Beavah

If there really are Dad and Lad weekends --ARRRRRRGH!!-- then by all means, send some other man. As mentioned, he simply cannot stay in the same tent with the youth. Yah, I've mentioned this before, but I put it out there again for yeh to think about. I think makin' a lad's adult partner who is being sent as a temporary guardian by the parent sleep in a separate tent is dangerous and foolish. You're strainin' at gnats and swallowing camels. While tryin' to protect from liability you're actually increasing liability exposure. No rational man would find it inappropriate for Uncle Fred or Grandpa Joe or who drove the lad one-on-one to the event to spend a night in a tent with him. No injury would reasonably be foreseeable from allowing that. But a rational man might find it very unreasonable for a 2nd grader to be made to sleep in a tent by himself because you forbid him from sleeping with his grandpa, even though you found it appropriate and prudent for the other boys his age to sleep with a familial adult. The average person would look askance at leavin' a 2nd grader alone in the woods, or with just a peer. If something were to happen to that 2nd grader in the middle of the night - wander off, get attacked by a critter because he had candy, etc. - then I expect most folks would consider that "foreseeable harm." This is a case where stupidly followin' da guidebook substantially increases our exposure to risk. If approved by the parent/guardian, I'd strongly recommend yeh let Grandpa Joe tent with his grandson. Beavah

I think many of us on the side of Beavah forget that not everyone has or uses common sense. Some are power driven, some are vindictive, some are just plain stupid and that can create problems... Yah, this is true, eh? And it does happen every now and again in Scoutin', though far less often than people seem to be claimin'. Scouters are good people, and care about kids. Most of the "this man is stupid and vindictive" stuff comes from adults who have a different vision (ex. helicopter parents, Daddy_O's race to Eagle, etc.). If we're lookin' for a solution to leaders who make bad decisions occasionally, good luck. We all make bad decisions from time to time. No policy will change that. If we're lookin' for a solution to truly poor leaders, it's find better leaders. No policy will ever help. If we're lookin' for leaders who always agree with us on their approach, good luck. No policy will help. Dat requires cloning, eh? -------- The registrar evaluates 2 students who have successfully completed the same coursework (at the same U), and tells one to go take another class, and approves the second for graduation. Not what we're talkin' about. Da proper question would be whether the registrar at Harvard would accept the graduation requirements for Podunk, or even Yale. Answer: No. Or a professor gives Mary an A with 87% and Billy a B with 88%. Because Billy wasnt active in the class Happens all the time. Bein' an active contributor to the class is a graded expectation in many college classes, especially in ones which require performance. Seminars more than lectures, of course, but in da BSA we don't do lecture. My point is this is a slippery slope. I think we're mixing up two different things. Is it OK for different troops to have different expectations? That's like different families havin' different curfews, or different colleges havin' different graduation requirements. Second is whether we modify our approach for different kids. That might be havin' the same required classes but changin' expectations a bit within those. Yeh haven't said, Daddy_O, but do yeh have more than one kid? Most parents find that it's necessary to ski that slippery slope, eh? Because much to our surprise, our kids are different. What worked for one doesn't work for da other. George is bright and lazy, he gets grounded if he doesn't get A's; Melissa struggles but works hard, she gets praised for B's. Lovin' 'em the same sometimes means treatin' them different. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hi gutterbird, Good on yeh for bein' thoughtful. Here's a question to ask yourself: how much sleep did yeh get on the campout? Seems like I often see a connection between da sleep adults get and whether or not their patience meter expires. Beavah

I'm feelin' argumentative today. I want pi.

