Beavah

Nah, Taserdoc, you're either misreading or misunderstanding BSA policy. There is no provision for "automatic" removal for what you fully admit is a non-sexual, non-criminal accusation of some vague "YPT violations". I think yeh also don't quite understand the role of the BSA council. It's not an investigative agency. Nobody at your council office has that skill or training. It's also not responsible for the leadership in each unit. That is the role and duty of the Chartering Partner, eh? To select and supervise the leadership of that Chartered Organization's troop. All the BSA council does is assist in an advisory role. So perhaps, hypothetically speaking, the complaints in this case have been hypothetically misdirected to the improper hypothetical organization. For the record, most of us here are long-time scouters, eh? Folks who also love the program and care deeply about each and every scout. I don't think anyone here is "siding" with anybody, since we don't know the people and they're hypothetical people anyways. What we're doin' is giving you our best guesses and advice based on the extremely limited information you've provided. To answer your question, no I would not say anything different if this was my own son. If he ever did cry "wolf" by implying an Orange-County like scenario when in fact it had nuthin' to do with sexual abuse at all, he'd be spendin' quite a bit of time out back of the woodshed. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

And we think that someone who is barred from being a member would send in an FOS donation...why? Well, shucks. I was barred from being a member of the GSUSA as a youth, and they pretty much make it clear that they're not interested in havin' male leaders, but I still end up buying Girl Scout cookies. I've given to lots of causes that wouldn't accept me as a member or that I wouldn't be qualified to participate in, from the Junior League to Doctors without Borders. Can't for the life of me imagining folks being so selfish as to only give to causes that would in some way benefit themselves, or only to causes that agreed with 'em 100%. Anyway, back to topic. As close as I can tell, Governor Romney is a fellow who will say whatever he thinks the person he's with at the time wants to hear, or the group he needs to please wants to hear. I figure the only thing that gives yeh a real sense of the man is when he commits his occasional slips while fielding a question he wasn't prepared for. Beavah

I remember reading maybe three months back from a women who desperately wanted her name removed from membership of the Catholic church Yah, hmmm... I have to say I'm in agreement with OGE. I hadn't realized the extent to which such ill-informed prejudice against Catholics was still a major undercurrent in da country. I don't know where yeh do your reading, moosetracker, but yeh seem to be primarily seeking out narratives that support your own personal biases, without even tryin' to develop a genuine understandin' of where the other folks are coming from. Don't reckon anybody online is goin' to change your approach, so about all we can do is shake our head and walk away in sadness. B

A safety geek just might identify and quantify this tidbit of info as part of the risk associated with homemade alcohol stoves and suggest other camp gadgets as alternatives. Yah, hmmm... Let's see... Make your own axes and saws. Always wanted to build my own propane-powered chainsaw. Make your own propane lantern or gasoline-powered space heater. Perhaps make your own PFD instead of wearin' one of those manufactured ones. And helmets! Don't forget make your own helmet. I know a fellow who has access to a full-on hydraulic metal press. That opens up things like making our own pots and pans. Especially when yeh figure we can mix in welding and lead solder . Then there are merit badges. Make your own rocket engine. Make your own airplane! Wire your own high-voltage circuit. Yep, Richard B is right. Lots more fun things out there that he hasn't yet prohibited! Yeh know, alcohol stoves are actually pretty straightforward, safe, and functional compared to the other things out there. I know one young lad who just got into it on his own at home from readin' old Boys Life issues. Would rather have had him doin' it with coaching and supervision, but he did fine. Da thing of it is, it's not keeping things away from kids that leads to safety, it's using reasonable tools to teach kids how to handle things. True safety depends on knowledge and experience, not on regulation, eh? And that's our mission Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

My point is it takes a lot to get kicked out of a unit. False accusation of a YP violation would likely do it. I don't reckon many scouters would be willing to take a lad like that out in the field again. Nor would I recommend it. B

And religions being called to task to by either their own congragation or other outside influences can be beneficial if the religion is open to listen and change. Catholics are slowly loosing their large membership, simply because fewer members are as observant as they use to be, and few young people want to take up that vocation. There it is. Right there. Thanks for admitting it, moosetracker. Yeh want the government to change the doctrinal beliefs of a religion, because you think it will be better for them to believe what you believe. That is the very definition of governmental tyranny that the framers of the Bill of Rights aimed to prevent. We'll leave off da fact that the Catholic population in the U.S. has been quite stable, while the population in more liberal Protestant denominations has declined substantially. B

