Bobanon

The WW II generation, my father's generation, are and were giants on the Earth. I don't believe we will ever see a more selfless generation. I know my own generation, the baby boomers, could not, nor don't have the right to carry their lunch boxes. I know many WW 2 vets, and they are passing from us at an alarming rate. The WW 2 generation is indeed the greatest generation.

Campcrafter either I didn't receive it, or I am not seeing the link on the tool bar for private messages. On ohter forums that have private messaging you will usually have a notice and a link to click for private messages. Either way, I don't have your message.

OhAdam, Good for you. The UU is a great place with fine friendly folks. I thoroughly have enjoyed openness of the people, and the friendly atmosphere. It is my sincerest hopes that you have the same experience. I know that I have learned much over the last four years. The books are all great reads too. I have plenty more titles if you are interested If you like you can email me at BobAnon57@yahoo.com

Okay Ed I am not a preacher or sunday school teacher who will feed you information like pablum. I supplied you with titles, now its up to you. Hunt I believe that the BSA would accept the charter of a new unit where the CO was a white supremist church as quickly as they would one from a Baptist Church. Why, its plain and simple......money.

OldGreyEagle, I have been everything from a Den Leader to a Crew Advisor, Commisioner, yada, yada yada. Right now I am between jobs (so to speak), and not sure if I want to continue with Scouting. I am pretty well burned out. And as you can tell from my post I do have some differing opinions with mainstream Scouting. That goes double down here in the Bible Belt. Ed again I will not do the leg work for you. I can post one instance after another but you will not believe me. You have to do it on your own. Your unwillingness is from one of three reasons: is it that you are too busy to do the work yourself, or are you too scared of what you might find, or are you just too lazy?

"There is widespread faking of numbers in BSA - the rule - according to a professional - is "don't get caught." And BSA will make determined efforts to cover a professional's tail when he is challenged." So much for TRUSTWORTHY.

I don't necessarily believe that churches would suffer. If religion promotes discrimination maybe they need to die out. I say let it be and allow the whithering hand of superstition to grip us no more. I for one do not seen the omnipotent creator as anything but a loving God. He may not be interested in the affairs of man, but he is still a force of unconditional love, and the face it the god of the bible is anything but loving, especially unconditionally. First of all it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to define marriage. Marriage in the eyes of government should be wholly secular and seen as a contract between two people of lawful age. Religion should not work into the equation in any form or fashion. Second how much of the gay marriage issue and band is being promoted behind the scenes of the U.S. insurance industry. They could stand to loose money possibly if gay marriages were or are accepted univerasally across the U.S. I can see the insurance industry fighting this one tooth and nail, and possibly see them as the root of the anti-gay forces.

The funny thing is I can see the BSA accepting a Troop or Pack who's Charter Organization is a white supremest church. Ed, you are going to have to make the journey yourself. I did, and nobody held me by the hand, or showed me the way. Doing the research on your on makes it more valid and more believable to yourself. I could tell you one item after another yet you wouldn't believe simply because you didn't sweat to find the truth on your on. I will relent and give you an easy source though. Obtain a copy of Dr. Israel Finklestein and Neil Silberman's book "The Bible Unearthed". Finklestein is director of the Nadler INstitute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University and Silberman is director of historical presentation at the Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Preservation in Belgium. Both are contributing Editors to Archaeology magazine.

Ed you need to come to your own conclusions. It is not my place to undermine what you believe. With that said, if you want to look into the issue further you'll need to spend some time and effort reading. I suggest: "The Fallible Gospels" by Graham Lawrence. This shows where many of tales of the bible originated. An example is the already mention 10 Commandments being taken from a Zorastorian legend of their 15 Commandments. "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris "Stealing Jesus" by Bruce Bawer (this really isn't a work disproving religion, but gives a consise history of fundmenatalist Christianity and is a great read). "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" by Susan Jacoby. A very good read. There is a lot of information out there. You need to do the research on your own for it to be valid Ed. I could tell you down to the jot and tittle, but you would deny it. If you do your own research it gives it more value and credibility to your own self.

Ed extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can "know" in your heart until the cows come home that God gave man the bible, but that doesn't make it true. There are several text that make the claim that it is the gift of god to man. Which one is the real book of God? I say none for God's business isn't the Book of The Month Club.

SaintCad it is nothing more than pick and choose theology. The unbending approach that Ed and ones like him take toward Christianity forces them to pick and choose what parts of the bible they support. Areas like Leviticus and all the nonsensical laws therein, is one example of a part they would avoid like the plague. Jesus said that he didn't bring a new law but came to support the old law. Which was the law of Moses, and those outlined in Leviticus. However, this point is ignored for convienience sake. Ed, I did point out where the ten commandments came from. That is factual. If you choose not to believe history over what is written in the Bible then that is your business. Just because you believe that the Bible in infallible and the absolute truth doesn't make it so. And Ed this is Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Maybe you don't know the bible like you claim. You certainly don't know the history of your religion, but then you shouldn't feel bad. I have found very few fundamentalist who do.

