skeptic

Very good to hear; one more thing to buy though. Oh well, will go well with all the other ones.

Boomerscout: At some point someone may decide to challenge the Y's name; but right now they are too busy worrying about forcing the BSA to change, rather than simply going their own way and finding another outlet. The Y usually only goes by Y now; but technically, it is still YMCA or YWCA. That "awful" Christian thing may get them yet.

I am curious as to how many of the suits filed on the 3 G's were actually directly initiated by the supposedly "harmed" party? It would not surprise me if most were only brought after someone with an "agenda" found someone they could convince to stand in as the "injured" party. Certainly the defendants in the San Diego cases have already been shown to have had no actual injuries, as they never even tried to use the facilities. If most cases have been filed at the urging of outside parties, then that in itself is, or should be a factor in the cases it would seem. Can anyone shed some "truthful" and "accurate" information on this?

Merlyn: Your attempts at comparing apples and oranges still does not work. Packsaddle: No, you are not likely to be on the list, if I were to actually have one. I basically have been told a few times that my ideas are out of date and too simplistic; occasionally hinted at on this board. And, from my point of view, I would only have an issue with an atheist in the group if they made it an issue. The incident you noted would be unacceptable; but I again may see it too much black and white, and view the atheism as something that can be worked around in most cases (especially with youth who are still likely searching for their own beliefs), maybe even an opportunity to offer another view. On the other hand, I fail to see why, when there are other options for them if they choose to believe/disbelieve, they would want to join BSA. It again comes back to why would you choose to join a group if you do not like what its precepts are? Find something more compatible; but do not demonize that with which you disagree. What is the point?

Well, I finally got offered an assignment. Not what I had hoped, but I simply want to be there. Retail Food; Concessions-B. Not sure exactly what that entails, but imagine it is involved with the trading post areas. Guess I will find out more as we go forward. Now, I may soon be able to review options for getting there, and so on. Considering a grand tour, since a lot of parts of the country have never seen; but do not know if I will want to spend that much time driving, and also if I am up to it. Also have to consider troop needs here before I leave. Now will not feel guilty if I sew on the patch.

Packsaddle: I understand where the current rulings come from, but I do not see how these people are truly harmed by this. If my tax dollars pay for the stupidity of someone doing harm to themselves, even though it is illegal, or ill conceived, or whatever, it does not hurt me, except to annoy me that they are used in such a manner. Something that benefits a majority and does good for the community as a whole is a far better recipient of my tax dollars, especially when there are similar outlets for these few who feel somehow harmed that do not disallow them. My question is when did inconsequential, even questionable, psychological harm become a reason to deny the better good? If we are to hold to the law with no "common sense judgment", then we need to arrest or fine a large majority of the population for one type of violation or another (many unknown, but violating statutes long out of date), and we certainly need to apply the same standards to every aspect then, including illegals, drug abusers, prisoners, wealthy, government representatives, and on and on. I simply fail to understand how an atheist is harmed by having to see a cross on a hill, or to occasionally hear a mention of God, or to have an miniscule percentage of his tax dollar benefit the community and the kids that reside there just because the group running it has beliefs with which they disagree. It is simply a matter of making an issue of something that has almost no true impact on anyone, while allowing far more abusive activity to run rampant, or somehow be legitimized due to strange twistings of law and perspective. I know that I am viewed by the "pseudo intellectuals" and PC crowd as foolish and completely out of touch. But I live in the real world; and frankly, people on my level are reaching the point of breaking and more and more are feeling disenfranchised. It is a bit scary to think what could actually happen if this kind of "Egocentrism" continues unabated. So destroying or demonizing groups that actually help the society most of the time just makes no sense to me. And, of course, there are a great many well educated, brilliant minds that can offer very strong arguments that some of the judgments recently made are wrong (written off by others because they are on the "wrong side"). Certainly, a lot of them were passed with a minimal majority of the panels. To me, people need to stop living their lives like noone else matters. If there is no actual physical psychological harm, or real monetary harm, then just get on with your own life, and leave those with whom you disagree alone. Let's try going back to the old adage of "live and let live". Rose colored glasses in a Utopian story. Not in what is left of my life time.

It seems to me that none of this really was an issue until sometime in the late 60's or early 70's. So, I guess the real question might be what happened to make a "very few" so suddenly become injured somehow by something that really had no effect on them, except in their heads? When did the focus change from what is best for the most, to what is best for "me"? Or, when did "egoism" suddenly become the guiding principal of society? I do not think it ever did; only that the strident few took control, and the masses found themselves marginalized, finally becoming jaded because their voices somehow no longer seemed to matter. But then, I am "old", and grew up when children still respected teachers and adults, when you did not fear walking or allowing your kids to wander the streets in most neighborhoods, when stores were only open late one night a week, and only specially needed business were open on Sunday, and when personal responsibility was a guiding principle in society and the courts.