Where does it end? Imagine the political party that yeh like and trust the least takes control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, with a solid 60 seats in the Senate. Imagine the "worst" of that party's partisans are in leadership positions in all three, and they have it for a full 10+ years, enough to really drive their agenda. It ends at the point where yeh feel there is enough respect for you, and enough checks in the system to protect your liberty and those of organizations and people that agree with you. A federal grant is a payment by the federal government to a private organization to provide some service. If I am buying a garage door opener from ScoutFish I don't get to tell him how much he must pay his employees or what kind of insurance he should buy on his truck. Da same should be true of a federal contract. The federal government is contracting with Catholic Charities to provide services to areas or groups that they would find it harder to reach. They should be evaluated on and receive money solely on the basis of how effectively they deliver those services. Just like me buying a garage door opener from ScoutFish. Imagine what things would be like if, as a condition of purchase, I could demand that ScoutFish comply with my ethical views in his entire company. Now yeh say he could turn me down as a customer, but that would only be true if he had enough other customers to stay in business. I expect right now his margins like everybody's are pretty tight. How many of the poor are payin' for their own social services, do yeh suppose, that Catholic Charities could rely on other income? And now, here's where it gets really creepy. If da federal government is the only one providing social services to the poor, with no other intermediaries/providers, how long do yeh suppose before funds start being "targeted" more toward those who agree with the party in power? The real question is if yeh allow the federal government this much power, where does THAT end? B

Good-Grief !! So these humanitarians, that are all about helping the sick and needy, are either not giving their employees health insurance, or very sub-par health insurance? Yah, moosetracker, I have to say that your bias toward one religious group is really uncomfortable, and, IMHO, inappropriate. Tampa Turtle said that they were concerned about the high cost of insurance. What employer isn't? He didn't say they were providing very sub-par health insurance. Around these parts the coverage provided is very sound. Not as gold-plated as the public employee unions get, but well better than "par." The reason why as a charitable employer that yeh worry about this stuff is the same reason government should worry about it - every dollar yeh spend on employee costs is a dollar that yeh aren't spending on service to those in the broader public you're trying to reach. If you're about service, that matters, eh? Of course if you're not about service and you're more about yourself and your staff, then it doesn't matter as much. Many states already required that the health plans in their state required contraception Yah, but if yeh read the news in detail, what yeh learn is that in each states there were very functional work-arounds or exceptions that religious institutions could use. Does the Catholic Church purchase any supplies from Walmart, Target, any drug stores or most grocery stores? That's irrelevant. There's a difference between buying a banana from a store that sells contraceptives and actually buying contraceptives yourself. A vegetarian can go to a grocer and buy produce without objection, but if they were forced to purchase meat that would be a different story. Remember, the Catholic health care institutions often run their own insurance pool, so they actually are the insurer that's purchasing the services. No, I just think it is a big stink being raised during an election year Huh? It's a big stink because now is when the regulation came out. The timing was determined by the administration. I will say that the timing baffles me, and shows the inexperience of da Obama administration. They're going' into Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of the health care mandate this spring, where they need to appear reasonable and win the swing vote(s). Why in the world would yeh come out with this right now? Yeh do realize that 2/3 of the Supreme Court are Catholics, and all da likely swing justices are? If yeh were to design a strategy to sabotage your own Affordable Care Act just to keep a few votes that you'd get anyways, yeh couldn't come up with a better one. I was giving Obamacare high likelihood of passing Supreme Court muster. Now, I'd say they're down to 50-50. It's about as boneheaded a political move as I've ever seen.

