean the same age. Patrols could easily contain at least a 2 year age difference without serious problems. If you were to look at the system in a somewhat flexible rather than rigid method (not picking and choosing BSA policies, but adopting to local conditions) the NSP would cover the scouts until about 11.5 years, then regular patrols until some time after 14 when they could choose to join a Venture patrol. Those advocating a 3 tiered patrol system, and those advocating that basically a cub den turns into a patrol that stays together through Scouting, are both going to end up with patrols made up of boys of similar (though not necessarily the same) age. I think many of the differences of opinion expressed here are due more to the format than the content. The limits of forums and the limits of language are getting in the way. Different people are saying the same thing in a differnt way and causing confusion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK. Now I have a practical test to see how you think a troop/patrol system should be organized. Yes, I know the boys choose their own patrol. However, adult leaders must guide those decisions. In my troop there are currently 16 youth. (gained 6 new Scouts one week, lost the JASM the next [but gained an ASM]) There are 10 Scouts approx 14-15 years old, that have been in the troop for several years. Currently I believe 4 are life, 5 star, and one first class. All of this group are within a year and a half of being the same age. Five of the new Scouts just joined from Webelos. One new Scout is just slightly younger than the older boys, but is just joining Scouting. The troop is likely to gain another new scout from Webelos in the next few weeks. In spring another Webelos den may bridge with an unknown number. So, what would be the optimal method of arranging these boys? If the older boys are split into 2 patrols there are not enough in each patrol to really be able to operate independently due to less than 100% participation in meetings and outings. If the older boys are placed in one patrol there are too many for the normal patrol size. It would seem that the younger Scouts are a no brainer, but the one older new Scout presents a problem. He is a older than the other new Scouts, but is still in the same place advancement wise. If the suggestions provided seem to make sense I will gladly forward them to the SM next time I am in touch with him.

yeash! That sounds like it was about a thunderstorm and an injury away from being an unmitigated dissaster. I hope that was either a very bad weekend for the troop, or you can find a different troop that has its act together. Good luck on your search for a quality unit. (and no, I don't mean one with the patch and ribon, though that is something to look for)

Eamonn, Someone would have to be nuts to think what you are trying to do is bad. So long as you are filling positions with people capable of doing them, you sound like you are right on target. It would be great if there was no need for people to fill multiple positions within Scouting. However, I think we all know that is sometimes necessary to get the job done. So while it may not technically be allowed to be a unit leader and a unit commissioner, there are times that is necessary to get the job done. The same could be said of any number of other situations. If you make delivering a quality program to the boys priority one I can't see how you could go very far astray.

I guessed that you probably had some work around for that. I was just giving you a little virtual elbowing in the ribs. I think you are spot on about smaller numbers being quieter. However, I have to wonder why it is even a problem. I know in my troop everyone just understands that 2 is what works best. Most of the Scouts have had the experience of being stuck in a tent with 3, and everyone's gear, and doesn't want to repeat it. Though for backpacking I think the troop has been going 3 to a tent lately, since the gear stays out of the tent, and weight is an issue. Oh, we use the Eureka Timberlines. I think they are the older Outfitter 4 model. (before the hi/low ventalation system was added) Those tents all smell funny but they keep you dry if you set it up right. Only time I have ever gotten wet was in Canada after a long rain storm. The water came up through the floor because one edge of my ground cloth was sticking out and collecting water. D'oh!

OK, whoever hijacked Bob White's account should go ahead and turn himself in. We all know that Bob White would never make a Troop rule, since all needed rules are in the program as is. Sorry, I just really counld't help myself.

The committee members must set a good example to the troop. The CC should certainly wear the uniform to set an example to both the youth and adults. (Imagine the chairman of the board showing up without a suit, same mental image for a CC out of uniform.) Any committee members that work with youth should also wear the uniform. If a committee member only goes to committee meetings and the youth (including their children) don't see them going to a Scout meeting without uniform, well, not much harm done.

I just have to second what has been said. The person should wear the uniform of the position they are performing. If that is somehow not possible wearing their primary position uniform would be a reasonable second choice. The most recent uniform inspection sheats actually make the point about shoulder loops that everyone should wear the loops for the position they are performing at that moment. So the COR always wears silver loops? Our COR is also the district advancement chair, does that make any difference? Our COR is also a committee member (he was an ASM), would he wear silver loops at troop meetings? Some clarification on this would be useful. It seems that the COR represents the CO and unit(s) to the district, not the district to the CO/unit(s), so wearing silver loops at unit functions seems odd.