Ed before you go admonishing people about the bible, it might be in your best interest to do a little studying yourself. the Bible is fraught with contradictions. These inconsistencies are proof that the Bible is of human and not divine origins. Only fundamentalist christians take a literalist view of the bible. Lets look at some of the inconsistencies: Two different creation stories - Genesis 1:1-2:3, and Gensis 2:4-25 The creation of Eve - Gensis 1:27, and Genesis 2:20-22 A side note on Noah and the Ark. Consider this Ed; There are over 250,000 varieties of beetles in the world. Don't you think that Noah would have run out of room rather quickly? The contradiction of who wrote the 10 Commandments: Exodus 34:1, and Exodus 34:27 In the New Testament the 4 Gospels differ on the story of Mary visiting the tomb of Jesus and with whom. These are just a small fraction of the contradicitons and inconsistencies of the Bible. Even by the the second century CE. Celsus a pagan critic complained that Christians manipulated their sacred texts at will. Contradicitons aside there are many of the stories in the bible which pre-date the bible in some instances by centuries. Much of the Old Testament came about from tales learned in Babylon during the Babylonian exhile. The story of Moses and the 10 commandments for instance was taken from the Zorastorian story of Nebakaneezer decending the ziggurart with the 15 laws which God had given him. Or the invention of hell comes directly from the Zorastorian story of the celestail conflict between the forces of good and evil. There may be parts of the Bible that may be divinely inspired but they are the words of man.

Brent you ask why I left the Presbyterian Church instead of staying and changing it. I will tell you why. I attended the Presbyterian Church for over 40 years, and I loved it. I especially loved the congretation of my specific church for I had known many for most, if not all my life. It was familiar and family. The reason I walked away, and trust me it was one of the hardest things I have ever done, was because when I reflected on my own true beliefs they were not instep in the least with the Presbyterian Church or Christianity for that matter. If I have to put a label on my beliefs then I am an agnosto-deist. I wrestled with my own hypocracy every Sunday. I did resign as an Elder long before I walked away completely simply because I couldn't be truthful in my beliefs and those required to being an elder. I think that we humans need the communal experience of spirituality. This may be strictly genetic, not that it matters. Luckily I was able to find the Unitarian Universalist Church. The UU is a diverse group of people. I think I am a better man for changing, and have learned much about different religions that I may not have otherwise been exposed to. I think each of us has our own theology and beliefs in our hearts. I don't believe reciting dogma by rote fills the niche, but for some it is the easiest way, and not that it is bad. For them it is what they need. I needed something more, and have found it. Presbyterianism is one of the most liberal of Christian denominations and I admit I had guilt feelings for several years after leaving. And too I missed many of the people, and that has been the hardest part. Life goes on, and we continually grow. I was true to myself, and feel to be better for what course I chose.

Brent Allen, You posted: "Do y'all think there is a large group inside the BSA who wants this policy to change?" Let me start off by saying that I do not like the homophobic extremist, nor do I like the in your face gay extremist. Extremist from either side of the argument loose me early on. We all know homosexual people. When I have cause to discuss the gay issue I think of those gays whom I know or have known. When talking about gays I think it better to put a human face on them instead of thinking of them as "those people". I believe by and large people are more tired of the argument than of the specific issue itself. Look at voter turnout in presidential election as an example - people are disgusted by the political rhetoric by election day and don't vote). I think that the silent majority would be accepting of gay Scouts and Scouters while the anti gay faction will always be just that, anti gay, and that is certainly thier right to feel that way, just as I have a right to believe otherwise. Homosexuals are not child molesters, and two deep leadership has been a good practice on keeping molestations to a minimum. There will always be problems with that I suppose, but the organization is doing a good job of combating that problem. We are certainly having better luck than the Roman Catholic Church in regards to child molestation. And I don't mean that as a slight against the RCC.

I am not against free association per se. However, I do not support activities that discriminate against people. Espcially when it is discrimination based on unsound reasoning. The BSA can stay it's current course and see further marginilization and a more and more hostile society. I hate seeing the BSA in such a position, and do not like Scouts seen by society as a bunch of little Eichmanns. The reasoning behind the current practices of barring homosexuals is due to the religious teaching of one religious tradition, namely the religions that started with Abraham. The BSA should promote the highest ideals of American society, and shouldn't pick an choose which to support and which to ignore. The demographics of America are changing and have changed radically since the late 1970's. And it will continue to change through immigration, and no I'm not illuding to illegal immigration, but that too will have an impact. Would we rather an organization that is seen favorable by the majority of Americans? Or do we want to continue where our boys are heckled such as being booed at the Democratic convention in San Diego. Boy Scouts should not be placed in a position where they are at odds with mainstream society. I know brent allen will post about the various state elections that voted marriage between a man and woman, etc as an example of just what the nation thinks as a whole. However, that is a somewhat skewed version since the issue of gay marriage became the deciding issue of the 04 election cylce, and the extremist of the religious right spend beaucoup bucks on advertising in an attempt to scare the voting public, which did happen. Are we a youth organization based on the highest ideals or are we a youth organization based upon the book of Leviticus and nothing more than little Klansman?

