sherminator505

I'm not saying that you invented "Deists," but you do seem at once comfortable with manipulating the construct of your "Deist" to serve your intellectual arguments and utterly unable to apply that construct to a living, breathing "Deist." You say that a "Deist" could have no duty to God and still be acceptable under BSA policy (note that I did say COULD) but you cannot cite a living, breathing example of this. So while you may attempt to use rhetorical devices to portray me as the one twisting your arguments, I would only say that your arguments seem to have twisted themselves!

Welcome to the campfire, Eagle_23! You noticed all of these quotes about traditions and history, and how they can be used on either side of the argument. One thing you might notice in the quotes from OA handbooks in the post immediately preceeding yours is the gradual distancing of OA (and by inference the Boy Scout program) from Exploring. This gradual separation was ever widened until finally, the career exploration components of Exploring were cast off into Learning for Life, and Venturing was formed. What you are now seeing is much the same process happening with Venturing. If we do not recognize the separation tactics we are applying to Venturing (such as the OA election issue), we are consigned to seeing Venturing follow the same path, to the detriment of the BSA as a whole. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but we appear to be witnessing history repeat itself.

"Not sure if it was because of the bad publicity from 2005 or concern for health issues this time around." Probably the latter, and the lawsuits that might result. National has not been concerned with bad publicity or bad messaging for quite some time.

By misrepresentation, do you mean outlining the twists and turns of our hypothetical "Deist" that you claimed to be acceptable in Scouting, even though he was really an intellectual construct onto which you projected your perceptions of BSA policy?

The amount of faith that our hypothetical "Deist" might have is not nearly as important as its mere presence or absence. One might say that the acknowlegement of God, irrespective of your feelings toward it, indicates the presence of faith on some level. What is important is that you described a particular type of religion called "Deism" with the implication that a "Deist" would feel no duty to God but would still be okay to be in Scouts, then changed the hypothetical belief system of this "Deist" to cover pretty much anything, then followed it up by admitting that you knew of no such "Deists."

From a purely intellectual standpoint, what you're saying sounds good. But how much faith is required to say that there is a God, but that you don't particularly feel any responsibility to it because you feel it doesn't care about you? And how many people do you know that actually subscribe to this, or is this just an intellectual construct?

BadenP, Thanks for the info, but I for one would like to hear Gary's substantive argument on the issue. Hopefully it's not as superficial as you're thinking. Also, I should remind everyone that this is not about making OA coed, although that would be one result. It is about recognizing Venturing youth who have committed themselves to service, the promotion of Scout camping, and the ideals of Scouting, in keeping with the promotion of the Order as "Scouting's National Honor Society."(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

OK, educate me. What would "duty to God" mean to a deist, according to your education on the subject?

Um, no, I don't think you understand mine. I'm talking about faith, and while it is true that there is not a universal agreement on what that faith should look like, the "requirement" as you like to put it is to recognize one's responsibilities with regard to that faith. As you have chosen not to engage that part of your being, it is natural that you do not understand. I don't say this as a judgment, but as a statement of what I believe to be true.

That's because you've tuned it out. It happens.

Regardless of whether you use the heat index or WBGT, you need to set a tone of preparedness for your contingent. Let the participants know that it will be VERY hot and muggy from the get-go, and make sure that they are ALL briefed on first aid for heat-related emergencies.

I will never understand why anyone would want to join or remain in an organization to learn about his duty to "that thing I don't believe in."(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"So while to me personally I don't care if Venturing Crews hold elections or if the young women on the crews get inducted. I have chosen at this time to hold the line set forth in the OA handbooks and guidelines. So until the rules are changed, I'm sorry no elections for Venturing crew." This is an interesting statement, considering that your previous posts indicate a strong personal opinion on the issue. Not to mention that you are pointing to the rule book as if someone actually suggested holding an OA election at their local Venturing crew next Tuesday. I don't think anyone suggested that. What some of us are suggesting is that the rules as they currently stand do not reflect the realities of Scouting today, and while you clearly disagree with that proposition, you have not offered anything substantial to tell us why we're wrong, save for flawed semantics.

"Could it be it was an available domain that made since in which to link all the programs together." And why in the world would they want to do that? They are separate programs, right? Wouldn't it serve the BSA better to spring for separate domains for the separate programs, if that's what we're all about?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"At what point do Venturers promise to live by the Scout Oath and Law? BDPT00" At last, a legitimate argument! Really hadn't thought about that, although I've often wondered why Venturing needed a different oath in the first place... "Venturing, while a program of the BSA, is not a part of the Scouting program." Why then, do we not find information on Venturing on venturing.org, or information on Cub Scouts on cubscouting.org? Actually, the second address actually works, but where does it lead, hmm...(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"I hate to say it, but there are a lot of Female venturers who do just the above." Why do you hate to say that? For those of you who seem to be against the Order of the Arrow being "Scouting's National Honor Society," how would you feel about membership in the Order being by election only (i.e. NO adult nominations), applied retroactively to 1915?

Thanks for the info, Gary. What would be your opinion about changing the rules, and why?

"The rules say, OA is a Boy Scout Youth Program. Adults are a totally separate subject. Until Boyscouts go coed, which will be never I predict because of the loss of membership it will cause, then there is no youth female members." Where are these "rules" written? And as I highlighted earlier, isn't the Order referred as "Scouting's National Honor Society," a billing that extends beyond simply the Boy Scout program. What I have suggested here is not a "bending" of the rules. What I have suggested is a CHANGING of the rules to better reflect the realities in Scouting today.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Now, I can't really knock ebay, as I have bought some items to replace others that were lost or destroyed. What I cannot understand is what happened with the 2010 Eagle pins. The first time I ever saw or heard about these was on ebay, and they were already selling well over issue price. So I went to our local Scout Shop to inquired about these pins, and THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF THEM! How does something like this happen? I also fail to understand how Distinguished Eagle kits are available on ebay when their issue should be tightly controlled. This makes no sense. Does anyone have insights on this?

As far as Scouting goes, I'm not so much a purist that I don't see a place for management theory in Scouting. But I would go so far as to say that it should be applied correctly, and it should not replace the core elements of what we do, and why. Nor should it become so cumbersome and complex that it leads to questions like this.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I posted my reaction to the new Venturing shirt on another thread, but I think it bears repeating: Oh, no!

Thanks, Kudu.

"Basementdweller, No." Huh?!

Maybe they are moving towards changing all of the knots with tan backgrounds so that they'll look better on the Venturing shirt? (A simpler solution would be to make knots with backgrounds that match the Venturing shirt, but I digress...)

OK, I'll bite. How does the bowline fit into that setup, exactly?