Here's a thread again talking about public schools chartering BSA units that exclude atheists: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=200165&p=5 " Or, maybe the people in the school simply hoped the PC stuff would not be an issue, and the 99% positive element of the program could happen. They, perhaps weighed the positives and negative(s, then felt the positives "far" out weighed the negatives; and a large group of parents wanted it. Oh, I am sorry, we need to ignore that group, as they just want what they see as "best" for "their" kids. Right there, you advocated that public schools ought to be able to run "no atheists" private clubs. " Actually Merlyn, I was simply making a comment. No where did I say the decision to have the unit was right, based on the current law; rather I said that the people who tried it simply took into account the "large majority" who felt it was a good fit, somehow not realizing that they were injuring someone egregiously by doing something good for their kids. Taking things out of context does not prove anything. Again, you trumpet your selfish, egocentric self. Your right, but a truly sad individual, from my perspective. Your response is of course exactly what I expected. Continue with your diatribe. I will tune into something less strident.

Merlyn: You are now doing what you so often accuse others of doing. Find anything that can prove that I ever made such a statement or comment about schools and atheists. While I may think the move does more harm than good, it is the legal ruling and therefore applicable. It was not applicable when some schools, with the backing of your favorite organization, were not given equal access to the use; and that too was brought to a legal ruling that must be met, even though some think it unfair for some reason. But, as has been noted numerous times; you have no desire to EVER admit an error, or to accept that sometimes things take time to come to conclusions acceptable to all, even the "terribly majority". Blather on now.

Meanwhile, if certain individuals or groups would simply let the internal, albeit, slow, process work its way out, you might finally see an acceptable solution. Confrontation too often simply causes stagnation. But, no matter what happens, there will be someone who is not happy, or cannot live with having to see something they do not agree with or like.

Yes, let's end the charade. Just because they are owned by the same larger group, does not make them equal. That would be like trying to say that the disparate arms of a multi-national firm, each with its own operating program and structure, are all equally responsible for whatever one of the other branches does. As pointed out by someone else, this is simply a continuing political issue that chooses to ruin good programs for the benefit of almost no one, because they have "undue power" based on PC idiocy. So, let's see how long this one continues with the regurgitation of the same tripe over and over. Have fun.

Keep hoping for a letter or some contact. I updated everything, but I am still in limbo. It is a bit disconcerting, in that I applied in September last year. Guess not playing on the regional and National stages may be a drawback. Oh well; still seem to be openings in some of the areas in which I would like to volunteer. Just would like to know, so I can make plans going forward.

Added verification of West's presence. Page 31 of the book noted: ........................................ "The last speaker on the program, and to us the most inspiring, was James E. West, our National Chief Scout Executive. He declared that Scouting was a great factor in developing fine citizenship and said that America was still in need of pioneers---in need of boys and young men of vision and ideals." .............................. There are also a couple of black and white photos with Mr. West in them, one of them as speaker, and the other as one of a group of notables. ............................... Also, in the back of the book is a list of all the scouts and leaders; and Willard Adams is listed as a leader of group 3 from the Eastern Area of Idaho, the town of Rigby.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Around 800 scouts and leaders hiked various parts of the Oregon Trail through 15 states to a celebration at "Independence Rock", Wyoming in the summer of 1930 to celebrate the centennial of the Oregon Trail. Perhaps Mr. West attended the 3 day event noted below. From the book BOY SCOUTS and the OREGON TRAIL which I have in my personal collection. "COVERED WAGON CENTENNIAL" "A Proclamation; by the Governor of Wyoming" Now near at hand is the significant celebration planned at "Independence Rock" upon July 3, 4, and 5, 1930, as an outstanding feature of the nation-wide observance of the Covered Wagon Centennial. ................................... The young manhood of America has always received inspiration from the romantic figures of those having part in the historic exploits attending the conquest and development of our western country. It is therefore fitting that the Boy Scouts of America should heed the call and join heartily in the celebration of this year............ Therefore, I, Frank C. Emerson, Governor of Wyoming, believing many things combine to make this event at the time of our great national holiday of outstanding significance, call upon our people to give attention to the celebration of the "Covered Wagon Centennial and the National Boy Scout Rendezvous" at Independence Rock ............ In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand thise 23rd day of June, A.D. 1930. Frank C. Emerson, Governor(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Since they have no sense, they pay them big bucks. That being the case, why do they not show the sense the "large amount of cents" should generate? Oh, that's right; common sense is in hiding.

