sherminator505

What I challenged specifically was BadenP's assertion that "After all no one religion has an exclusive on getting to heaven, even though the Catholics like to think they do..." To explain why I challenged that assertion, I would like to repeat the following from the Second Vatican Council's "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (after Schreck): "Those also can attain everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine providence deny the help necessary for salvation who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the church as a preparation for the gospel." Note that this passage says nothing about Christians who have been baptized in the Trinity and are recognized by the church as brothers in Christ. It refers to non-Christians who may yet receive God's salvation. This would tend to blast a great big hole in the notion that the Catholic Church lays an exclusive claim to salvation, which is what BadenP asserts. I may not have BadenP's professed knowledge and expertise, but I did read the textbook and I did pay attention in confirmation class.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Makes sense to me.

OK. I'm in. It amazes me that there are some people who are OK with a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice." I have read way too many accounts of gays being harrassed, beated and killed to believe that they are lining up to "choose" that kind of treatment. I also think that if homosexuality were treated as an accident of birth, as I believe it to be, that it would be a lot harder to condemn. I too noticed BadenP's assertions about Catholics. As a former Baptist who has converted, I understand where those assertions come from, but I also realize that they simply aren't true, and I really think that he should learn more about Catholics before he tries to tell us what they (we) believe. Why is it that some of us have this special feeling toward homosexuals? We've finally gotten around to the proposition that integration and women in positions of leadership are okay, but we still have stumbling blocks like this. I have seen some interesting opinions come across these threads since I've been on here (and it hasn't even been a month!). I have seen one Scouter post that if he saw a man that has some feminine characteristics he didn't approve of that he'd be obligated to "take a shot." I have seen another forum member indicate a mistrust of gays and refer to those who object to discrimination of gays as "sympathizers." And I have seen far worse. This is not the type of language we use to describe people we disagree with or even condemn for their "lifestyle choices." This is the language we reserve for people we intensely dislike and would like to go to war with (if we haven't already). I would respectfully suggest that there might be some room for introspection on the part of some fellow forum members. Just a few random observations. Take them as you will.

I've seen some suggestions floating around to do something in this area, but they never seem to come to fruition. I often wonder if it's necessary, since it seems that a relatively small number of Scouts have done this and have seemed to be happy doing it for the notoriety.

It's not you. Occupational hazard.

My blood boils every time I hear about that bridge collapse! The state knew about that bridge FOR YEARS, and an awful lot of Democrats, Republicans, and independents (yes, Jesse the Body is as much to blame as anyone) IGNORED it. I have seen slides showing STRAIN GAGES on the bridge, so THEY KNEW! And guess what?! The Interstate system turned 50 in 2006 and a lot of those bridges, which are designed for a 50 year design life, are now 50 years old. And still, the powers that be continue to IGNORE this! And so does the media! Incredible! There, I'm better now.

Oh, bother!

I think its interesting that msnbc decided to hitch its wagon on the proposition that "We're not Fox!" This only helps both networks, because viewers will be drawn to one or the other based on which one makes them cringe the least (I prefer CNN myself). Both should be watched with an informed mind and taken with a grain of salt.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I don't know how large your council is, but the question that pops out for me is - how are they going to get an acceptable class size for each summer camp session?

Gunny, you are absolutely right. I used that example to illustrate how a zero-tolerance policy on double-dipping could be taken too far. If I actually told Johnny the First Class Scout that his camping nights didn't apply to OA eligibility because he had already used them to earn First Class, then I would get a barrage from Johnny, Johnny's parents, and probably the Troop Committee as well, and I would deserve it!

There's probably an extreme to double-dipping that we'd probably not like to see. However, a rigid interpretation prohibiting double-dipping could also lead to problems. For example, suppose that we tell a Scout that his participation on campouts to earn First Class doesn't count towards OA eligibility. Where would that get us? No place good, I'm guessing. Best advice - use judgment.