Yah, I think it was Godwin's law. Not a record for da forums by any means, though. Taserdoc, about the only thing I could get from all that was that a couple of scouts thought a couple of leaders yelled at them too much. Maybe used bad words or had 'em go clean the latrine "or else." That seems to be about da threshold where yeh see "bullying" complaints against unit leaders. Either that, or telling a kid that he's not ready to advance to the next rank yet. In court, there's this thing called "summary disposition". It happens in cases where there's no dispute about the facts of what happened, and so a decision can be rendered immediately just based on prevailing law. So my assumption would be that the complaint listed the facts, the scoutmasters when confronted did not dispute those facts, and the facts themselves did not warrant any public response. For example "Mr. Jones told us we were a pair of sh--heads for skipping out on our cleanup duties at the dining hall. He was really angry and we were scared. Then he took away all of our evening privileges which meant I couldn't get Astronomy MB which I needed for Life rank, and when I complained he threatened to send me home. I felt bullied." And Mr. Jones says "Yep, I called them sh--heads. I shouldn't have done that, but they had been making life difficult for all of the adult leaders for the whole week, and I got impatient. Yep, I sent them to their tents for the evening, and for the next day unless they got up early to go down to the dining hall for an extra work detail. Yep, I also told Joey if he kept it up I would call his dad to come get him, and there wouldn't be a refund of his camp fees. I was never one on one with them: Mr. Felps, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Bowdon all were there and witnessed the whole thing. I regret using the vulgar expression, but I believe I handled the rest of it appropriately." Multiple adult witnesses. No dispute as to the relevant facts. Easy to decide this was not in fact bullying or any form of crime. No need to go further. This stuff happens all the time. If yeh want anything else from us, you're goin' to have to give us more to go on, eh? But from what you're sayin', there's no crime involved here, and it doesn't even seem like there's any violation of BSA guidelines. Just a Scoutmaster or two who might not have handled a situation the best way possible. We've all been there. Beavah

Sigh. Packsaddle, are yeh really goin' to play this game? I thought better of yeh. The first post in the thread that went off da rails was yours on the bottom of Page 1, long before I ever joined in: "THREAT!!! You must understand the code being used here...the threat is from 'those fill-in-the-blank people', don't you know? They are going to infect our 'NOT fill-in-the-blank-people society'. 'Those people' could TAKE OVER!! " Now, yeh claim that wasn't hyperbolic but my statements were. I always understand that we tend to see in others a reflection of our own weaknesses, so I really don't mind. And I get that apparently yeh were anxious that I respond to you, when this is really a discussion with a lot of people and I thought moosetracker's claim was the one worth responding to. Sorry, but that's what happens when you're in a room with a bunch of people, yeh join the conversation that yeh find most interestin'. And it is, after all, moosetracker's thread. The glorous [sic] thing about the seperating [sic] church & state is the goverment [sic] rarely can force changes to religions That's the comment I responded to, eh? If yeh follow the news this week, yeh will have seen that the government is usin' the health insurance mandate to require Catholic employers to provide contraception. Doesn't matter if they don't get federal money. Doesn't matter if they're doin' their best to serve others. No exemption for conscience. The ACLU has a similar petition before the same regulatin' body to require abortion coverage and providing abortions. Now I'm not in agreement at all with OGE's church's view on contraception, eh? But that isn't the point. It's a long-held tenet of their faith that dates back to the first century. It isn't irrational or oppressive; at it's core I reckon it's just a notion that people should exercise some self control without drugs. But regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them, do we really want the government to decide that their belief isn't valuable and should be forcibly suppressed? As close as I can tell, da U.S. Catholic conference considers this a direct assault on their faith. Who are we to claim differently? So yeh see, the government can indeed use indirect means via economics, regulatory mandates, education, etc. to try to change religions. Which was the point I was making to moosetracker. Yah, I get that you don't mind the government interferin' with those Catholics. But this isn't a slippery slope, it's a cliff. The drums of war are beatin' over Iran again, eh? If the government can mandate Catholic institutions offer contraception, is there any argument that doesn't make it also OK for the government to mandate that Quaker institutions host military recruiting nights? Seems like the out afforded to Catholics is that they can stop doin' health care, education, or social work. Or maybe stop havin' anything to do with non-Catholics: don't help 'em, don't employ 'em. In other words, stop living the core tenet of their faith that salvation comes through good works, not just faith. Go live in the woods on an all-Catholic compound, and we'll leave yeh alone. For now. Beavah

Ah, presuming facts not in evidence. . I've been around the block a few times, and I don't reckon I've ever honestly seen a PLC pushing 100% uniforming without an adult standin' over 'em pushing ten times as hard. The smart-alecky comment about da neckerchief above is the typical sort of character that gets developed by that kind of adult-driven approach, so I've never been convinced it really helps us achieve our Aims. In this case, between the comments and having a special leaders meeting where the ASM was presented with a letter from the CC in front of all the other leaders, I think it's already gone way past the friendly conversation between adult colleagues. Don't you? Had I been present as a UC I'd have been actively tryin' to save the CC from his own folly. As a result, at this point if there's a quiet conversation to be had, it should be an unconditional apology from the CC. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

