Adrianvs

Regarding the Iroquois (or other native american tribes or cultures, for that matter), let's be careful not to romanticize them. One way that this is done is by assuming that those features of their culture which are not known or mentioned are the same as the features of our culture. I am not familiar with the Iroquois tribe, but I have studied the cultural and personal histories of other tribes like the Sauk, Mesquakie, and Ioway. We can admire many aspects of the tribal culture (and I do), but there are other features which are seen as reprehensible in our own minds. Everyone in the tribe may have a voice, but the way in which a member of another tribe is seen was often not in keeping with our understanding of human rights (developed from the Christian tradition of western europe). Noble and heroic figures (or tragic victims, depending on one's bias) like Black Hawk did not believe in anything resembling human rights PER SE. There was nothing in the culture or belief system to prevent one from attacking and killing members of an enemy tribe, without reason or provokation. These may be unarmed, elderly, women or children. Such things were irrelevant to many tribes. The Iroquois, for example, were proud of the clans and tribes that they had wiped out in their history. Also, the relationship of many tribes to European and later US civilizations was much more complex than we would like to think. In many tribes, especially the woodland cultures, conquering and wiping out an enemy was expected and understood behavior. There is also the whole issue of seeing white political figures as Fathers and forming real cultural and political relationships with them. The "We and Them" was very very rarely Indian and White, in Native American consciousness until very recently. The "Them" was always primarily another native tribe and historical enemy and the "We" almost always included a white Father. I would recommend reading first-hand accounts (albeit translated in many cases) in order to truly understand the historical native american experience, keeping in mind that the tribes were very different from each other and had different experiences. Regarding the abortion question mentioned by Prairie Scouter, the fundamental question of determining what constitutes murder is never soley a matter of medicine. Who is a human being? What rights, if any, do human beings have? What behaviors are in keeping with human nature? These are ethical questions that only an ethical system can address. The fact of the manner is that "secularism" itself provides no basis for any form of human right. That we cannot torture and kill babies is a matter of religious principle. That we can legally torture and kill babies in certain situations in this country is a result of secularism, a central point of which is that there is no ethical system. The powerful do what they are able to to the weak. This is a case of physical power and political power. Those who are unable to vote cannot expect to be protected by Prairie Scouter's ideal government, since rights are nothing more than allowances granted by the government. I prefer the philosophical and theological notion that human rights are intrinsic to human nature and that they are bestowed by the Creator. Call me a zealot..

Much of the difficulty in discussing this issue comes from a particularly narrow definition of "Christian principles." Individuals often bring this issue up defining Christian principles to include only exclusively Christian principles. Ex: "What evidence is there to support the idea that the founders of this nation *wanted* Christian principles to be it's bedrock? There is no mention of Jesus or God the Constitution." They will also assume that the consensi (consensuses?) of our nation somehow form a core set of "secular principles." This is a simple method of division, but it does not give an accurate impression of how principles such as human rights, separation of religion and state, specific ethical concerns, the western concept of education, and other supposedly "secular" principles developed. There are many things that historic Christianity and some forms of secularism have in common. Just as Christianity inherited many principles from Judaism and Greek philosophy, most of the notions and systems considered secular were born out of Christianity. Just as the concept of one Absolute God may be considered a Greek philosophical principle, a Hindu principle, a Jewish principle, a Christian principle, and an Islamic principle, some concepts may be considered both secular and Christian principles. There may, be a legitimate argument as to whether the set of principles used by the Founders may more accurately be described as Christian, secular, or something else, but we mustn't confuse the issue with false divisions or oversimplifications. In addition, we must not forget that there is hardly a secular consensus on legal or ethical issues. Principles such as basic human rights, personal autonomy or the separation of state and religion have routinely been opposed by secular governments throughout history. In the end, it is easy to define Christian principles as narrowly as to include only a few exclusive doctrines. It is also easy to throw out lists of things that one would expect a Christian government to enact, in an attempt to shock the reader. It is just as easy to define secularism in such a way that it cannot guarantee basic human rights and list atrocities committed by secular governments. Neither of these things are helpful to the discussion at hand.