At times, I wonder how much terminology affects attitudes. For example, take the word "commissioner." In our sports-crazed culture, "commissioner" is the highly paid head honcho who decides if some problem athlete should be playing or not. In Scouting, a "commissioner" is someone who is 1) a non-paid volunteer and 2) someone who is there to help. Some folks have a hard time reconciling those images, and that leads to confusion. This confusion is further amplified when we insist on calling too many volunteers "commissioners" when their primary roles might be training or running roundtables. This tends to dilute the meaning of what a "commissioner" is in Scouting, and the word loses its descriptive value. Perhaps we should consider renaming some of these positions, making the titles more descriptive ("Trainer" and "Coach," for example), and reserve the titles "District Commissioner" and "Assistant District Commissioner" for the two or three folks charged with leading this group of volunteers in the District.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"Best non-chocolate candy" is kinda like "best decaffeinated coffee." Sure, it's okay if that's what you're in the mood for...(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Nope. There was a stack of them, along with other current council, district, troop and pack badges of office. What drew my notice to this patch was that I have never observed anybody actually wearing one and I'd never heard of the office.

I have a question. I was in the local Scout Shop the other day and I saw insignia for a District Commissioner and a District Scout Commissioner. Having never heard of the latter, I was wondering if anyone could explain the difference to me?

No, the description of fruity is quite appropriate, as it calls to mind something that is colorful and would best be tossed into a blender and made part of a smoothie. A rather humorous visual, actually... Mmmmm, red beret smoothie...(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Any position with a strong leadership or teaching could be considered a PoL. As a rough guideline, the list of PoR's for Eagle has historically been more restrictive, and the list of PoR's for Eagle have typically been those with a strong leadership or teaching component. That said, I feel that the difference between a PoR and a PoL is important, and that it should be more clearly delineated in the advancement requirements. That way, there wouldn't be a question as to what PoR should or should not be acceptable, as it would be clear that we are in fact working off two different lists for a definite reason.

"I would just like to point out that the Scouts must fill a Position of Responsibility not a Position of Leadership. Very different things." I agree. I would also respectfully submit that if the Eagle requirements don't currently require a Position of Leadership instead of a Position of Responsibility, they should be changed. An Eagle Scout needs to demonstrate leadership.

Well, Kawidaphoenix, I don't know what else to tell you. I have been very consistent in referring specifically to your posts and have made no judgments about your character whatsoever. I have tried to tell you in several posts, and in various ways, that it is not your use of the word "gay," or even your apparent attitude toward gays (as evidenced by your posts), that is the problem, but your very long, very disrespectful rants. If you haven't received the message by now, then I have accomplished nothing. Now I must let this lie fallow for a while, as I have work to do.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Sorry. I did my best. Obviously it wasn't enough. Some just refuse to learn. *sigh*

Kawidaphoenix, You may believe that homosexuality is immoral and you're entitled to that belief. I happen to believe that even if you believe that, that is no license for discrimination, harrassment, or rough treatment. Even verbal rough treatment. This is not consistent with the ideals of Scouting, Christianity or America. Surely you can recognize this. However, you are still missing the point. It's not how you feel about gays that puts people off. It's the half-page of venomous verbal vomit that you use to express it more often than not that puts people off. I sincerely hope that you don't immediately go into one of these acidic rants when one of your Scouts asks about gays. Consider yourself educated. Sherminator505(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I don't think that service hours for school and service hours for Scouting should be mutually exclusive. And in the case of an Eagle candidate, I could easily see the time spent on that being applicable to the school requirement. The only problem I could see arising would be on the part of the school, not on the part of the Scouts.

As I have gotten older, my belts have gotten shorter too. Pants have shrunk as well. It's a mystery.

Kawidaphoenix, Perhaps I should clarify. The problem isn't that you have views that "the liberals" don't agree with and that they are "ganging up" on you for having those views. The problem is that you can't seem to express those opinions in a manner that is either Scout-like or civil. That is the subject of this thread. Take Nick for example. He has at times expressed opinions that make me cringe, but he does so respectfully, and I respect him for doing so. You, on the other hand, just can't seem to do that. Even if your views perfectly coincided with mine, I would still look at your posts with disdain, as they are disrespectful and rambling, and I would not have the impression that your posts did my side any credit. Perhaps you should use the same language in your posts as you would use in front of the Scouts. Maybe then your posts would draw more respect. Sherminator505

I'll probably get one of those neckerchiefs - would like to see a fourth corner, though...