CalicoPenn

I also add my thanks and appreciation to Scouter Terry for this wonderful forum. I find it very user friendly and it's aged very well. So it isn't "state of the art" - but does it have to be? Remember "New Coke"? Don't we have comments on this forum all the time complaining about the 1970's "improved scouting"? Haven't we been hearing folks bemoaning "soccer scouting", and the so-called emphasis on "indoor scouting"? Remember the new and improved Netflix announced this past summer, which was quickly reverted back? How many times has Facebook made changes and tweaks only to tweak it back? Aren't those just all examples of fixing something that wasn't broken? Just a thought. That said, if Scouter Terry wants to make changes because HE wants to make changes, it's his toy to play with as he sees fit - and we'll all enjoy it just as much.

Was the Senate adjourned? Answer - they had adjourned, which means they were in recess - in this case, an "intrasession recess", which is a recess of the Senate during a "session" of the Senate. So what is a "session" of the Senate? It's the two-year period a particular Congress is empowered to meet. Right now, the 112th Congress is in session - they started in January 2010 and the session will be completed when they officially adjourn the session before the new Congress (next up, the 113th) takes office. A recess between sessions of Congress is an "intercession recess". Does the Constitution make any distinction between an intercession recess and an intracession recess? Answer - no, it does not. A recess is a recess is a recess. Presidents have made both intersession and intrasession appointments in the past. Though none have made any intrasession appointments during adjournments of under 11 days before, the decision by those Presidents not to make appointments during that time does not prevent any subsequent President from doing so. Does the Constitution say anything about a minimum amount of time the Senate needs to be in recess before the President can exercise his powers under the Constitution to make a recess appointment? Answer - No. There have been "intersession" recess appointments made in recess periods of under 3 days in the past. There is no reason to believe that intrasession recess appointments can't be made in periods of under 3 days as well. Does that mean that a President can potentially make a recess appointment if the Senate adjourns for the night? Answer - yes - but it's unlikely anyone will try it, though Theodore Roosevelt did make a very large number of intersession recess appointments when the Senate had adjourned between sessions for under 24-hours. When Reid was holding pro-forma sessions to block Bush from appointing people during recess, did that really set precedent? Answer - Only in the Bush Administration, which refused to challenge what was then, and still is now, a questionable tactic by the Senate, even though the Bush Administration said such pro-forma sessions didn't block them from making recess appointments. Bush failed to challenge - his failure doesn't bind the hands of a subsequent administration, just as the opinion of the Clinton Justice Department that a 3-day recess isn't long enough to allow the President to make a recess appointment doesn't bind the hands of a subsequent administration. So much for "clearly" violating the Constitution. Obama, who folks need to remember taught Constitutional Law, is challenging the Senate's actions - and rightfully so. If the Senate wishes to challenge, their recourse is the courts, which I'd guess may punt by claiming it's a "political issue" and not an issue for the courts to decide. By the way, my source of information is the Congressional Research Office (the fellows that work for Congress), which has a nice FAQ on recess appointments available online, not an editorial writer for Investors Business Daily who couldn't be bothered to check to see if he was stating fact when he said the Senate isn't in recess (it clearly is in intrasession recess, and had they bothered to check, would have discovered that intrasession recess appointments have been made by Presidents in the past - so much for the fact checking abilities of the press - I wonder what else Investors Business Daily get's wrong - I think I'd be worried about taking any of their advice right about now). Also, before I'm accused of just being pro-Obama, had President Bush challenged Harry Reid back when Harry came up with this scheme in the first place, I would have been supporting President Bush, for all the reasons stated above.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I'm with BDPT on this one - unless the COR and the CO is abrogating their responsibilities to the committee, the committee should be doing nothing more than making a recommendation to the COR/CO, and they shouldn't need a interviewing process to do so. If you don't already know who that natural successor is by now, no interviewing process is going to make it better. But if the CO/COR is not involved, then I suggest going home, asking your son(s) who their first, second and third choice would be (without telling them who the candidates are), get together with the rest of the committee, who has done the same thing, compare lists, then ask the person at the top of the list one question - and one question only: "Mr. (Ms.) Doe, will you serve as our Troops Scoutmaster?". But if you insist on going through this "interview" process, then I suggest that you ask if, as Scoutmaster, they will support the Chartering Organization's vision of the Troop, and if they will support the BSA's vision and policies.

