Rooster7

For the moment, Im going to assume the kid did something noteworthy enough to be brought up at an Eagle BOR (or at some other point in the process). I believe in consequences for ones behavior good and bad. However, I find this scenario to be a bit odd. You have a kid actively involved in Scouting who wants to achieve the rank of Eagle. How bad can he be? Is there no hope to turn this kid around and help him become an Eagle that is, to become someone worthy of the award, as opposed to someone gaining a badge or pin for his trophy case? Isnt this an opportunity to help the kid see what the award is about, and to help him make changes so he can proudly wear the badge one day? Or are we more concerned about the integrity of the badge than the character of the boy? Normally, Im all about justice. I dont believe in parole. I think the three-time loser law is an excellent concept and should be adopted by all states. Having said that, Im just saying Perhaps the troop should consider how to help the boy become worthy of the badge - as opposed to calculating a way to thwart his effort.

CalicoPenn, Not taking a side here, but... Do you think there are POW camps in Iraq somewhere, where GI's are being held captive? And if such camps exist, do you think the treatment of those GI's have anything to do with our treatment of insurgent POWs? GW, Yes you indeed think for yourself. I suppose thats a badge of honor. I think for myself as well, but I choose God as my god not my ego. Its not intelligent or brave or wise to mock God, but you do have a right in this country to do so. Enjoy it while you can.

As much as Id like to have my cake and eat it too I dont think its possible. Given my previous example, I think almost any loyal American would have cake on their hands at the end of the day. Ever see the movie, Man on Fire? I pray I am never put in that situation. But if I was, I cannot say with certainty that I would refrain from any such act. To the contrary, I tend to believe I (as well as most other men) would resort to any means possible to extract that information if it meant protecting a family member.

I am not asserting that I know answer. In fact, I am a little bewildered by those who can make such assertions without any hesitation or qualifiers. Whenever I am confronted with an issue such as this one I try to personalize it, at least a little. By doing so, I can often avoid some hypocrisy. So, you find yourself in a situation whereas you have access to a kidnapper, whose accomplices are holding someone dear to you. Are you going to take the high moral ground here? If you had the capability and means to extract the needed information, you would refuse to keep your principles intact?

Did I leave you speechless? I guess I don't see this issue as being so cut and dry, that I could condemn the President without a single thought as to what his thinking might be. First, as to why one may not consider water boarding as torture in the same sense as other methods. Second, as to what possible drivers might exist to make one employ such a method. Some questions to ponder Does a hot light, a pitcher of water across the room, and an upset interrogator constitute torture? Where do you draw the line? And when, if ever, does that line become gray? Exactly how little of an offense are we willing to reject in order to stake claim to the higher moral ground? How much are we willing to sacrifice (100 soldiers, 100 civilians, 100 children, a city, etc.) before were compelled to act (i.e. run some water over a terrorists face) to extract the information that would make a difference?

I suppose if one water board victim was spared the trauma (i.e. the experience of feeling like he was drowning), it'd worth the lives of 100 American soldiers.

funscout, Point of clarification, I dont believe the Bible says, All sins are equal. I believe it is more accurate to say that the Bible teaches that all sins will separate us from God and will result in his judgment. Thus, without repentenence and a belief in Christ as Lord and Savior, all sinners are destined for damnation. Given the result, I can see why some would believe all sins are equal. However, I dont believe God views all sins in the same light (e.g. the murder/torture of a child verse one who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family). If I am wrong, please correct me and provide the verses that support that idea. By my reading of the Bible, some sins seem to capture Gods attention and wrath more than others.

Merlyn, I suppose that's a way it could be interpretted - perhaps rightly so as worded. That wasn't my intent. Although, even with the current wording, I think an argument could be made like the following: A Scout can believe God exists with certainty, but as a believer, he should always be searching to understand who God is more clearly and to better understand one's purpose in life.

Merlyn, Actually, the thought occurred to me before I made that post that you might agree with it. Im not saying this to be derisive, but whether or not an atheist is precluded depends on an important qualifier (in my statement) that you should not over look. A Scout pledges that he will continually search for the truths behind his own existence and his purpose for being. Furthermore, he understands and respects others who are attempting to do likewise. In my view, if a Scout says, Im an atheist and I see no need to search for the truths behind my existence or a purpose for being. There is no god and there is no purpose for being then he is disqualifying himself. On the other hand, if a Scout says, Im an atheist, but I will continue to search for the truth behind my existence and a purpose for my being then I could live with that, especially if he wasnt trying to undermine or hinder the faith of other Scouts. The point of this pledge wasnt to be all inclusive. It was to recognize that not everyone is on the same path at the same time. I dont want to tell a kid who isnt sure of what he believes (or even the kid who doesnt believe in anything) that he cannot be around those kids that do. To be clear, I dont see atheism as being a protected belief system. Its the absence of a faith in God. But ultimately, I want every kid to be able to enjoy Scouting and everything else in life I just dont want that kids lack of faith to be celebrated or viewed as a protected right within an organization that purposely seeks to recognize God, if not celebrate Him. Now, I suspect that Merlyn and I are no longer on the same page. But Merlyn, I hope you realize that if you had a kid in Scouting, I would hope the best for him. And it would be my hope that he would find God. But I couldnt accept him in Scouting if he was intent on removing any signs of faith that accompanied those who do believe in God.