Seed, I am sincerely curious as to what you believe the purpose of the uniform to be. That it does not fit your body type is a legitimate concern, but you indicated that having a custom tailored uniform would not solve the real problem. Instead the problem is that the uniform has "weird elastic on the waisband [sic], and pockets galore." The uniform is not "in style" or "something a younger woman wants to be seen in." It has unnecessary "big pockets in the front," and a "yahoo coller [sic]" that one "can't do anything with." The uniform is also "ugly and mannish." We must also not forget that you are unable to find the "'right' earings [sic] to go with this outfit." While I agree that there are some unnecessary or even odd elements to the uniform, I would submit that the purpose of the uniform is not to be something that a young woman (or young man, for that manner) feels is fashionable. I've long thought that a redesign of the female blouse would be welcomed. Could the female uniform be cut better, without large chest pockets and not tucked in, like some female miliary uniform shirts. Sure, that would be legitimate, but it still isn't fashionable by society's standards. It isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to look like a uniform. That entails humility, identity, and equality with everyone else in the uniform. I'm not indicating that this is the case for you, but if someone expects a scouting uniform to be an addition to their wardrobe to draw attention to their looks, whether in scouting or just "at the store," then there is a serious problem. What is your position within scouting? Do you feel that the uniform is hindering your fulfilling of that role? The only people whose perception of the uniform you should be concerned about are the scouts.

Although several of the points have been addressed in the responses, here is a primer on homesickness by the Rev. Msgr. Francis Schwartz, whom I met at a session of National Camping School a couple of years ago. The little article is spot on. http://www.inquiry.net/adult/problems/homesick.htm One thing that I would like to add, however, is that the guideline regarding calling home or keeping the boy at camp is not an absolute. As a camp chaplain, I have been taken to a scout who, resulting from a number of factors, was bordering on psychosis. The child had some specific developmental issues (and clinical, if I recall), and a history of maladaptive behaviors related to separation which were not made known to the scoutmasters. Later in the week, when the sitation had become very serious, the scoutmaster had to accept that keeping the boy at camp against his will was irresponsible and that a promise that his parents would be called the following morning was the only thing that would allow this child to escape his condition and return to his camp and sleep. (This was not a ploy, by the way; the parents in this case were completely unavailable for sigificant periods of time.) In any case, one must realize that there are situations (albeit rare) where a case of homesickness can be the circumstance of something more serious.

"Really? The BSA's Judeo-Christian Declaration of Religious Principle...does not sound very Buddhist to me." I never said that the Declaration of Religious Principle was compatible with Buddhism (the modern religious form). I stated that it was compatible with "Indian understanding." Within that paragraph, I was referring to Indian philosophy and you will note that the subject of the post as a whole was Hinduism. I only brought up Buddhism as an illustrative example. While philosophical Buddhism originated in India, it never took hold there, and modern forms of Buddhism are not considered Indian in any real sense.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Mary had a litte lamb, She fed it Castor oil, Every time it jumped the fence, It fertilized the soil. Mary had a little lamb, The doctors were surprised. But when Old McDonald had a farm, The doctors nearly died.

That is true, Trevorum. Hinduism is very complicated and has been undergoing substantial changes for centuries. Some of the old gods (who were once the deities of a polytheistic Hinduism) such as Indra and Agni are still worshipped by many. When tribes or villages fight each other, their gods also fight and kill each other. Local gods become national gods and vice versa. Gods of conquered peoples join the new nation or empire along with their people. Most polytheisms seem to develop this way. We can see this in Egyptian cult as well as that of the Greek and Roman empires. In the case of Hinduism, local gods (some of whom were beaten and/or killed by the big names) are still worshipped. The same is true of many "Buddhists" of the far east who continue the animistic practices of their ancestors, simply substituting Buddha and/or the Bodisattvas for the ancestors or gods. They may not even recognize the dharma (teachings) of the monastic communities, let alone the philosophical teachings of the historic Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. Incidently, Indian philosophy is quite similar to western philosophy, beginning with the Greek tradition. The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism are almost completely expressed in the school of Greek Stoicism and Pythagoreas could have easily been an Indian swami and mystic like Adi Shankara, had he been located in the right continent. This is likely outside the interest of most persons, but the point is that Judeo-Christian understanding of God (assisted by Greek philosophy) is quite comparable with Indian understanding. They are comparable enough, in my opinion, to share a declaration of religious principle.

I can't speak to Shintoism (and I don't know if there is really any "pure" animistic Shintoism which has not been assumed into a form of Buddhism), but regarding Hindus, it would be inappropriate to think of the religion as polytheistic. Modern Hinduism is almost exclusively monotheistic, seeing the gods as merely aspects of the One, Absolute, and Eternal God. The four major divisions of modern Hinduism (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Smartism) differ in which god(s) they are devoted to as the form(s) of God, but all agree in the unity of the singular God (often called Brahman or Ishvari). It is true that many Hindus (expecially children or uneducated) may have a polytheistic understanding of the gods, but this is not the "official" understanding of the religion. An analogy that might help to understand this is the Christian understanding of the Trinity. According to historic Christian teaching, God consists of three divine Persons. An outsider might think that Christianity is polytheistic after hearing prayers addressed to the Father, the Logos, and the Paraclete, but this would be a mistake. Likewise, a child or uneducated Christian may not realize that the religion teaches that Jesus is God. Just to be clear, there are substantial difference between the Christian Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit and the Hindu "Trinity" of Vishnu, Siva, and Brahma. Christians do not see the Persons of the Trinty as aspects or forms and always worship the Three Persons in unity. Hindus usually worship only one of the aspects (dependent upon their sect), and almost never worship all three (Western pop-Hindus aside).