You then ignored any reasonable response No, I declined to participate in your straw man because other people's comments were more interesting (and then more unnerving ). If yeh follow the current news, nuthin' I was commenting on seems particularly hyperbolic, but then I might be closer to some elements of da poor behavior of the state than you are. But answer your own question, if yeh will. Should Christian physicians have refused to participate in forced sterilizations of those deemed mentally deficient when the state ordered it with the support of the scientific establishment? Do yeh think religion should have "trumped" science and the government in that case? Eugenics laws were in place in more than half da states of the union for a time, if I remember correctly. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Are yeh readin' a different thread than I am, KC9DDI? I haven't seen a lick about the PLC doin' a thing in this case. Buffalo just describes that he, as scoutmaster, has "worked hard to return the idea of a uniform culture to the troop". And that his CC has supported him with a letter. That doesn't sound to me like a major youth initiative. The PLC is in fact never mentioned at all. Personally, though, I'm not at all opposed to the PLC learnin' some important lessons about the difference between methods and goals, and about how to treat people with dignity and respect. Why should that lesson be limited to adults? I might sit down with 'em and ask whether bugging Mr. Jones about his uniform is worth risking all of the gear that Mr. Jones has donated, or canceling next month's outing where Mr. Jones is needed as a required adult. Is it important enough even to risk harming your friendship with Mr. Jones'? When is it OK to criticize an adult's clothing, and when do yeh let it go even if yeh think it's inappropriate? I reckon those are good lessons for boys who are just learning how to lead people. It will make 'em more thoughtful leaders and better Scoutmasters someday. As Eagledad has said, the true measure of Uniform Method is not whether you've required them to wear it, it's whether you have inspired them to put it on of their own free will. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... And again, is there a rational argument in there anywhere? Or have yeh suddenly become a modern Republican, that da fear of a small Pashtun tribal group on donkeys half way around the world is all yeh can muster to justify doin' ridiculous things? I've always really enjoyed da taste of fresh-cooked wabbit, by the way. .22 to the head, JoeBob. Put yer dang shotgun away. Too much work cleanin'. Beavah

So what is the actual argument about????? The alcohol as fuel or the DIY Stove????? I reckon that's the actual question, Basementdweller. Nobody seem to know, because the data and the thinking about these things is never shared. If it were to be shared, then several things would happen. Scouters would be able to properly inform their own judgments, which would lead to better decision-making in the field and a higher level of support for the real safety intent of the rules. Trainers would also be able to use it to build more informed, targeted, and engaging training. And scouters who have expertise in various areas would also point out weaknesses in the data or arguments being made which could substantially improve and refine our safety approach, or be treated as unwelcome undermining of professional authority and imposition on their time. And folks would be afraid that the sharing of data would lead to bottom-feeding folks of a certain otherwise respectable profession usin' those data to try to generate or support litigation. I think that's more unfounded fear than reality, myself, but when yeh look at some of da folks tryin' to use the Ineligible Volunteer records to generate litigation, yeh have to admit they have a point in some cases. I've long been on record as sayin' that the best business decision and mission-based decision is to share data and thinking as widely as possible, so we all know what we're really talkin' about and why. Beavah

Exactly, kids are kids. And as KC9DDI's post pointed out, they have an innate and often unswerving sense of fairness. Yah, yah. Many decades ago when I was a young fellah, I sort of fell into that trap of thinking that fairness depended on treating everyone the same. It was a dear friend who made me realize that isn't fairness at all. True fairness recognizes the strengths and needs of each individual, and responds to those individually. There will always be adults who are more into Uniform Method than others. There will always be adults who have better Outdoor Skills than others. There are inevitably adults who are better at Adult Relationships Method and mentoring boys of different age groups than others. There are adults who are better at encouraging and supporting Youth Leadership than others. If yeh are goin' to insist that every adult in your program be absolutely perfect in their own performance of each of the 8 methods, then I certainly wouldn't start with da Uniform Method, eh? I'd start with making sure everyone is a perfect mentor 100% of the time. In fact, uniforming would be a fair ways down my list, just because I think stuff like outdoorsmanship and youth leadership and lived values all have a bigger net effect on the quality of the program. I think we all recognize, though, that if perfection is da criteria, none of us are worthy of being leaders at all. Personally, I wouldn't recommend that as adult leaders we insist on Perfection in any of the 8 methods individually, either for fellow adults or for boys. I think yeh look at the whole boy, and yeh take the lad as a package. Start with supporting the good things about the lad. Build on the positives. Along the way, if there's a chance to get him to shore up some weaknesses, do that too, but be gentle. Far better that a lad become deeply invested in Scouting because we feed his desire to be a great outdoorsman and friend than he be pushed away because he thinks olive drab is ugly and we insist on sartorial perfection. Even more true with adults. I've never known a boy who wasn't able to understand the version of fairness that involves responding with understanding and compassion to each person's strengths and needs. I think it's that fairness that they grasp innately. The times when boys complain about our hypocrisy are only when we stray from that true measure, and spend too much time harping about the particular trappings. What they're really sayin' is not that they want everyone treated the same, it's that they want us to focus on what's more important. And yeh know, they're right. Beavah