"...although I don't see that it would preclude the search for meaning by sitting in a tree and eating cereal" Yes, but it doesn't celebrate this idea either.

NJ, Whatever I might conjure up, it would be discerning enough that one could attach some meaning to it. Alas, because it would lack that sacred inclusivity that so many seem to worship today, there would be much consternation and discontentment from the "more progressive" types in the organization. Given the above, I would start with a statement along the lines of: God exists, and He is omnipotent, righteous, holy, and loving. Any faith that deviated from those truths would not constitute a faith in a reverent God. But if I couldnt get common sense to prevail, Id consider dropping the idea of developing a litmus test criterion for one's faith in God, and impose a pledge for "the search". Something along the lines: A Scout pledges that he will continually search for the truths behind his own existence and his purpose for being. Furthermore, he understands and respects others who are attempting to do likewise. At least this encourages a boy to ponder something deeper than day-to-day subsistence, and potentially could inspire him to confront real truths, beyond the physical reality he sees. Its not my preference, but its not offensive or water downed either. It has some meaning. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Okay then - suppose for a moment that I take this discussion seriously. Per the ponderings of this board, the growing consensus appears to be: A boy ought to believe that something exists and revere it. And apparently one can revere and be obedient to God, oneself, a rock, a river, a tree, or even that Lucky Charms guy. And surely, per the great and many introspective thoughts recently shared on this subject, one could show that reverence in a number of ways. I imagine, if one found a tree perched over the Potomac on a Sunday morning, he could swing from it while eating a bowl of cereal, and thus pay tribute to a half dozen faiths all at once. Perhaps the BSA should create a metal for that.

I'm not going to argue what the actual requirement is...I'll leave that to the folks who like to parse words, find loopholes, and employ other means to extract their preferences. But I will say this - If the folks on this board are right, the requirement has become meaningless. If the "entity" that one must show reverence has become so undefined and ambiguous that boys can revere a rock and pass the requirement; then we've stepped off the mountain somewhere. I just don't believe that Baden Powell and others intended this to be. And if they did, then I've lost respect for them and this organization. I can disagree with many folks as to who God is, but if/when the argument becomes whether or not God is a rock or a tree - then we've step inside of an arena that I don't even what to approach.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Hey, it was late in the day and work was going slow - perhaps I was more bored than offended. Peace. John 3:16 ;-) Sorry...couldn't resist.

Gold Winger, Atheists? Most atheists that I've known are as bad as the evangelical Christians for getting in your face. I don't need or want that. Im a little disappointed by this broad and unflattering brush. Ill let the atheists defend themselves - But speaking as an Evangelical Christian, I think the above statement is a false stereotype, if not outright bigoted. Are there some Evangelical Christians that lack tact and the common sense to know when proselytizing has become harassment? Yes. Do some Evangelical Christians seem to take delight in telling unbelievers the bad news vice the Good News? Yes. Every group has a subgroup and not everyone is a true believer. Having said that, most Evangelical Christians I know share the Gospel because theyre taught by Gods Word to love their neighbor as themselves. Sorry for the sidetrack. But being an offended party, I felt entitled to address the offense.

Yeah he would have been a cub scout, but talking about archery and camping in cub scouts? I really would like to meet that cubmaster. I'm with Beavah, looks like somebody trollin Exactly - apparently I was just a bit too subtle for some folks. In short, I agree - But hey, I'm just being rude.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

So you joined the Boy Scouts in the first grade, eh? Because you had heard about all of those great camping trips that the other first graders were having? Nice story. I like the part about how "camping, archery, or any of that cool stuff" had drawn you in to Scouting touching, almost believable. You may have a career in creative writing. When you were Scouting about at the ages of 7, 8, and 9 - did you ever hear the saying, "A Scout is Trustworthy? Perhaps not.

Why is the Scouter allowing the movie, "The God Who Wasn't There", to be advertised on their website? Was this by some trickery by an underhanded sponsor or was it an bonehead oversight by an otherwise well run site? The point is - I cannot believe this movie, which makes a case for atheism, was knowingly allowed to be advertised on this site.

packsaddle - I appreciate your concern, but no particular thread ever drove me away. I just thought it was time to give it rest. But to address your point, is there any topic on this site that hasn't been hashed out over and over? I use this forum as a sounding board and to hone my arguments. Occasionally, I hear something new which causes me to rethink an issue. But mostly, I'm just sharing my view and noting whether or not others have similar thoughts and experiences. belayer_StLouis - please observe the folder's name under which this thread falls. I hope that clears up any confusion you may have had.