Heated my home with wood in college. The wood stove was the only source of heat. Bought the wood - 10 cords for $250, dumped in a pile in the middle of the yard. $250 was a lot for a couple of college students - still, it was cheaper than a chain saw. Wood was cheap - I was shocked to learn my parents paid $35 for a face cord of wood (about 1/3rd of a full cord) when I was paying $25 for a full cord (more or less). I suppose that was the difference between suburban Chicago and rural Maine. Dogs played king of the hill until we got a chance to stack it. First year it warmed us three times. First time when we stacked it against the side of the house. Second time when we spent a weekend breaking it out of the ice after an ice storm and stacking it on the covered front porch. And of course the proverbial third time when we burned it. I often ended up sleeping in the living room where the stove was - not to get warm, but because it was too hot in my bedroom upstairs - heat rises. Typical winter temperatures in our part of Central Maine was in the mid-20's to mid-30's. Great for snow - but not too cold. One time we had a cold snap - a few days of -10 degree weather. Worried that the pipes would freeze, my roommate and I took turns feeding the stove every two hours. Unfortunately, we didn't coordinate the feeding of the woodstove - I had an early class, her's was an hour later, we hadn't seen or spoken to each other since the evening before. I went home and fed the stove every two hours, and so did she - alternate hours from me - between us, we ended up feeding the stove once every hour. We both got home at 6pm, the dogs whimpering at the door - not because they needed to use the nearest trees, but because it was hot in the house - the indoor thermometer read 120 degrees. The four of us (2 humans, 2 dogs) ended up sleeping on the open porch of the house, on a 20 below night, with the door open to allow the heat to escape from the house for a few hours. We were pretty darn comfortable out there too.

No tattoos. I may have a high tolerance for pain (I once fell asleep in the endodontists chair while having a root canal done without lidocaine) but I don't go searching for pain. But I don't care if others have tattoos - as long as they don't care if I stare at them while taking in the artwork on their bodies.

"Up until now he was considered by many to be one of the best SPL's in the District. He is an outstanding speaker, writes articles about Scouting for the local newspaper and has published a book about his trip to the 2010 Jambo." Well congratulations - you people have now just allowed a bunch of "concerned parents" (or as I like to call them, people who can't mind their own business) to damage the reputation not just of a Scout, but of a Super-Scout. Not only have you allowed it, but you're now contributing to it. All over what, exactly? A posting on a personal facebook page of something that may have meaning to this particular Scout which you have not even determined yet that some "Mrs. Kravitzes" have decided is wrong for another person's child to post because it contains "cuss words"? Before even chatting with this lad, or apparently his parents, you folks have tried him and found him guilty, and are trying to determine the best way to punish him. You folks have failed this boy - and perhaps this boys family. Though you might have an argument that the posting by the lad was wrong because "A Scout is Clean", the Scout Law and Oath works both ways - where is your Loyalty to this Scout? How have you folks proven to be Trustworthy with your rush to judgement? How have you folks been Friendly, Courteous and Kind? Put yourself in this lads shoes right now. He's off on a hiking trip with the OA, unaware of what's going on, probably enjoying his time with his peers, and back at home you're all sitting there waiting to ambush him with this - and that's exactly what this is going to be - an ambush. Exactly what kind of impression are you folks about to give this Scout and his parents? Every single one of you should be ashamed for allowing yourself to be stampeded like this by a bunch of parents that can't mind their own business. I'm going to be blunt, and not very diplomatic: If you people can't stop this juggernaut now, before this Scout gets back and it's too late, can't stand back and think this through rather than being reactionary, and can't stand up for this Scout, then you should all leave Scouting now - before you can do any more damage to any more boys. The DE should be fired. Unless the calls from the "concerned parents" involved allegations of abuse, his answer to them should have been to call the Scoutmaster. He should not be interferring with the internal operations of the Troop. And he should not have discussed this with anyone other than the Scoutmaster, not even you. He'd better hope for his, and the Council's sake, that he hasn't spread this around into the rest of the district. I imagine even a lawyer who was last in his/her class would have a pretty good chance of success of getting a settlement in a lawsuit against the DE and Council for damaging the reputation of a 16-year old. And by god, you better hope that when you do finally talk to the parents, that they don't react like papa and mama bears protecting their young - that wouldn't be pretty.