"Why do I need to wear my uniform is Mr. Jones doesn't wear his?? He was a MARINE!" More often than not, my experience has been that the adults in scoutin' who get most wound up about the uniform are the wannabes. The fellows who didn't actually serve. So that might be a good lesson in itself for the adults and the boys, eh? Clothing is a tool we use. It's not the goal. And kids are kids, eh? They're not active duty marines. Let's not get 'em all mixed up. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Packsaddle starts with "This has to be one of the most fractured threads ever" and then launches into a whole series of ad hominem retorts on a whole mess of people he disagrees with. Not puttin' too fine a point on it, packsaddle, but was there a rational argument yeh wanted to propose anywhere in there, or did yeh just need to vent a bit on anyone yeh disagreed with? I'm not playin' da interracial hyperbolic argument either, because of course yeh can construct hyperbolics on the other side just as easily. There was a time in the world and even in the U.S. when eugenics was considered good science-based public policy. Do yeh really want to say that the state can force health care practitioners to perform medical procedures contrary to conscience? It was, after all, those selfsame Catholic hospitals that also resisted da compulsory sterilization laws that were passed throughout the U.S. in the early part of the last century, and those same Catholic churches that refused to comply with the eugenics-based marriage laws of the same period. They have been consistent, eh? And I reckon their objection to these practices by governments has a solid basis in their experience with governments around da world. Including ours. So before we start smearin' folks with comparisons to the Taliban, perhaps it might be appropriate to get a grip. As often as not, science and government collude to do heinous things when not "checked" by religious conscience. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

What do yeh do about it? The man shows up, serves as an ASM, and on top of that raises thousands of dollars to help boys in need get equipped and participate in scouting? Yeh say "thank you for your service!" and yeh find a chance to honor the fellow. If not for his service to his country then for his service to your troop. Smile and treat the fellow like a friend, colleague, and adult, and stop worryin' about his pants! There are all kinds of reasons why someone won't wear scout pants, and some of 'em are just none of your business. We had a fellow locally who wore an ostomy bag, and just couldn't get it to work with scout pants. Otherwise yeh never could tell. I don't think but a handful of us knew. This fellow is a marine, eh? Perhaps he has an injury yeh don't know about that he'd prefer not to share. Wouldn't that make you feel like a darned fool. Uniform is a method we use to help teach boys. It gives 'em an outward sign of identity and somethin' to hang their patches on. Don't make it a goal, and don't treat fellow adults like boys. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I don't understand why a gay couple would want to participate in marriage, which is a ritual union embedded in the bible and a religious tradition that considers homosexuality a sin against the natural law. Doesn't that strike yeh as odd? Rather than try to change the 4000 year old definition of marriage and use the state to undermine or suppress all the religions and tens of millions of people that hold to that traditional definition, why not come up with your own ceremonies and traditions? Ones that are based on the values and symbols and traditions of the gay and lesbian community, not expropriated from the Christian community? That to me would be Gay Pride. Do your own thing, don't mimic Christian religious ritual which has a fundamentally different meaning. Then, if yeh want, go to the state and make an argument for state recognition and subsidy, based on evidence that such a recognition and subsidy serves a legitimate secular purpose which merits that level of support. Be Kwanzaa, eh? Instead of tryin' to turn Christmas into somethin' that it isn't. It's a bit like atheism and scouting. If yeh can't deal with "Duty to God", then just go off and start "Outdoor Adventures for All" and establish your own uniform and traditions. Don't try to use the state to suppress the BSA. Don't try to convince donors to defund it. Don't try to trade off the reputation they built over a century. Instead, invite people to recognize, join in and contribute to the good work you're doing. If yeh are doin' good work, people will see it and join in, and recognition will come. Folks should build for themselves, not try to expropriate from others. Beavah