It should be like college. Follow the syllabi. Check your progress in the published legally-binding catalog. Complete your required courses and a smattering of electives and you graduate. LOL. Do yeh really think there's any standardization of expectations between college professors and different classes? Or different colleges? Yeh must be jokin'! Da primary issue isn't inconsistency within a troop, eh? It's differences between troops. Usin' the college analogy, what you're arguin' is that da expectations of Harvard should be da same as Podunk Community College. Nuthin' wrong with Podunk CC, but one size fits all means it's da expectations of PCC that will prevail, eh? Same with Scoutin'. One size fits all means da absolute minimum, because that's what everyone can meet. So we get active=registered. Me, I like havin' a diversity of different colleges and universities with different expectations to serve a diverse bunch of kids. Judgin' by da way the rest of the world flocks to our universities, I'd say it's a model that works. B

Sigh. So we can try it da long way. Yes, you're OK with that. As long as you can ensure that da Pro-Life OB/GYN that she wants to see is no longer practicing medicine, and therefore she doesn't have access to a doctor that she is willing to see. Sounds like denying access to me. For da rest, yeh know as well as I do that there's no authoritative source of data for da religion of medical practitioners in different fields. But da approximation seems pretty reasonable. From da U.S. Census bureau 2007 estimates: Catholic 23.9% Mormon 1.7% Orthodox 0.6% Muslim 0.6% Pentecostal4.4% Baptist 17.2% Adventist .5% Lutheran 1.6% (Missouri or Wisconsin synod) Total 50.5% of da U.S. population self-identifies with denominations which view abortion as murder and feel pretty strongly about it. Hmmm... my guess was pretty close, eh? Gallup shows 76% of Catholic respondents agree with their church's position on abortion. Much higher than da percentages that agree with other sexual issues. Assumin' da same percentage for other denominations, that's 38% of da population. Even if dat's an overestimate, it's still what anybody would call "significant", eh? Besides, is it OK if we oppress a small group of religious people? Beavah

The consequences that I am thinking about have nothing to do with abandoning their faith or conversion. Yah, I know that you're not thinkin' about those consequences, eh? Because you don't care about 'em. But they exist nonetheless. It would be great if there were never any negative consequences of da policies we want. Sadly, that's as likely as a perpetual motion device. They have a simple choice. It might be a tough choice but that's something we all have to face in life. Convert or lose your livelihood? Not unless we're livin' in Saudi or in some other century. Really? Do you have those numbers available? I'm interested. What percentage of physicians and health care workers do they represent? My guess is that they approximate da percentages in the general population. Muslims, faithful Christians, Catholics... 50%+. The ones who will be punctilious or uncomfortable? Some fraction of that. Sheldonsmom made a choice based on HER personal needs. I'm ok with that. No you're not, because you'd make sure that she wouldn't have a doc who shared her beliefs for her to go to. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Merlyn, it's just fine to speculate on da legality, eh? Honesty demands that we admit that such a case has not been tried by a precedent-setting court. B

I'd like to understand where it is that I said the above is what I believe. Right here: In the meantime, if a doctor wants to be paid with my tax dollars, he should be ready to take the consequences if he denies treatment. In other words, the government should be permitted to force Catholic OB/GYNs to abandon their faith and convert to your way of thinking or lose their career and livelihood. That's what we call economic coercion and discrimination. You think that's fine, because you're not a Catholic and excommunication or forced conversion from Catholicism doesn't bother you

Either we follow the actual official requirements or else we're going to have nonsense like this. Nah, packsaddle, I reject this false dichotomy like da others yeh seem to like to create. That same notion of "da actual official requirements" is used when someone wants to justify minimalistic nonsense like active=registered or sayin' "we don't have a patrol flag" counts for describin' the patrol flag. Fact is, it ain't possible to write requirements or policy clearly enough to prevent abuse in either direction. So rather than strivin' for clarity, simplistic or otherwise, why not just strive for helpin' boys become good men? If we teach people to focus on helpin' kids grow instead of on writin' pages of policy language, then I reckon most good folks will avoid both the POR spreadsheet formula and the serve-actively = wear a patch stuff. Leastways, folks like that represent about 90+% of the scouters I know. Then yeh approach da few who cling to the arbitrary extremes. But yeh don't use "don't add to / subtract from the requirements!" because that isn't the point. Rather yeh use "what's the best choice for this boy and this group of boys to help 'em grow?" Seems far more sensible. Beavah

of course I have never said that public schools "ought to be able to discriminate against atheists." Yes, you have. Liar, liar, pants on fire! I'm feelin' like breakin' into a refrain of "Here we go round the Merlynberry bush!". Or perhaps Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins singing "Feed the Trolls, tuppence a bag!" Yah, Merlyn, the BSA advised councils not to encourage public school charters and took steps to move those charters to churches and community groups so as to protect our public school partners from the expense of silly litigation. By and large it didn't change how units operated a lick, so why not avoid the expense so da likes of you can claim a pyrrhic victory. Can a public school still choose to charter a BSA unit? Sure. Beavah