Hang him!! Find the nearest yardarm and hang him high!!!! (Boy, we could really use a sarcasm font). I'm with the Scoutmaster right up to the point where he suggests a deep apology from the boy. An apology may be needed, but it's not from the boy, unless it's to his parents if the parents make a big deal out of it. What has he done to anyone that requires an apology? Did he single anyone out in the Troop with that post or did some people just get their undies in a twist because something not directed at them offended their apparently delicate sensibilities and their own idea of what it means to be a Boy Scout, SPL and (unofficial) Chaplain's Aide?. If they don't want their kids to see that kind of stuff on their SPL's PERSONAL facebook page, then it's up to them to tell their own kids not to access it. And when did Boy Scout, SPL and/or Chaplain's Aide become synonymous with Saint? If some of the parents knew that I watched Saturday Night Live and Monty Python, and listened to George Carlin, when I was a 16-year old Scout, they would have called me the spawn of the devil himself. Heck, if something like Facebook was around way back then, it's pretty likely I would have posted video or audio of George Carlin doing his 7 words you can't say on television bit. Why, all that cussing he did - I might have been hanged myself! He's described as a very good SPL, though one that's stepped on the toes of some of the adults. So why have the adults put themselves into a position to have their toes stepped on in the first place? 16 year olds aren't going to be as diplomatic in these matters but heck, a 20 year old will be less diplomatic than a 30 year old who will be less diplomatic than a 40 year old who will be less diplomatic than a 50 year old (I think you get the picture). I've seen adult leaders get hacked off when an SPL politely tells them "Gee, Sorry Mr. G., we've got our troop meetings planned for the month, there just isn't any time for us to let you run a merit badge session at the next meeting". What else are we missing here? Have you spoken with the parents? Maybe the parents are already aware of what the lad has on his facebook page and are perfectly fine with it, or maybe you talk to them about it and they are perfectly fine with it - then what do you do? Is there anything else posted along with this video that folks are not looking at? A lot of folks use Facebook like a blog, making comments on things they've seen or posted - maybe the lad has posted this video then posted a rant against the guy in the video that we haven't been told about - kind of changes the whole flavor of the discussion then, doesn't it? It occurs to me that the Scout leaders that want him to step down or they will leave the Troop may be unhappy with the way the Troop is being run anyway, may not like that it's boy led, and are really just using this as a way to try to change the Troop more to their liking. If I were the Scoutmaster, the Committee Chair or the COR, I would have taken the threat to leave as a resignation notice, thanked them for their service, and ask them to let us know where to send their boy's records when they find a new Troop more to their liking. My advice? Think about why this has disappointed you and make sure that the issue isn't with you before saying it's with the lad, and decide whether it's his job to make sure you aren't offended by something or whether it's your choice to be or not to be offended by something, stick with and back-up the Scoutmaster, get rid of the apology idea, then have a session WITH THE ENTIRE TROOP on how what you post on Facebook and other online platforms affects other people's impression of them, and stand by your, as you put it, Exemplary Scout

I'm not even sure you could strip off the pre-seasoning. I visited a Lodge factory outlet store a couple of months ago (I bought an enameled cast iron dutch oven for home use and a pre-seasoned corn bread pan) and talked to one of the staff there about the pre-seasoning and was told that Lodge pre-seasons as an integral part of the manufacturing process, that it wasn't taking unseasoned cast iron and seasoning it as a final process, but that it was done during the actual casting process. That being said, she suggested that, although it is pre-seasoned and ready to go, it wouldn't hurt it to do my own seasoning session at home since one essentially seasons the cookware everytime it's used. She suggested a quick wash with mild, soapy water and sponge and dry it quickly and well with a paper towel, then spray it quick with cooking spray (not to cover every inch), pop it in a 350 degree oven upside down (I suggest you put it upside down on a top rack with a sheet pan on a rack underneath) for about 15 to 20 minutes - no more, pull it out of the oven and after it's cooled for about 5 minutes, take a wad of paper towels and wipe it down inside - that will spread the oil into places it did get to wile taking out excess oil.