2- They believe that the wafer during communion miraculously turns into the body of Christ. Then they eat it. CANNIBALS! Lol. Yah, I've used that line, too. That's OK, they come back with some good ones about me. My favorite is "do yeh know why Protestants like you put weathvanes on top of your churches instead of crosses? It's because yeh blow around with the prevailing wind on everything." I think yeh got 'em wrong on communion though. I think that sinners are encouraged to take communion. Only da folks in mortal sin, who have deliberately and consciously reject da law of God in a grave matter and who are unrepentant are in theory not supposed to participate. Frankly, I don't think an unrepentant mass murderer should partake either. Beavah

Yah, hmmm. Yeh know, moosetracker, yeh really should sit and reflect a bit about your anti-Catholic stuff. Make fun of 'em for their theology or their hierarchy or their ceremonial trappings, but give 'em due credit too. Yeh actually thought they turned people in need away from their hospitals? What bigoted screed did yeh get that from? Yeh do realize that da Catholic Church is the primary care organization for over a third of da AIDS patients in Africa, right? In the places nobody else will go save those of da various Christian religions. And yeh do know that all not for profit health care entities are tax privileged in da US, right? They don't pay federal tax because they are a hospital, not because they are a religion. Private and public hospitals get the same exemption. But da private hospitals may well turn yeh away. Now to be clear, I think if da state gets out of da marriage business, it should get out of it completely, eh? No ceremonies with civil officials apeing the role of ministers. The state has no interest in interpersonal relationships. Not for any purpose. That's the realm of churches and individuals. The only state interest is da civil matter of enforcing contractual obligations, and people should be free to contract as they see fit. One partner, multiple partners, a commune, for life, for a limited time, mingling property, not mingling property, whatever. So nope, no benefits to partners of any sort for public workers, because there's no taxpayer benefit in paying for all da various folks a worker may be in partnership with. Why should the state subsidize what is exclusively a religious institution? No immigration or custodial or inheritance privilege either. What yeh seem to want is for the state to act like a church, eh? And one that competes with other churches (except that our donations to da Justice of the Peace Ministry aren't voluntary). Nah. If we're goin' to disentangle the state from da JudeoChristian form of marriage, let's build da real wall between church and state. The state is not permitted to interfere or subsidize one over another at all. And I reckon anybody who wants to use da term "marriage" will have to pay the Orthodox Jews or the Catholics a licensing fee, eh? And meet their criteria . So if yeh don't like da traditional view of marriage, come up with some new thing. Call it "blingering" and develop a "blingering" ceremony. Have blingering festivals. Introduce your blingermate. Don't try to steal da meaning, intent, and reputation of an institution someone else built and holds sacred. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

And why would the weddings be so abhorrent to service Because marriage as it is viewed here in da U.S. and the rest of the western world is historically and fundamentally a religious act. A full-out sacrament for some, a deep biblical religious commitment for others. So "gay marriage" is viewed quite simply as a deliberate sacrilege by folks who come from that tradition. Or at least a bit like someone who has never served in da military puttin' on a uniform and pretending to be a veteran. If we feel we need to provide for other forms of life partnership, it would be more respecting of diversity and each others' values if we simply separated the state from the marriage business, eh? Marriage is somethin' certain religious sects do, the state has no business in it. Just let adults who are able to contract set up any partnership arrangements they'd like through their attorneys. Arranged partnerships, 4-way partnerships, Hollywood-style partnerships that expire in 2 months with no obligation. Whatever. Dismantle all the rest. No tax privilege, no immigration benefit, completely rework most of probate. If yeh want, yeh can work it like a treaty, eh? Have a signing ceremony with your lawyers and a notary public there. Then it would be easy, eh? Nobody should be compelled to attend someone else's religious ceremony. But if yeh just want a party catered for a contract signing, sure, why not? B