Gettysburd is great. I went there with my troop back in '97 while we were heading up to Baltimore, DC, and a visit to Jambo. There is something awe inspiring about the place. It is beyond my ability to explain, but it is plain that it is hallowed ground. Have a good time (and if you go into town, don't worry about the constant sirens, it is nothing.)

Here is what is probably a dumb question... Can you be registered in multiple councils at the same time?

I will give my date of birth, but it will require some work to convert it as this hasn't been the standard form for giving dates in quite a few centuries. DIES MARTIS A.D. XVIII KAL. OCT. MMDCCXXXVI A.U.C. That should leave most of the members of the forum in the dark. Now for a date that is of equal importance for Scouting purposes for me: My Eagle Board of Review: (in a more modern system than above) Dies Iovis xxxi Januarius MMII For anyone who happens to be an expert in the Classics, keep the translations to yourself. Hopefully those are converted correctly. I am trusting my references and memory to be correct. Oh, and for those that really must have things in Arabic numberals (ack! no! spare me from the anti-Arabic numeral axe! [my most sincere apologies, that was a high school Latin class related inside joke]): 20(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

oh come on, I think you can give FOG a break... It is not the adults job to give the youth something to do. While it is often a good idea to provide some ideas, it is up to the youth to act on them. That is one of the elements of being boy run. As adult leaders or job is to set up the buffet, explain the options, maybe make a few suggestions, and then get out of the way and let the boys eat. We don't spoon feed them. A couple of years ago I was asked to help organize and lead the planning process for the next years troop calendar. I talked some about things we had done in the past and let them make some choices about the general form of troops activities. When they decided they wanted to take a big summer road trip, I gave them a few suggestions that I had discussed with some of the other adult leaders (to determine what was possible that summer). The boys narrowed it down to two options and asked me to explain each one in greater detail. So I pulled the itteneraries from the last trip to each of those locations and gave them a detailed description of the activities for each trip. They chose to go to Canada. They nearly duplicated the trip I had taken a few years before. They made some changes based on what they liked to do. Other changes were needed for logistical purposes. The adults gave them some suggestions and advice, the boys made the decision, then they youth and adults worked together to make it happen. Another example from a different point of view... At summer camp the SM brought along a nerf football, a couple of frisbees, and a giant rubber ball. During free time he would offer these to the Scouts. He didn't force anyone to go play frisbee golf, or kick ball. He just offered them the opportunity. If your units outings consist of the adults telling the kids "we're going to the state park this weekend" and then when you get there the adults tell the kids "we are going on a hike", I don't think I would want to join that unit. (No, I don't really think anyone here does that. I do think everyone has a tendancy to take an extreme interpretation of the comments of certain members of this forum.) Oh, and what is so bad about a game of five card or blackjack? If there is no betting going on I don't really see the problem. Perhaps you would be more in favor of rummey, or bridge? Perhaps only skills based games are ok. So lets go play frisbee golf. Oh, but wait, there is an element of chance because the winds may change. I guess we can't do that either. Sorry, I am having some fun at others expense, but I think I may have made a point.

Obviously you need a good program to keep those that show an interest coming back. However, all the program in the world won't get you any new members if no one outside the unit knows about it. I would say the key thing is to develope some type of relationship with the cub units in the area. Optimally your SM or an ASM would make periodic contact with the pack leaders in the area to keep lines of communication open and your unit would provide den chiefs to some webelos dens to develope contact with the individuals. At the very least you should work with the leaders of the webelos dens in your area to get them to do the Arrow of Light requirements that involve a troop to be with your unit. Doing some type of bridging ceremony can be a major plus. However, by the time the of the bridging ceremony they will probably have chosen to join or not join. This mainly helps the new scouts and parents feel appreciated. Those are just my thoughts. They aren't based on any sort of consistent good recruiting program, because I have yet to see such a thing. There a good year and bad years for recruiting as far as I can tell. Extra efforts can help, but it doesn't provide any certainty.