I come from a Lodge that had restricted flaps - 2 per lifetime and that's it. You got your first after you completed the Ordeal. You got the second after you completed your Brotherhood. You were solemnly warned not to put your flap on using velcro or snaps but to sew it on your uniform shirt so that it wouldn't get lost and wouldn't get stolen (and yes, unscrupulous patch collectors would try to rip them from your shirt). If you lost it? Sorry charley, you don't get a new one (though if it was stolen from you, it would be replaced). About 1982, National informed us that we could no longer restrict the flaps - about the same time, we were required to put the fleur-de-lis on the flap so we simply considered the pre-fleur-de-lis flap restricted and the new flaps unrestricted. I got one of the first flaps with the fleur-de-lis - it was handed out at one event - Spring Ordeal - before it was redesigned - the council did a rush job and hadn't thought about what the placement of a small fleur-de-lis under the backside of a flying goose might be interpreted as. Ooops. That year we had our first ever special event lodge flap - for the Winter Banquet. You could buy as many as you wanted but they were only on sale at the banquet - any left over were destroyed. They were considered official flaps of the Lodge so could be worn in place of the regular lodge flap for as long as you wanted. We've had other special flaps since then, but avoided the temptation to create special lodge flaps at the drop of the hat. We've never gone the route of having different color borders or backgrounds for level of membership. When you completed your Ordeal, you got your sash at the ceremony. You got your lodge flap and an OA Handbook (yes, the Lodge gave you an OA Handbook) the next morning after breakfast at a break-out meeting with your new Chapter Chief who gave you contact information, meeting information, information about the lodge flap, took you through a quick trip through the handbook, and encouraged you to get involved, go to the Fall Fellowship and come back in a year to become a Brotherhood member. In many of the Troops, it was a tradition to present the new Ordeal members the universal arrow at the next Court of Honor so we wouldn't dream of giving out the universal arrow. In our Lodge, there we no special privileges or patches for Brotherhood Members or Vigil Honor Members. If you even thought that being a Vigil Honor Member was anything more than a great and humbling honor bestowed upon you by your fellow arrowman, you wouldn't even be likely to be nominated. In our Lodge, it was considered proper to be first in line when asked to help if you were a Brotherhood member and to be the first to walk in and say "How can I help" without being asked if you were a Vigil Honor member. It's just the way things were taught.

Although I shouldn't be, I'm always surprised at what other Lodges around the country do, or don't do. I read some of Seattle's ideas and wondered "wait a sec, aren't they already doing that?". In my home lodge, the chapters do their call-outs at the Spring Camporee. The units are even escorted to the ceremony site by torch-bearing "indians" wearing their sashes - in silence both to and from the site of the "sacred ceremony". Back when I was Lodge Vice Chief, someone suggested changing the tradition to having call-outs at summer camp, like our neighboring council did. It was discussed for about 10 minutes before it was decided not to even investigate the possibility. Our Lodge had active chapters and active members - and I believe it's at least partly because of the visibility of the chapters at camporees. We also tended to be fairly loose, errrr, creative about what constituted an OA event. If the chapter ran the Sunday morning flag ceremony at the fall camporee, we declared the entire camporee a chapter OA event - and that means people wore their sashes. We had an annual scout show - the Scout-O-Rama - usually held in March or early April - at one of the biggest indoor event arenas in the area at the time - Arlington Park Racetrack (horse racing). Units from the entire council converged on the track and had booths with games, activities and displays. Tickets were sold by the Scouts in the units - and prizes could be earned - it was a great way for units and the council to earn some money, and a great way to show off the Boy Scouts. OA Sashes were worn throughout the entire weekend. How did we accomplish that? By holding Lodge officer elections during Scout-O-Rama. Another OA event! For the past 15 years or so, the Lodge has been running a "haunted campgrounds" event at a local Methodist campgrounds - it's well publicized throughout the Council, and the public is invited as well. It's a fundraiser for the Lodge and has been very successful. Scouts in uniforms get in at a discounted price - and the patches available for purchase are the most macabre Scouting patches you'll ever see. And even though there is a spun thread to talk about the flaps, I just have to say - No flaps for new Ordeal members? Really?? That's got to be one of the most asinine ideas I've heard from a Lodge in a long time - and frankly, I blame it on the "Quality Lodge" program, if trying to get more people to become Brotherhood is one of the reasons for that. And shame on any Vigil Honor Member who is in it for a special flap. This whole idea of different colored borders for different "levels" of membership sounds like something a patch collector might dream up and is a perversion of the ideals of the Order.

