Brewmeister

Crew's post is over 3 years old.

>>That would be the party that tries to regulate what people can do with their own bodies, correct? Do whatever you want to do with your own body, but as soon as what you do with your body impacts another body, then it no longer becomes solely your business.

All those fancy words avoiding the fundamental question: "If life worth protecting does not begin at conception, when does it begin?" Any date you pick other than conception will be arbitrary. If you can accept that more power to you.

>>some people don't believe a fetus to be living. Yes, it's amazing how people who argue with such technical precision about other areas of biology and science find it logical to put a completely arbitrary date after which life is worth protecting. If life worth protecting doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? 6 months? Why not 5 months and 30 days, or 6 months and an hour? Why not "abort" post-birth for that matter...oh wait, that's already been proposed...

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Mormon-church-wants-more-compassion-for-gays-4096810.php

The Anti-Theist's Handbook Chapter 1: How best to respond to the "insensitivity" of publicly displayed religious symbols by bastardizing those symbols in your own counter-displays. Chapter 2: How to demonstrate tolerance and respect for a diversity of beliefs by mocking those who believe in an "invisible magic man living in the clouds." Chapter 3: How to use spelling and grammar errors to undercut valid points made against your positions. Chapter 4:......

+1 to Fred and quazee. Merlyn's comments do not just reflect atheism, they reflect anti-theism: the mimicry, mocking, and intolerance of religion in general, which undercuts any claims of so-called tolerance that he makes.

Faith is difficult.

It's all part of the continued clash between good and evil...the devil works in insidious and attractive ways and paves an easy path to follow.

According to the G2SS http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss11.aspx I don't see that requirement in there.

>>So brew what you are saying is we should kill the cub program???? If you've read what I've written over time, which I know you have, you would realize what a ridiculous question that is. Even needing to accommodate for boys that come into the program rather than working their way up through tigers, there is no need for such verbatim repetion of parts that are only tangentially related to scout craft and that are related not at all to the fun part. But that's just my opinion. At least my son hasn't had to describe the food pyramid for a four time. (Maybe he hasn't gotten to that part yet...)

The questions that go unanswered and the points that are ignored are perhaps the most telling in this forum... Well, look at the bright side. If the anti-theists ever succeed in their mission (stated or otherwise) to have the BSA go away, all the displaced boys will have a home in the notable youth organizations run by atheist groups, which are of course known far and wide for their community and charitable works.

Again, the problem is that the so-called and self-described inclusive and tolerant folks who would love to take down the BSA and dance gleefully on its grave are not just atheists, they are anti-theists. It's a whole cadre of "freedom from religion" folks who simply cannot stand to see an organization that includes a theistic component exist.

"Scouting promises you the great outdoors. As a Scout, you can learn how to camp and hike without leaving a trace and how to take care of the land. Youll study wildlife up close and learn about nature all around you. There are plenty of skills for you to master, and you can teach others what you have learned." Sounds like fun. Let's join a troop! Lessee...I can do the Tenderfoot requirements, half of which I just did in Webelos...let's work on the Personal Fitness merit badge...boy that looks really familiar too...Family Life...ditto...ooh look, 3 citizenship merit badges, what fun! Scouting brings the "uncool" on itself by too much bookwork and not enough outdoor work. Now I'm starting to sound like Kudu....

My point is that in previous discussions we were admonished for connecting the two. For all the talk of "coexisting," anti-theists sure don't have a lot of tolerance for organizations that do not share their belief system.

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! Seems to me that recent criticism was leveled in here for lumping the anti-theism and pro-sodomy constituencies together. So...now they are connected?

More of the same crap...we don't like the BSA but we're not going to come up with alternative because that would be something positive and, you know, like, actual work. Instead we're going to sit at our keyboards and complain loudly that you should change. It's the ultimate in cowardice.

Of course scouts is "uncool." How many boys will wear a uniform, or even a Class B, to school? Now, how many will wear their sports jersey? I talk about it with the boys from time to time. They have to know it and be able to deal with it. And I do agree that Cubs attracts a large number of "special" boys.

>>Brew, all is not lost. That's not what I'm saying...quite the opposite. I realize it's human nature to complain about things you don't like rather than cheer the things you do, but nobody ever has anything good to say about how professional scouters, and particularly national, handle any aspect of the program. Because local, volunteer scouters are generally assumed to be reasonably competent with the best interest of boys and the program at heart, there must be some sort of process professional scouters go through where they become completely incompetent, if not downright destructive, to the program they have committed to lead, and there must be self-destructive tendencies among the people and boards that keep giving these people jobs. (This message has been edited by brewmeister)

I think we all just need to quit and coach little league or something. Scouting as a whole is obviously doomed as evidenced here day in and day out by the multitude of voices who deem it so. Cub scouting is a boring, macaroni-gluing mess, Boy Scouts is nothing like it was 100 years ago, and who knows what the heck all this venturing stuff is. Not to mention nobody can trust their sons with leaders, we hate gays, and have this whole God hang up.

Actually the den chief role could be the perfect opportunity to address those issues and call mom's/scout's bluff at the same time. The den chief serves at the approval of the SM and CM/DL unlike the other PORs that are elected by the boys or chosen by the SPL. Assuming your districts have den chief training sessions that's a good opportunity to see how serious the boy is about pursuing the position. Unlike some of the do-nothing PORs, the den chief is one that actually does something. It could be the opportunity for the boy to rise to the occasion or, if he decides not to because it's too much work, you can at least say that every opportunity was offered by the troop.

Edit- deleted for redundancy(This message has been edited by Brewmeister)

Packs are always looking for good den chiefs and there is no limit to the numbers of them. That POR is good all the way to Eagle. Of course the position actually requires work, so that might be a problem.

Congratulations. Just finished my ticket recently also. I used to be a Beaver....

How about a different question-- What would happen to the BSA if the Eagle award were eliminated?