I am glad to see that my throwing gas into the fire didn't cause it to explode. Incorrect/incomplete uniforms are a problem in most units. I know it is a problem in my troop. My troop has 10 scouts that are life or star, maybe two of them have proper uniform on a regular basis. It was hard to tell the difference between the uniforms of those 10 experienced scouts and the 6 new ones last time I was arround. (this weekend) Somehow we have fouled up over the last 8 years. Back in '95 you didn't go into a board of review for advancement without complete uniform. Now most of the scouts couldn't put together a complete uniform if they had to. Oh, side issue- Hats in buildings & churches I have become convinced that (unless building rules or religious rules prevent it) Scouts should wear headgear as part of the uniform indoors. I have seen quite a few photos and illustrations from the older handbook that supports this idea. The fact that headgear is a part of the uniform also indicates that the uniform is incomplete without headgear. However, I generally have not been wearing hats indoors with the uniform, because so many other Scouts and scouters are convinced that everyone should remove headgear indoors. It is just too much effort to have to stop and explain my reasoning every five minutes to someone suggesting I remove my hat. I know that most of society removes headgear in church, and often indoors in general. I wonder if perhaps the push to remove headgear comes from the vets in Scouting. It is generally the military custom to remove headgear indoors (with certain exceptions).

well, it seems my relief was short lived.... Here is an article I ran across today. It is from the Roman Catholic publication Crisis. It is published by Deal Hudson. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good News, Bad News CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter November 14, 2003 ********************************************** Dear Friend, I've got two things I want to bring to your attention... I'll start with the bad news. As you probably already know, the Episcopal church in America (ECUSA) recently appointed an openly practicing homosexual as the bishop of New Hampshire. Bishop V. Gene Robinson has been the center of a firestorm in the ECUSA and the greater Anglican church around the world -- some communities are officially severing ties with the ECUSA because of this decision, and many people are wondering if full schism isn't far down the road. Still, Bishop Robinson and his supporters have defended the decision, saying that the church needs to be open to everyone, not just a select few who accept "outdated" teachings about homosexuality. Bishop Robinson feels that this is a sign of God's work in the church, helping people feel welcomed and free to speak their mind about their personal beliefs. This is all pretty ironic, given what happened last week in England... Apparently, the Right Rev. Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican bishop of Chester, said in an interview with a local newspaper, "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject -- that's in the area of psychiatric health." For daring to express his quite reasonable views, Forster has been accused by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) of making "offensive" and "scandalous" remarks that others feel could incite violence against homosexuals. Martin Reynolds, the communications director of the LGCM, said, "These are irresponsible remarks that could inflame latent homophobia." But it gets worse. You see, the local police are now investigating Forster to determine if his comments amount to a criminal offense under England's hate crime laws. Even if one disagrees with the bishop's analysis of treating homosexuality, it's his position -- and the position of historic Christianity -- that homosexual acts are disordered. Should he be denied his right to say so publicly? And what about the LGCM and other groups who push so hard for "equality" and "inclusion" in the Anglican church? If Bishop Robinson is allowed his say, why isn't Bishop Forster? Look, honest efforts to ensure that homosexuals are protected equally under the law is one thing; encroaching on the rights of others -- where now even disagreement could be made a criminal offense -- is quite another. "Equality for me but not for thee" now seems to be the rallying cry for gay activists. It's small comfort that this blatant disregard of civil rights is occurring in the UK and not in the U.S. (not yet, anyway). But with the continuing success of gay activists in this country, we're not far behind. As sobering a thought as that is, I do want to give you some good news to balance it out. Last week, while I was speaking at my alma mater, the University of Texas, Austin, several students alerted me to the following... Planned Parenthood recently began construction on a new abortion facility in Austin, making it the fourth licensed abortion provider in the city. When local pro-lifers got wind of the plan, they flooded the contractor's office with calls and complaints about the project, saying that working with Planned Parenthood would hurt Browning Construction's business with pro-life companies. The result? Browning pulled out of the project and construction came to a halt. Predictably, some were furious. Former mayor of Austin, Bruce Todd, called it "economic blackmail." Actually, Mr. Todd, it's called freedom in action. Browning is free to work for Planned Parenthood, and pro-lifers are free to take their business elsewhere. Insisting that the contractor has the right to work for Planned Parenthood but should be spared from any backlash or criticism is rank hypocrisy... The same kind of hypocrisy that demands "tolerance" for homosexuality while showing only intolerance for those who object to it. It seems that if you're a faithful Christian these days, you need to get used to the double standard. I hope you have a restful weekend. I'll talk to you next week. Deal --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That out to throw some fuel on the fire. Now if you express an opinion, even if it is in the context of religion, it is a hate crime. The world has been turned upside down. We are now more worried about people's feeling than rights to speech, and more worried about perceptions of bias by judges than either history or freedom or religion. What is next? Now, I am personally opposed to ANY "avowed homosexual" or practicing homosexual from being an adult leader in BSA. It simply creates far too many problems. Perhpas someday if society has reached a more complete understanding of such issues, and comes to a conclusion favorable to homosexuals, it could be reconsidered. However, allowing youth to be members is another story. If a youth has let it be known that they are attracted to members of the same sex, should they be removed for that alone? There are obvious issues for either a yes or no. Reasons for yes: rejection by other parents rejection by other scouts charter org related problems general community standards problems increased likely hood of a incident involving other youth (percevied or real) difficulty with such things as camp or events staff Reasons for no: this is who BSA is serving, the youth, they should try to shape his values in a positive way, not get rid of him for being deviant I know in my community there would be a great unease attached to any situtation involving a homosexual youth. The charter org might or might not allow it. The community at large would have mixed feeling at best. Many parents would worry about their children being exposed to a deviant, or risk or some sort of inapropriate activity. Many scouts would be unwilling to share tents, latrines, showers or other situations with minimal privacy/supervision with such a scout. The accomodations issue is the greatest one involving admitting homosexual youth from a practical standpoint. Aren't men's and women's facilities seperate for reasons beyond just the anatomy being different? It seem feeling "secure" in your surroundings is a significant issue. How secure would other scouts be if they had to share a shower with a homosexual scout? There can be no good answer to the homosexual issue in scouting. There are many imperfect answers. BSA chose one of them.