Johnny who???

"I know we had a small container of something that seemed real good years back..Small bottle but you didn't have to slather it on, it was more like dabbing on neck & wrists and ankles.. Thing is you smelled like someone pissed all over you.. Not only did it keep the bugs at bay, people ran from you, and you were trying to run away from yourself, you smelled so bad!" Sound like you might be describing "Ole Time Woodsman" - an insect repellant made in Maine that was powerful stinky enough to keep Moose and Bears away, and well as anything else in a 3-county area - and we're taking counties the size of Delaware.

If you can't plan around black fly season then use a Permethrin repellent on your clothes (NOT on the skin - Sawyer makes a good product) and for exposed sking use either 100% Deet or, if you're not into putting something on your skin that can melt synthetic cloth, Picaridin (Cutter Advanced). Wearing long pants and long-sleeved shirts helps too - and when putting on insect repellent, don't just slather it on exposed skin, roll down your socks and put some on then roll the socks back up - roll up sleeves and pant legs too and do the same thing.

Ojenyunyat Sungwiyadeson honungradon nagwutut. Ojenyunyat osrasay. God Jul, Gott Nytt r

So does it matter what kind of restaurant it is? McDonalds - hats on or off - and if its off, is it a battle worth pursuing? If hats are ok in McDonalds, at what level aren't they ok? Denny's? IHOP? Applebees? What about at a sports bar near the ballpark after a game? What about a cafeteria/restaurant associated with a botanical garden/arboretum/zoo? Or does it only matter in one of those "finer" dining establishments? And when does one take one's hat off? Upon entering the door? Upon being seated? What if you're eating in an outdoor eating area - does the hat off rule apply to sidewalk or patio dining? I tend to take my hat off when I'm seated - since I usually wear ball caps, I usually loop it through my belt (the part of the belt after it's been buckled that you tuck into a belt loop). I just prefer not to wear a hat when I'm eating (unless I'm outside). Maybe its because I was taught that hats are taken off when eating, but I think its really more of a personal preference. It doesn't bother me if other people keep their hats on when they eat. I just don't care. Only you can let what other people wear ruin your day. Why give strangers that kind of power over your happiness? Kind of related, I remember reading and hearing about people lamenting the fact that men don't wear hats anymore like they used to. I think those articles were more prevalent in the 70's and 80's (which I attribute to it having become accepted by the 90's so who wants to write such an outdated article anymore). If that was true in the 70's and 80's, I don't think that's true anymore. Men are wearing hats - men commonly wear hats - they just aren't the fedoras and hats we think of from the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. Look into a man's closet and I'd almost bet that 99% of us have at least one baseball style ballcap in it, if not more (heck, I have about 50 from various national parks and wildlife refuges). But I think they've become so commonly seen that we no longer really register that people are wearing them, or not. No one notices if you're wearing pants - we just expect that you are. I don't think most people notice if you're wearing a ballcap most of the time. As for the national anthem, I don't give a rats patootie if you stand up or not for the national anthem. For all I know, you may have a very good reason for not standing up for it (when I got very sick with a lung disease and was on oxygen, it took a lot out of me to simply stand sometimes). What drives me nuts is people clapping for the national anthem while the national anthem is being sung - wait until it's over, people - some of us would rather hear Wayne Messmer's golden voice singing the national anthem than you clapping and whistling while he's singing.