Eamonn, I know exactly what you mean! Paper units to ensure the District gets Quality District. Invidual units keeping boys (who hide nor hair has been seen of in ages), on their rolls in order to remain a Quality Unit, and all for a lousy little patch and a cheap ribbon to hang on the unit flag. People can call this what ever they like, but cooking the books is lying. My junior year of high school I was deeply involve in my Troop. Worked on summer camp staff and got to know several of the DE's. I told one that I was considering a career with the BSA and he told me he wasn't a professional Scout but a professional beggar. Money seems to be the evil root of the BSA problems. I know in my own council the District Execs could make the time to keep new units afloat, and existing units aided as needed if they wanted to. It seems they spend most of their time visiting large donors for more donations for hitting businesses up[ for more support. The professional staff gives good lip service, but thats about it. Here in West Texas there has been an increase of the Hispanic population from around 15% 30 years ago to where they now represent around 50% of the population, but one rarely sees a Hispanic Scout, and even rarer the Black Scout. The Council and Districts have given lip service to making a big push to develop Hispanic units and to involving various Hispanic organizations to earn their trust and assistance. Looks good on paper or as a discussion topic at a Council or District Committee meeting, but that is about as far as it has gone. We lost our Council Exec last year for some financial hanky-panky with Council money. One thing is he paid for a hunting lease with Scout money. All his indicreations have not been fully revealed to the Scouting community at large as should have been done. Some information has trickled down but not enough to clear the air. We do know that he was able to resign instead of being terminated, and he did pay part of the money back. What infuriates me is why he wasn't held fully accountable for the supposed thefts. I absolutely hate a liar and a thief. Especially one that steals from the BSA. I'm sure the Council Committee thought they were saving the Council embarassment by the actions they took. What they did only made it worse in many peoples eyes. By being able to basically walk away scot free the message that you can get away with such behavior is sent out. Personally I would have liked to have seen Company E of the Texas Rangers involved in the investigation and if warrented the former Council Exec going to Huntsville, TX to serve some time. There is no excuse for condoning such behavior. I have known good hardworking District Execs and I have know lazy bums that are District Execs. The hardworking types it seem are few and far between these days, at least in my Council. We as volunteers need to demand excellence and honesty from our paid staff and from our council and district boards. That is key to solving one problem we have now.

The Boy Scout Handbook (11th ed.) explains, morally straight as To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance. By that definition supplied from the 11th edition of the BSA handbook, you may not be a moral Scout if: 1. You cheat on your income tax return you are not morally straight; 2. If you drink heavily or take illegal drugs, (this one is a no brainer); 3. If you look the other way when other peoples rights are violated. 4. If you salt your language with foul language; 5. If you cheat others in business or any other dealings; 6. If you are a hypocrite, (you know who you are). This list could be longer too. I liked the defends the rights of all people in the above explanation of morally straight. To me that is the most important lesson to teach Scout is that it may not be always easy to take the high road, but that is the only road a virtuous person takes. Isnt the purpose of the BSA to help make young men into virtuous men? I think so.

Well said Trevorum. "I try to make every scout and every adult feel welcome in our unit because I strongly feel that every boy should be respected for who he is and deserves the opportunity to be a scout." That is all we can do, and it is what we should be doing. Eventually Scouting will mellow on its current policy towards gays, and non-theist. Right now the powers that be are operating from a position of ignorance and intolerance. Eventually that will change, and hope of hopes the organization will regain its proper place of honor in society.

Beavah the large Irish population in Boston are the offspring of 19th Century immigrants and are Roman Catholic. The Scots Irish are, or were Presbyterian.

Thank you Ed. Schools are the perfect Chartering Organization. The BSA is a good organization and and in my opinion the single best youth organization there is. I don't even see a close second. I use things I learned as a Scout everyday. However I don't see any inconsistency. Where we differ is on the subject of religion. I don't care what others believe as long as they don't proselytize. To me religion should be a private thing. Of course this is where I get cross ways with the Great Commission, and that is the fly in the ointment so to speak.