Most laws are based on safety, civil rights and the balance of civil rights when they are in conflict. Thats a point of view but I dont think its very accruate. There are many examples of laws created in this country that dont have anything to do with safety or civil rights. They have a basis in historical morality some of which go back thousands of years to a time before organized religion. Wow, how old are you? Do the Gieco commercials disturb you as much as they do that other guy? As you add laws, they need to based on what has come before in this particular country and not on any specific religion's point of view...after all, there are 20,000 forms of Christianity all based on the same set of books. Another nice quote, even with facts (20,000 forms of Christianity) but I think youre missing my point. It doesnt matter if someone claims a particular religion or not or even if they claim that to be their personal motivation for a establishing a particular point of view. My ascertion is -Everyone, not just the non-religious, should be able to seek the election of officials who represent their worldview. Tagging somes viewpoint and/or candidate as a religious choice, is a dishonest way of trying to discount someones viewpoint or political candidate. If you want to be more specific on the religious nature of whether or not abortion is murder, think about this. The bible provides a scenario in which a person causes injury to a pregnant woman and this woman has a miscarriage as a direct result. The punishment for this is not the same as that for murder (it's not even close). Nor do we give the death sentence for someone who accidentally kills someone while driving under the influence. But when someone intentionally drives over someone, then we seek murder charges and the appropriate sentence. Your example is lacking substantially. None of this has anything to do with my personal stance on the abortion issue. I'm just trying to make a point about how the government of this country is supposed to work...tyranny of the majority and all that jazz. Yeah - tyranny, the jay walkers battle cry

"One heart at a time not through the imposition of law but through a change of heart by way of prayer." "The government should not be in the business of legislating religious morals." Every law ever created is based on someone's idea of morality. When we create jay walking laws, the government is saying they have a moral right to protect you from harm and/or that drivers have a moral right not to be hindered by your selfish desires to casually cross the street at your convenience. The above said, should we just pray for jay walkers? Should we just pray for pedophiles who seduce "willing" children? After all, what business does the government have to impose "religious" morals on us? What makes a moral - religious? If I intuitively feel something is wrong and bring it in the public sector for debate, no one discounts my opinion as being "religious". But if I believe in something else (i.e. the bible), some seem to think that I should just pray about it? What right does anyone have to claim something is moral or immoral (the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards). Who has exclusive claim on this country's moral standards? If no one, then my view and the views of others (religious or not) should count as much as anyone else's. Religiosity aside, I feel in my heart that abortion is wrong...just as I feel murder, rape, and torture is wrong. If enough people feel the same way as I, it makes perfect sense to seek the election of officials who would create laws against abortion - just as it makes sense to seek officials who are "tough" on murder and rape. Yeah, I will pray. But I'm also going to work within the law to get my position heard, noted, and "implemented" by way of elected officials.

funscout - good post. What is the greater call? Is it to vote for someone who you think will bring the most prosperity to you, your family, your friends, and the country? Or is it...to vote for someone who you believe is in step with God, His values, and the worldview that your faith has instilled in you? Personally, while I hope/pray for both, I place the greater emphasis on the latter...because that is what I feel God is calling me and others to do. And another thing... For those who would criticize folks for allowing their faith to sway their votes - I say God is in everything, not just the building we worship in on Sunday mornings. If your God is confined to a particular space and time, then good for you. I suppose thats convenient for some. My God extends his hand into my life on a daily basis and is not confined to a single arena and time.

SMT224 - I'm just responding to several other posts made previous to mine. If anyone high jacked this thread (introducing the subject of abortion), it was done by someone else numerous posts ago. And several others responded to that post without any pointed objections from you. Perhaps my succinct summary of your supposition has left you nonplus. Look on the bright side - I never said what was in the crock. Perhaps the proverbial pottery is filled with thought provoking ideas? ;-)

First, the second post to this thread should have read: What a crock! And the entire thread should have ended there. That said, I agreed with 90% of the responses. Re this spin off topic: As for myself, I could never understand those who proclaim to be "pro-life & pro-capital punishment Abortion is the killing (some prefer to use the word murder) of an innocent and defenseless child. Some methods of which, are definitely more abhorrent than others but all seek to kill an innocent child. Capital punishment is the killing of a convicted murderer (or child rapist/torturer if you leave in one of those few sane states). A murderer someone who takes an innocent life (for many and varying disgusting reasons) is not an innocent person. He deserves the sentence of death. I dont see the confusion, and I certainly dont see a contradiction. There have been logical arguments against capital punishment which I have pondered. And occasionally, those arguments have given me reason to pause...although I am not wholly convinced. But comparing capital punishment to abortion and arguing that its a matter of consistency is, well a crock!

a better class of liberals - Isnt that an oxymoron? ;-)