Hmmm. According to the Social Security Administration, Social Security is fully funded through 2037. Everybody Panic!!!! Last year's payroll tax holiday cost about 112 billion dollars - but it didn't affect Social Security at all because under that bill, the US Treasury gave Social Security the bonds for that 112 billion dollars anyway - so the funds really came out of the general funding. Wait - you don't know that Social Security is one of the US Government's largest bondholders? Govenment borrows money from Social Security by issuing bonds - and Social Security only keeps enough cash to pay for a few months worth of benefits - the rest is kept in bonds from the US Government - enough to ensure that Social Security is fully funded through 2037. Unless the US Government defaults, and it never has yet (although the Party of No certainly has brought us to the brink), the money for Social Security is there. Oddly enough, 2 years ago, Social Security was fully funded through 2035. Hmm - do I detect a pattern? Oh wait - that story doesn't sell newspapers or ad time on TV and doesn't allow politicians to fool some of the people some of the time so never mind...Everybody Panic!!!!

Interesting question - I suppose it depends on what one means by Scoutcraft. I view Scoutcraft as being pretty broad and already including sewing, cooking, communications, public speaking and (prepare for a shudder from Kudu here) leadership. It also includes campcraft and woodcraft which I suspect most people think of when they think Scoutcraft. But then I'm one of those folks who came up through the "failed" program of the 1970's, which I don't see as a failure at all. What I'd like to see more of is problem solving, critical analysis, sustainablity and preparedness - and not just emergency preparedness but teaching the skills that might be needed for long-term survival - how to grow and harvest food for instance. I could even envision this fitting in with a renewed OA - imagine the next time a major earthquake hits an island like Haiti - while the Red Cross type groups rush in to provide emergency care and recovery, large groups of Boy Scouts (as part of the OA) come in to clear land and replant crops.

They controlled for partisanship, but maybe they needed to control for being from New Jersey. (Goodnight Snookie, wherever you are).(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

"am using it it only to show that at least SOME hunters are violent." Russel Henderson killed a man by beating the heck out of him and leaving him strung up on a fence in Wyoming overnight to die. I'm only using it to show that at least SOME Eagle Scouts are violent. Yes, some hunters are violent. So are some Boy Scouts. So are some Veterans. So are some Politicians. So are some Lawyers. So are some Doctors. So are some Mothers. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if some Buddhists are violent. I think you get the point - in every profession, hobby, religion, or whatever other way of categorizing humans there are, "SOME" people will be violent. Since not matter what category you choose, some people will be violent, it deflates the use of the argument for every category. So who cares if some hunters are violent - it doesn't add anything to the argument.

"14.7% of Boy Scouts (grades 6-12) do NOT camp!" Yeeaaahhhh, I'm not sure I would come to the same conclusion on that statistic (though I understand how one might). In the same question set, which asks if you do an activity for fun or as part of a team/at a competitive level, one of the activities is walking and if we use Kudu's way of reaching the conclusion that 14.7% of Boy Scouts grade 6-12 do not camp, then we have to say that... 40.3% of Boy Scouts (grades 6-12) do NOT walk! I think we all know that isn't true, don't we? The question doesn't ask if they camp, it asks if they do it for fun or as part of a team/competition (Moose - I think it's an and/or question (do you camp for fun and/or as a team/competition) not a comparative question trying to determine if you do it for fun or if you do it as a team/competition). Now I'm not saying that there might not be some Boy Scouts that don't camp - but the survey doesn't actually ask that question, and its as likely that there are Scouts that answered that question thinking that by fun or team they meant outside of Scouting and I'm pretty sure most of us have met Scouts that don't camp for fun outside of Scouts - just like there are plenty of Scouts that don't walk for fun. That's the problem with developing conclusions based on surveys and polls like this - it's too easy to state a conclusion when a specific question hasn't been asked, or different survey takers interpret the question differently and most of the time, we never get to see the data or questions so that we can question the conclusion being reached.

And you can say (as Andrew Linzey apparently says) that animal abuse and hunting are the same thing, but that doesn't make it true either. Heck, if hunting animals leads to violence against people, then surely military service, where people are trained to kill other people, leads to violence against people. There are far more people who have served in the military than hunt so we may be in real danger now.