Beavah, I consider you yourself to be bigoted because you continue to say that public schools ought to be able to discriminate against atheists by chartering BSA units that exclude atheists. Which again says a lot about the person doing the labeling, but not very much about the person being labeled. I suppose I should now shout "Liar liar pants on fire!" like a three year old because of course I have never said that public schools "ought to be able to discriminate against atheists." I have said that I am in favor of equal access and neutral treatment. Public schools should sponsor any co-curricular program that helps achieve their secular purpose for a segment of their students. They should welcome the B'nai B'rith Youth Organization if it helps their Jewish students establish a community and feel welcome and succeed at school, they should sponsor the Young Atheists if the organization helps in their mission of encouraging critical thinking skills, and they should sponsor the Boy Scouts if having a troop helps teach some of their students about citizenship, service, and character. Beavah

That doesn't prevent them from being labeled as bigoted organizations. Which says a lot about da bigotry of the labelers, but not much else. I don't think the B'nai B'rith Youth Organization is bigoted for not admitting Christians or atheists, though I'm sure someone with an anti-Jewish agenda would slap that label on them. Beavah

Beavah, for me the merit of the military approach was its clarity. Yah, packsaddle, and da main point of my post was that simplistic clarity isn't available in other disciplines where yeh aren't coordinatin' an assault on a hill. Da maintenance of children and families is a lot more nuanced and complex than da maintenance of an M-16, and they don't come with manuals. Da Army is about the only place yeh get that kind of simplistic clarity. Try this. Write a simple and clear set of rules for behavior in society. What did you get? If you're like any nation on da planet, you got at least forty books worth of codified statutes, at least 3 times that volume in regulations, and libraries full of case law and interpretations. Along with a whole professional class of people tryin' to interpret and apply those to a particular case. It's not (just) because lawyers and lawmakers are stupid. It's because da world is complex, and people are different, and the road to justice isn't always straight and clear. Simplistic clarity is a chimera anytime yeh get beyond "shoot the guy who is trying to shoot you." My position with respect to Boy Scouting advancement is pretty clearly expressed in da BSA Rules & Regulations, eh? In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration. Unfortunately, I'm sure you'll find that as unclear as my position with respect to human society - "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Just like the proper answer to Jews who wanted to join a club that was Restricted Yep, where da restriction is relevant in terms of expressive association. Yeh won't find any Jews in da Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and that's just fine. Yeh won't find any Christians in the B'nai B'rith Youth Organization either, eh? Beavah

You seem to be hung up on excommunications. The problem is that excommunication means NOTHING to me. That it means nothing to you is irrelevant. Excommunication means nothing to me, either. What's important is what it means to a Catholic. It means giving up his/her religion and community. That has all kinds of psychosocial consequences. More importantly, that is da definition of government coercion and forced conversion. Give up your beliefs or lose your job. That they've cared for thousands of patients successfully as an OB/GYN is irrelevant to you. They refuse to adopt your belief, and therefore should be deprived of their livelihood. And that is the principle being argued. You believe da government through regulation and economic discrimination should force people to renounce beliefs with which you disagree. In American jurisprudence, that has uniformly been considered "making a law respecting the establishment of religion..." Most of da rest of us support freedom of belief. Thanks for at least being refreshingly straightforward and clear about your intent. Though I ain't a Catholic or a Muslim, I promise I will always oppose your attempts to deprive my fellow Americans of liberty. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nope. There clearly are gays and atheists who want to join scouting. The BSA is keeping them out. There are clearly fundamentalist Christians who want to join LGBT support organizations and atheist groups in order to evangelize them. There are sometimes people who want to join yacht clubs just to get their hands on a valuable piece of waterfront property they can develop for condos. Da proper answer to all of 'em is "no." B