EagleDad, you wrote: "I go back to the Scout Law and Oath. One set of guidelines for which everyone can agree to behave." I agree, however I think where we differ is that I believe that moral or ethical behavior comes naturally to man if there isn't already some social mores in place. And too EagleDad you were right with your "Reason" is what seperates man from animals." Eacatly! And I couldn't agree more. By and large I believe that man's ability to reason through problems also assits in reasoning through moral issues. I am not anti church, for I beleive that we need to come together is some sort of communal activity. It gives us all a sense of being part of the group (society),and it leads to altruism, which is the highest human endeavor in my opinion. I think the notion of altruism is why so many former Boy Scouts stay with the program as adults. I know that I feel I owe a debt for the men who provided adult leadership when I was a boy. On the issue of separation of church and state. You are half right. Religious persecution was part of the reason for some immigration to the Colonies. However, the other half was the being forced to pay taxes to support the Church of England. This really rubbed many the wrong way. And to tell you the truth I would think people would want the government to stay as far away from their own churches as possible. Years ago in college I took an immigration history course. Very interesting, and it showed just how much disdain there was among the various immigrant groups in the 18th Century. Now, during that time most all immigrants comign to the American Colonies were British. When the Scots-Irish immigration started in the late 1730's - 1740's there were several colonies they avoided. They avoided Virginia because of the great Church of England influence, and they avoided the New England colonies because of a dislike for the Puritans. They did make landfall in the Carolinas, Georgia, and in Pennsylvania where the Quakers welcomed them.

Good for them. If I were a Christian I would be either a Presbyterian, Episcopalian or a Methodist. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry amounts to a refusal that gays and lesbians are capable of love. I see the gay rights debate, or fight if you like being where the civil rights fight was in 1965. At sometime in the future society will accept gay people without a moments notice. Discrimination is wrong no matter what the reasons for. All people deserve to be treated as equals until their own deportment proves otherwise. And at that day in the future when all are accepted the colsed minded ones like Fred Phelps will be fully outside the norm of society.

I wonder if Rod Serling was one of the wedding guest.

Ed I for one am glad you are not a sitting justice of the Supreme Court. Besides Ed, where did I mention anything about religion and public schools sponsoring Scout units? I'm not sure what you meant or where you were heading with that accusation but I am not opposed to public schools sponsoring Scout units. I bet that you hate hearing that as it will upset your preconceived notions about me. On the idea of separation I want to see the Federal, State and Local governments turning a blind eye to anything and everything religious. This keeps the religious field safe for every group, not just a single group or few choosen religious groups. I would think this is what all would want. I do realize that there are those decrying separation as a fallacy. Or that the Founding Fathers were anything but Christian, and intended this to be a Christian nation. That is all a flat out falsehood Ed, and nothing more than a lie. As proof see which Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli specifically states: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;. The Treaty of Tripoli was unanomously approved by Congress on June 7, 1797. So Ed, as you see there is no basis to the idea that the U.S. was begun as a Christian nation. That is nothing more than a common myth of our time. Ed I would also like to see your definition of family values. I know that gets thrown around a lot these days. Lets look at some of the statistics. 1. The media frequently reports that 50% of American marriages will end in divorce. This number appears to have been derived from very skimpy data related to a single county or state. However, it appears to be reasonable close to the probable value. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue. However, that is only a projection and a prediction." (Information Obtained From - "Divorce statistics collection: Summary of findings so far," Americans for Divorce Reform, at: http://www.divorcereform.org/results.html) And the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate of all areas. "Bible belt has nation's worse divorce rate," CNN.com, 1999-NOV-12. Online at: http://www.cnn.com/ (www.google.com had a cache copy as of 2000-FEB-11. The page is not directly accessible) Looks to me that divorce could be considered a family value these days. And Ed what is divorce other than serial polygamy. 2. The slogan: "The family that prays together, stays together" is well known. There has been much anecdotal evidence that has led to "unsubstantiated claims that the divorce rate for Christians who attended church regularly, pray together or who meet other conditions is only 1 or 2 percent". (Information Obtained From - Fresh Thinking Needed on Divorce Issues," Jesus Journal, at: http://www.jesusjournal.com/jj_issues/ I do believe Ed that I could go on with this issue, but surely you get the picture.

Ed Mori, YOu wrote: "Where in the Constitution does it say the church & state must be separate? It says the state must not establish a religion. It doesn't say the state have religion in it." While the Constitiution does not specifically state a "separation of Church and State" it is the spirit of the document. The U.S. Constitution broke the lock traditional religions had on government to enforce their practices. In American Colonies for example all had to pay a tax supporting the Church of England whether or not that is where they attended. Say you are a Baptist, how would like to pay a tax supporting the Catholic Church, or the Presbyterians? Not very much I imagine. The Founding Fathers took the yoke from around the neck of people in teh new country. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. I for one am glad there is no state religion I have to pay taxes to. The IRS does more than enough damage as is. And I would very much dislike paying into something I completely disagree with and have absolutely no use for.