I think you all missed my central point about Moore. He took an Oath to uphold the constitution of the state of Alabama. He never took an oath to follow the federal court or to follow the US Constitution. If you held Moore's position on the role of God in laws of Alabama(which seems to be backed by parts of the Alabama constitution), how could you uphold your Oath and follow the court order? I don't think it would be possible. Perhaps the federal court should consider reviewing the Alabama Constitution to see if it is Constitutional. Also, who has control of the state judicial building that the monument was placed in? If control over decorations and the like is given to the chief justice he would have been within his right to at least attempt to place anything he wanted within the building. I should also note that the creation of this monument and its installation was carried out using private funding. No public funds were in any way used. It did sit in a public building. That is all. The monument did contain other documents. Its stated purpose was to inform visitors to the court of the role of religion in our legal tradition. I think that Judge Moore would have been prudent to follow the federal court order. Though he would have made a liar of himself if he did. I think if I was in his position with his beliefs I would have done exactly the same thing. (Though I might have been smart enough not to place a 5000 lb monument in the Rotunda.) We must also remember that Judge Moore was elected by the people to his position. He was well known for the display of the ten commandmants in his other court houses and it was a large part of what got him elected. He was then removed by a special court on ethics violations. To state that the attorney general was against him is only partially correct. The attorney general's Oath required that he take action against Moore, weather he agreed or not. Pryor made it clear early on that he thought Moore should have been able to keep his monument in place. Only after the federal court ruled did Pryor have to take on Moore in order to uphold his oath of office. I don't think anyone would argue that the Judeo-Christian heritage of this nation is critically important to an understanding of the basis of our system of government. If one were to look at our system of government from a Hindu or Druid historical/social/legal/philisophical perspective it would lead to very different conclusions about how the laws originated, why they exist, and what they mean. The question of the commandments alienating someone is interesting. I ask this- If you know that the Judge held those positions would it really matter if he used 5000 lbs of stone to express them? Or what if you knew the Judge was a former abortion doctor, could he make a fair decision about abortion rights? Perhaps if the Judge displayed a monument celebrating Greek and or Roman philosophy those of from cultures that don't share in the Western philosophical heritage would feel they might be unfairly treated.