All I can say is the Catholic church has diversified from being a religion to being a buisness by runing hospital, schools and whatever else they decided to get into buisness about.. When they crossed that line from religion to business, they are swimming with the sharks and do not have the ability to hide behind their religion status.. Yah, hmmmmm... As OGE has pointed out to me many times, I'm not a very good Catholic apologist, being as I am one of those kind-hearted humble Protestant fellows that moosetracker seems to like so much. But I did once stay at a Holiday Inn Express owned by a Catholic. Moosetracker, yeh do understand that the Catholic hospitals in this country were by and large started by kind souls who vowed not to have any personal property or a family of their own just so they could focus exclusively on caring for those in need of health care, right? To characterize that as "being a business" or "swimming with sharks" seems just a might cynical, don't yeh think? Even today, those hospitals are not for profit entities. And even today, the religious orders that own them return a large fraction of their own personal salaries to the hospitals in question. NFP hospitals as a whole do have a lot of money flowin' through 'em, but by and large if yeh look at their margins they operate at less than 1%. They aren't rakin' in the the dough. The reason why so many are consolidating is precisely because they skate such a razor-thin line. Unless you're very large and can maintain a high volume, yeh just can't survive. Go down 5% on your beds filled in any given month and you're deep in the red. Oh, and by the way, Catholic schools are not for the poor. The poor tend to go to public schools.. Overall you're right, of course. At least as long as we're talkin' about the U.S. That's because even Catholics have to pay their teachers these days, and poor folks just don't have the money to pay even a third of cost of public education (which is what some parochial schools charge). It seems odd to fault folks for expecting that their teachers have to make at least a high-poverty wage. And yet despite that in cities like Cleveland and Chicago and many other urban areas, a significant fraction of the urban school population is served by Catholic schools, even though it costs 'em millions of dollars and sometimes 90%+ of their students aren't Catholic. And if yeh wander out onto the Native American reservations, you'll find those darn Catholics there too. Of course, in many other parts of the world the Catholic Church offers the only decent schooling available to ordinary kids. Yeh can say a lot of things about da Catholics and their musty theology and tendencies toward gettin' a bit odd about statuary and such, but it's probably not fair to fault their commitment. They do tend to put their bodies where their mouth is, and I fully admit a good number of 'em have walked where Beavahs fear to tread. And my mom for some reason was sent to the Catholic hospital in an emergancy.. They billed us the same way as any other public hospital.. Your mom was probably sent to that hospital because the local emergency medical control felt that was the best hospital available for her condition. I know in these parts the local Catholic hospital is the major trauma surgery center for the area, so if you're in a car crash that's serious, that's where you're goin' to go. Yeh darn sure want to go there. Is there a reason why they shouldn't have billed yeh? No feeling like we walked into a charity operation, no reduced price due to the fact they aren't paying taxes.. (Do they pay taxes in their business ventures? Or hide behind their religion, and run tax free buisnesses?) Holy smoke! Yeh do realize that public hospitals don't pay taxes, right? And yeh do realize what would happen if only public hospitals didn't pay taxes and got government money, and every other hospital was forced to charge 35% more, right? There would only be government hospitals. Back in the day, we used to call that the Soviet Union. Not for profit entities of all faiths and purposes have to charge people money. Their workers deserve to be able to eat and have a roof over their heads, too. They need to pay for electricity and water just like everybody else. I'll tell yeh, though. When it's my time to fade from this earth, I'm goin' to the hospice at our local Catholic hospital. A finer, more caring group of people you will never meet. Been with several friends who have gone out that way, and I can honestly say that they always put a deeply spiritual care for the family light years ahead of any financial concern. I don't mind payin' so that those people can support a family of their own, not in the least. Beavah

Yah, OK RichardB. So how 'bout postin' a link to the PHA for alcohol stoves? You know, what we call "transparency". Da problem is that PHA's are only one step in the process, eh? Identifying hazards is fine, but what yeh will quickly find is that everything is a hazard. That gets us MSDS for bricks. Da follow-up then is on the level of risk vs. the level of benefit, and then on cost vs. benefit of the response. That necessarily includes the comparative analysis that yeh indicate wasn't done in this case. Yep, alcohol stoves pose hazards. They are, however, common in Scouting throughout Europe, eh? More common than gasoline or propane. So I'd think that an important question would be the comparative safety, eh? If they're safer than gasoline, then why would we waste any air on the subject? And if they're safer than, say, cycling, then why would we spend any effort on this when we could gain more by workin' on cycling? There are opportunity costs and rules-saturation issues to consider. Yeh know. All those things professionals are supposed to consider in doin' this stuff . Now, me personally, I don't care for alcohol stoves. Finicky, slow-cooking things. Beavah