Buffalo Skipper: It specifically says on the ribbon or the knot. So, palms may, and likely should be, worn on the knot, just like the little devices for various programs of training. Of course there should only be proper colors, dependent on the level of youth attainment, and the minimum amount as well; that is to say not 3 bronze when a silver is correct. Also in rare cases it would not be possible to wear those representative, due to space on the knot. Three is probably the most that will fit without excessive overlap. JMPInterp

Another related thing to "pre existing" is family history. How many insurers either will not cover, or charge greater fees if you have a history of any number of things, such heart problems, diabetes, or cancer? All of these things are somewhere in my family's history, most directly in line with me. Yet, so far, I have not been unfortunate as to have them. The cholesterol thing though raised its head years ago. If I did not have V.A., I would have been in serious "choice" land. If I had family dependent on me, then it would really have been a problem. Once I lost my insurance after being downsized, due to yearly exorbitant increases, I had no where to go, as I was (am) under-employed. So, the government plan was my salvation; but it has many drawbacks, and as I get older it concerns me a bit. Now, I also have Medicare, but it is not free by any means. From my perspective, any type of tort reform should include some kind of limit on the actual penalty amount. Part of the problem is with ridiculous jury decisions. Even in the most severe cases, more than a few million dollars, even in today's money, is enough or more. So, when they tack on an extra $50-$100 million or more, it simply keeps rates for coverage way too high. And in a large percentage of cases, even a million is over-kill. There need to be penalties, but only high enough to cover the reality of the injury, and to make the parties responsible adopt changes to avoid additional similar awards; but not so high as to bankrupt them, or increase every one's cost through inflated rates. Of course, they also would need to include severe penalties for "frivolous" suits.

Meanwhile: Beck, Limbaugh,and Hannity nominated for the Pulitzer prize for their in depth, accurate reporting related to anything remotely connected to Barack Obama. Bill O'Reilly is upset, and Limbaugh explodes while trying to pat himself on the back.

OA sashes must be made of the same type of shrinking material. Interestingly enough, a neckerchief from my youth fits better than modern ones, though my original OA one does not. Then there is that old uniform shirt, and my Air Force uniform. Oh well; maybe someone can invent an auto enlarger for such things.

Eamonn; Surely you do not think a knife stored with other emergency items in a vehicle is the same as carrying it on the school grounds. There is where the stupidity arises. As pointed out, the vehicle itself is more of a weapon, and other items within the car also are more dangerous if the intent is there. But the real issue is the severity of the whole thing, considering his record. JMO

http://www.wten.com/global/story.asp?s=11283345&ClientType=Printable What is the matter with these people. Oh, that's right, "Common Sense" no longer applies.

Welcome Mr. Leroy, to that which you deny, nor comprehend. I am all those things, and more: ELOHIM,EL SHADDAI,ADONAI,JEHOVAH,JUDGE,EL-OLAM "Everlasting God", 'Attiq Yomin "Ancient of Days", FATHER, THE FIRST AND LAST, THEOS "God", JESUS, CHRIST, THE GREAT I AM." But I never said that was a belief system! So I could not have believed it! You must understand!

Ed; You said "you might not agree with mine but that makes neither incorrect". So just leave it at that, and quit butting the rock wall; please.

While most realize that pointing something out to Merlyn is pretty much useless, I will anyway. In every science you have a few really odd "experts", based on having gotten a degree anyway, with whom few others will ever agree because these "degreed experts" insist on completely unrelated or unproven "facts" they have invented or are the only ones who seem to see. They pretty much get ignored by anyone who is truly an expert in the field and do accept the basic building blocks within their field. And these generally acknowledged "kooks" within the field are often paraded by others outside the field to support their own uniformed or illogical premises. In Theology there are a few more of these "experts" perhaps, but that is likely because the entire study is so much more ephemeral and requires intellectual ideas some just cannot fathom. The one thing that all the Theologians of any stature likely agree on is that there is "something greater than ourselves". And that is where all the permutations of study jump off. What is it? Is it multi-faceted? Is it in control? How will we "know"? These all will cause disagreements, and even have too often caused wars and individual violence, usually when extremists gain too much leverage. In the end, most of the far flung examiners of the "spiritual" within us and the world will also admit that at some point we will finally "see". What will happen then becomes another discussion of "infinite possibilities". And, most would say that even "atheists" will reach that point. What their reaction will be, or their final status will be (if there is a finality) who knows? Surely it would be interesting to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" at that point in time.

It is really important that the SM take his part seriously and disallow any seriously challenged scouts in regard to "Scout Spirit". Like all other elements of the position, he/she needs to do what is needed, no matter what the reservations from an adult concern of dealing with parents who may make them uncomfortable. As far as the election itself goes, that too needs to have every effort made to make it very clear as to how voting works. Since each scout can vote as many times as there are candidates, then all can be elected, and are in a large percentage of troops. But they also can cast all their votes for one or two, or for only one, or vote only for one or two period, even if 5, say, could be cast. It is up to them. Many are not clear on the vote for "x" number element, or the idea they can split votes. Today of course, if the format is understood, the likely-hood is that all will be elected; not like years back when there were limits as to how many were even eligible and how many eligible could be elected, all based on troop membership totals and eligible totals. Good luck with the election.