Merlyn, once yeh get over your sophomoric rant, you'll recognize da quote as a rhetorical device, and the claim made bein' exactly the same as the one I just posted which you do not deny. I'm goin' back to talkin' with packsaddle now, because you aren't worth the powder. No, they just have to provide the service. Nothing about that requires one iota of lost beliefs or so-called 'conversion'. Procuring or assisting in da procurement of an abortion is an automatic excommunication for a Catholic. Sure sounds like a lost belief or forced conversion to me. Give up your religion, or give up your livelihood. Yeh sure your name isn't Joseph? "...or give up that career..." That would be the physician's choice. If he chooses not to provide full access perhaps he SHOULD be doing something else. Once again, yeh haven't demonstrated how a physician's refusal to perform a procedure somehow causes a lack of "full access" to care. You've only demonstrated your willingness to confine people with religious beliefs different than your own to lower wage careers and reduced economic access. And you would deny full access to care to those with beliefs different than your own who want to be treated by a physician who shares their belief. Maybe because, like sheldonsmom, they don't trust others, eh (and for good reason)? You're happy to have fewer people seein' doctors so long as you can control da beliefs of the docs. That makes for sound public health policy, fer sure. Beavah

I guess I was influenced by the clarity of chain of command and the clarity of a well-written set of orders that I enjoyed working with the Army, but I saw that as something that usually worked well. Unwritten, nebulous, unclear, off-the-cuff rules that we make up on-the-fly don't work well. Worse, they can hurt young men needlessly. Yah, sure. Works if you're in da Army in combat. What would be a terrific error in logic is to assume that because it works there it works for raisin' children. Families where dad is the Brigadier General to his wife and kids don't fare too well. Teachers, coaches, counselors, mentors, outdoor education program leaders... artists, writers, scientists.... they don't do too well with da Army style either. If yeh really remember your Army time, I expect you'll also recall that few things are as "punishingly inane" as some of da Army bureaucracy. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Can't work on Sundays, can't work in any retail clothing (mixing fabrics and such). Must be tough on you, eh? Can't deal with people of different beliefs without resortin' to ridicule. I'm actually sympathetic to this idea if the physician clearly advertises up front that he will DENY full access to legal medical care. Nice spin. Of course, da last time I checked one physician can't "deny" full access to legal medical care, eh? Guess honest assessment ain't part of da scientific mindset. Sheldonsmom actually wanted a physician who shared her beliefs when confrontin' a medical problem where those beliefs were in play. You feel da government should deny access to da medical care she wanted, or perhaps da only medical care she was willin' to accept. Actually, Merlyn, what was posted was based on your past behavior and accurate. But we can give yeh da chance to clarify. Are you really sayin' that your position is not da same as DanKroh's? You wouldn't in fact say that if a physician or hospital accepts government money, they have to provide all authorized services to everyone? And that if they're a Christian and don't believe in providin' a particular service that they either have to give up their belief (aka "convert") or give up that career (since in many areas of medicine, private practice is unable to compete with da government)? In other words, you'd finance da opposition to the ACLU's suit in this matter? I can provide an address for organizations litigatin' the opposite side for yeh. Or was I actually right about your position, and not lyin' at all? B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I understand your point Beavah. However, in each of those cases, the provider of the service is imposing their morality on others. Morality is a code of ethics that one imposes on themselves, not others. No, yeh don't understand my point if you're raisin' this "imposing morality on others" bit of horse hockey. All these folks are doin' is imposin' their code of ethics on themselves. "As much as I love my job of providing excellent health care to women and others in need, I will not participate as an accessory to murder." Seems pretty straightforward. Where "imposing morality on others" comes in is when YOU use da State to tell them they cannot practice in their chosen profession because their morality is not the same as yours. Da primary role of OB/GYNs is to help women and kids, eh? There's nothing in that primary role which is incompatible with bein' a Christian. It's only incompatible because you think Christians and Muslims and others should not be permitted to be part of the profession that provides medical care for women and kids. All because you don't like their values on a small subset of procedures which aren't at all central to da profession. I suppose it's OK if da Christians and Muslims and Sikhs are custodians and sanitation workers, though, eh? Best to keep such pesky believers in da role of "untouchables". Only "our" people belong in da professions. Beavah