Sure - we could go the rendezvous route - why, there is even some commonality with the OA already - the OA imitates aspects of the American Indian culture and the voyageurs and mountain men imitated aspects of the American Indian culture as well. So instead of badly imitiating American Indian culture, we can badly imitate voyageurs and mountain men badly imitating (or trying to Europonize) American Indian culture. Hmmm - on second thought... Well, we could go to old original way with the black robes. Of course, the reason we got away from that model was it made too many people think the OA was somehow related to Free Masonry and that was not something that was intended. I'm not surprised that people think of the KKK or satanic worship now either. Hmmm - maybe not... I'm not trying to defend the program the way it is - I think it might be an interesting exercise - but sometimes, as hokey as something might seem, it may be better than the alternatives. Of course, I must say that when I first saw the title of the thread, I was wondering where scouts were dancing about wearing feather boas - good thing I then saw it was in the OA section.

"Looking at the above qoute from Packsaddle" Well, if I have to be confused with anyone else on this forum, Packsaddle is probably in my top five.

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." If the founders wanted to prohibit Congress from establishing a state religion (ala Church of England, Church of Sweden, Church of Norway), they would have said so and it would read respecting the establishment of "A" religion. It doesn't say that. No less than Thomas Jefferson argued that the establishment clause is indeed a separation of church and state clause, a prohibition on recognizing any religion or religious belief for special treatment. In other words, not only can't government create a Church of America, it can't recognize any religion as being an official religion of the United States or treat any religion any more or less equal than any other religion. Contrary to the views of those who say the US is a Christian nation, the Constitution expressly forbids the US to officially declare itself a Christian nation. Of course those who make the claim that it is are perfectly free to make that claim, since it's their right of free exercise thereof - but those statements do not make it official. The Supreme Court has ruled - numerous times already (you would think people would get the hint) that the Government (including State and Local Governments) can't treat any religion any differently than any other religion and that they must be absolutely neutral in religious expression so that there isn't an appearance that one religion is accorded "official" status.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

One of the athiest displays is a quote by Thomas Jefferson that reads "Religions are all alike - founded on fables and mythologies." I guess I never thought of Thomas Jefferson as a mocker of other people's beliefs. One of the athiest displays is 4 pictures which asks the viewer what myths they see while pointing out that 37 million Americans know a myth when they see it - one of those pictures is Santa, one appears to be a depiction of Poseidon, one is a depiction of Jesus and one is a picture that appears to be a depiction of Satan. I don't see how this mocks anyones religion since it is letting the viewer make their own decisions - it suggests that Jesus is a myth but doesn't try to hit you over the head with it. But, I can accept that some might see that it mocks others beliefs, provided that it be understood that a Nativity Scene could just as easily be seen as mocking other people's beliefs as well. Darn - sure does hurt when that shoe is on your own foot, doesn't it? I read some of the local comments about this "controversy". Most seemed to side with the City, saying it seemed to be an even-handed way of handling the situation, that it was the luck of the draw, and why should that one particular Christian group get all the spaces when their own churches weren't allowed spaces and the nativity folks should quit their griping just because they weren't very lucky this year (Hmmm - I suppose it would be devilish of me to point out that if God really wanted the Christians to have all those spaces, it was well within God's power to rig that lottery). There were some that see it in the same way Moosetracker sees it - and that's ok too. I noticed that there were quite a few who said they were happy with how it turned out because the nativity scenes were old, ratty, tatty, worn-out and ugly and if they were just patched up and repainted, maybe it would be ok to look at them again. The comments that caught my eye the most were those that said Santa Monica should just eliminate the displays completely because for those few weeks of the year, the ugly displays block a great view of the Pacific Ocean, which makes me think about applying for the lottery myself and if I were to win any of the space, have the ugly plywood kiosk thing taken down and replace it with just a small sign that says "This view brought to you this holiday season by Mother Nature" (and it would be just as great if one of the other churches won spots in the lottery and replaced the kiosk with a simple sign saying "This view brought to you this Christmas season by God"). But lets get to the meat of the matter - when the Christian churches stand up in a unified fashion and loudly denounce "Black Friday" and tell their congregants that it is a sin in God's eye and a slap to the face of Christianity for people to leave their families at 5pm on Thanksgiving night to line up at (insert your favorite big box store here)to start shopping at midnight, then Christians can start to complain about a war on Christmas. Until that happens (and I'm not going to hold my breath) the war on Christmas has been won - by Big Consumerism and these minor skirmishes like this Santa Monica issue are nothing but distractions from the bigger picture.