Brace yourselves for your daily break from reality. ------------------------------ As I am certain most of you know, the chief justice of the Alabama supreme court was removed for violations of the code of judicial cannons. I find this case to be an interesting one. I think the outcome was entirely predictable, and the appeal will find the same outcome. I do have pitty for Judge Moore. It is rare that someone is punished in this country for doing what they truelly believe to be right. I happen to believe that the Judge does believe he did the right thing. He may very well have a point. His oath of office is to uphold the Constitution of the State of Alabama. That constitution makes clear reference to God and His role in our system of government. So it seems the judge was damned if he did or damned if didn't in this case. If he had followed the federal court ruling he would have violated his oath of office by denying the role of God in government. In this case, he refused to follow the order and was punished for violating a federal court order. (Actually he was punished by an unusual state court for violation of judicial ethics. [does anyone know if those cannons even have the full force of law?]) While we could debate the proper role of God in government until the proverbial cows come home, that would seem to be a waste of time. I base that assesment on old threads and the attitutes (mostly hopelessly stuborn, unable to even see opposing views) shown in those threads. Though that same assesment tells me that won't stop anyone from going there. We could also debate the issue of federal supremecy over the states. However, that issue would likely end up just as stuck as that over God. Though I imagine that won't hold anyone back. So, what I would instead like to discuss, is the issue as it relates to Judge Moore. Given his views, did he do the right thing? Would any of us be so compelled by an Oath as he was? Is someone with his views capable of acting as a judge, or even a lawyer? Can anyone of true faith be a judge? Does acknowledging, and attempting to follow, a law higher than that of any government create a conflict with the current goverment in the nation? What does it say about a nation created by those who wished to be able to hold the beliefs of their choosing, becomes a nation where some beliefs cannot be expressed if one wished to be one of the ultimate arbitars of worldly law and justice in this land? I think the verdict in this case was well timed. At the same time it was released, the US Senate was in a 30 hour session over Judges. It seems the role of God is also related to the Senate's current gridlock. So the role of God, the courts, and judges seems to be a paramount issue at the moment. Yet, most people seem to be ignoring these issues. Do people not realise the importance of the debates going on and the decisions being made? The very future of the nation is decided by such things. I think if people realised the implications of all that is going on there could very well be an uprising of sorts. The last great battles over federalism, state's rights, the role of religion in society, the rule of law v. the rule of man, the balance of power in the goverment, and the origin of our laws are all being fought one small overlookable skirmish at a time. If the populace realised where the battle lines are, and the stakes involved in victory or defeat, I think it would be both great and terrible what would then happen. (That assumes people still care. Most seem to have been coaxed into appathy, the most destructive of all feelings.) There is cold war going on in this country. It is a war between two religions, two cultures, two societies, and two types of politics. It is fought not by the zealots of each side, but rather by the vast army of moderates who have been convinced to champion one cause or another. Then as soon as that battle is won, that verdict issued, that law passed, another cause will be promoted by another of the proxy warriors in this cold war. Most of these moderate proxies for the polar opposite cultures that are warring don't even know the full aims of the hard liners on their side. So far history shows a general, but very slow trend towards, one side. That side to me appears to be the known by such myriad and conflicting titles as: leftists, liberals, socialists, secularists, ultramodernists, globalists, social-anarchists, centralizers, environmentalists, animal-rights groups, class warriors, judicial activists, fascists, communists, moral-relativists, non-traditionalists, aethists, agnostics, special interests, Perhaps there is no single guiding motive of these groups. Though they all seem to share in common one element. They all wish to chip away at, or destroy, or remake what we have into something we do not have now, nor have we ever had before. None wish to hold to traditions. Most are willing to sacrifice some of what is good about the past for some percieved better in the present, with no thought of the future. There are days I truelly wonder if there is anyone left in goverment that is using reason, and common sense. Everyone seems to have their agendas. Some to create protected little special groups with extra protections. Some want to keep their neighbors from parking an RV in their own driveway. Some want central control of this, that, or the other program. Others wish the goverment would get rid of its laws because it interfears with their right to have drug fuled orgies while their children are home. Yet others think that all would be well if they could just stop pollution, no matter the social and economic costs. Some want to turn our schools into madrassas. Others want to tear apart even the war memorials to remove God from the public square. There are those who think that judicial ethics or cannons of conduct for lawyers are more important than the law itself. (There has been at least one case of a lawyer who was disbarred for reporting child abuse as required by law, but in breach of attorney client privlidge.) Why is it that so many people want to turn this house we live in upside down, or inside out, or repaint it, or add an extra room, or tear it down and build a new one? It seems to me we have a pretty good house. Maybe I am just a nut. Perhaps I am the only person with my views. I don't fit into any of the nice neat little political molds that society has crafted. I am neither a true Republican or Democrat. I don't think I hold any extreme views, but then someone goes and says only radicals think such and such way. Yes, there would be advantages to being king. Then you would wouldn't have to worry what new idea all the lunatics would come up with. Instead, everyone else would have to worry about what you came up with. Or, maybe it would be better if we just all had our own little islands, so we wouldn't have to worry about it. ----------------------------------- OK. You can send the nice men with the white coat to take me away to the nice soft room now.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

FOG, you are right, members would have signed an application, so they should know. Though some of them may not have paid enough attention to what they signed. The bigger problem is people who think they are part of the committee but are not. This is mostly parents that attend the meetings when they are around and think it is actually a parents committee. NJ, Your first answer is what I expected. Your second is not. Thank you for your input. I don't really know the answer, I just remember a converstation about 3 or so years ago with a very reliable source.