If I don't, I'm violating my agreement with the feds to provide medications to consumers. Wouldn't it be best for the Catholic pharmacists to not moralize with the customers. Nah, it would be best if da federal government was much smaller, so it was unable to set up a system where economic survival for a profession depended on followin' da government's intrusive rules. That is ripe for abuse no matter who is in power. What today is "if you want to be economically viable as a pharmacy you must fire Catholics" can tomorrow be "if you want to be economically viable as a pharmacy you can't hire atheists or democrats." Besides, what we're mostly talkin' about here is assisting in procedures which are viewed as murder, not pastrami sandwiches. Beavah, what you seem to be saying is that in order to avoid government repression of religious beliefs, you should be allowed to limit MY access to health care based on YOUR personal religious beliefs. Nah, not at all. My choosin' not to offer a service or have you as a client in no way impinges on your ability to go look for that service from someone else. I don't wash windows either, eh? If yeh want your windows washed, yeh go find someone who performs that kind of service. Attorneys decline cases for personal ethical reasons all da time. In fact, failure to decline representation can pose a conflict of interest because a lawyers judgment or loyalty to the client is compromised. Yeh don't really want an attorney who is conflicted as to his/her duty to represent you. Nor, if you think about it, do you really want a medical practitioner who is conflicted as to his/her duty to be performin' a procedure on you, eh? Just common sense. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Or change "Jew" to "Boating Enthusiast with no interest in airplanes" and "Restricted Club" to "Aviation Club for pilots". Same principles.

If I own a pharmacy and I have a pharmacist, who is Catholic, who refuses to dispense birth control to our customers, can I release him? Or do his morals trump the customers and mine? If I run a telemarketing firm, can I release the evangelical Christian who cannot engage a client without asking them if they've found Jesus? If I run a deli, will I have to make concessions because my Jewish clerk won't make my customers a BLT? Not da issue, Gern. Da issue is usin' the coercive power and economic clout of the government to repress a belief or viewpoint. These are all red herrings. Da proper analogies would be that the government tells you that your deli must serve Peking Duck if a customer asks for it (like telling a Catholic hospital it must perform abortions). Or that your Jewish clerk can't work in any deli. Because da government is giving certificates good for free sandwiches for life to almost all da customers provided they only use da certificates at delis that don't employ believing Jews. B

Ok - let's drop the phrase "adding to the requirements". Let's stop sugar coating it and start calling it what it really is: "Over-ruling the BSA". Because that's exactly what takes place - individuals, well-intentioned as they believe themselves to be, over-rule the policies and procedures of the BSA in order to what? Defend the virtue of the BSA? Prove that they have power? Prove that they're smarter than the BSA? Or perhaps to achieve da Aims of the BSA for a particular boy or circumstance, eh? I don't recall those Aims referrin' to teachin' lads legalistic parsing of words for da purpose of tryin' to get what you want through an adversarial system. Asking a boy to repeat da Scout Oath from memory or to explain the Scout Law in his own words at a BOR is "adding to the requirements" and illicit "retesting" of da Tenderfoot requirement by even the most rudimentary legal examination of da policies and documents. But expectin' a lad to be able to recite (shyness and nervousness aside) and explain the principles he claims to be livin' his life by is how we teach character. And Character is an Aim, where Policy Parsing and Argumentation are not. Da policies serve the Aims and the kids, not vice versa. Dat's my point, eh? The way some folks use "don't add to the requirements" really is overruling the BSA. I reckon if there is anything that merits attention in da BSA, it's that subtractin' from da purpose and intent of advancement requirements is vastly more prevalent. While it shortchanges kids and sabotages the Aims, it generates nowhere near the opprobrium that da "no adding" folks feel compelled to level over minutia. And sadly, I reckon scouters who invoke "no adding to the requirements" willy-nilly are da ones who both overrule the BSA's Aims and dismiss da "no subtracting from the requirements" expectation. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)