Anarchist, Political and economic systems are not quite as simple as you would like to believe. It seems quite paradoxical for a self-referred anarchist to have such a simple faith in government programs to solve societial problems. In any event, the relationship between tax cuts and tax revenues is not as simple and inverse as you may believe. Remember, too, that wealth and income are not the same thing as anyone who owns a nonincorporated small business or works for such an individual should know. In any event, the following article by economist Thomas Sowell may help to clarify the tax/revenue/income/wealth dynamic. It's a year old, but the economic structures it describes are relevant. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/10/22/13423.html

"Perhaps I am less cynical than you, but I saw Trevorum's greeting as an acknowledgement to his fellow Pagans that our holiday was last night." When Trevorum extended his solstice greeting to all, I took him at his word. It seemed to me that he was offering it to everyone. I was not offended. Nor was I offended when Ed and John extended Christmas greetings (presumably) to all. Should I be offended at either? Also, keep in mind that not all pagans celebrate the winter solstice and not all who celebrate the solstice are pagans. The features of nature, including the sun, are important manifestations and icons in many theistic traditions.

O Radiant Dawn, splendor of eternal light, sun of justice: come, shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death. Isaiah had prophesied, The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shown.

Perhaps some clarifications would be helpful here. Regarding agnosticism, the term applies to two distinct philosophical positions. Hard agnosticism maintains that knowledge of God or gods is unknown or inherently unknowable. Soft agnosticism maintains that one does not know such things, but does not maintain that they are inherently unknowable. Soft agnosticism is often a personal designation, rather than an absolute doctrine like hard agnosticism. Soft agnosticism is compatible with weak atheism, which is a absence of belief in God or gods, but they are not identical. Deists believe that God exists, but that He is completely transcendent and does not interact with the world, apart from the initial act of creation. Deism maintains that reason is the only means to know God and that moral truths can likewise be deduced by reason. The Declaration of Religious Principle requires a certain kind of relationship with whatever definition of God one provides, not a specific definition of God. An agnostic could or could not meet this requirement. Even a pantheist who happened to be a materialist would meet this requirement if he admitted that "no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to [God/the world] and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member..." The materialist pantheist can follow this, as could the philosopher Compte, who applied the title "God" to humanity. The point is that the "God" specified in the DRP doesn't have to be the Creator, benevolent, intelligent, or even personal. The "God" in question doesn't have to be singular, spiritual, transcendent, immanent, or the subject of prayer. This may be a dodge of the assumed intent of the authors, but it is a legitimate dodge given the religions which the BSA implicitly accepts as subscribing to it.

I have often been haunted with a fancy that the creeds of men might be paralleled and represented in their beverages. Wine might stand for genuine Catholicism, and ale for genuine Protestantism; for these at least are real religions with comfort and strength in them. Clean cold Agnosticism would be clean cold water -- an excellent thing if you can get it. Most modern ethical and idealistic movements might be well represented by soda-water -- which is a fuss about nothing. Mr. Bernard Shaw's philosophy is exactly like black coffee -- it awakens, but it does not really inspire. Modern hygienic materialism is very like cocoa; it would be impossible to express one's contempt for it in stronger terms than that. Sometimes one may come across something that may honestly be compared to milk, an ancient and heathen mildness, an earthly yet sustaining mercy -- the milk of human kindness. You can find it in a few pagan poets and a few old fables; but it is everywhere dying out. G. K. Chesterton

I wonder if Ms. Rood will answer for the death tolls of the ideologies she supports. I wonder if she really believes that the dead are disturbed or disgraced by the presence of flag-waving adolescents. I wonder if the dead are disturbed or disgraced by the presence of spiteful and malicious journalists. Ms. Rood pretends that it is the death that sickens her, but it appears to really be the life.

"It's interesting to note that the Jewish Kosher laws are simular to Isalm's and the Jewish Committee on Scouting did provide kosher meals at Jambo. I wonder if any Islamic troops knew these meals were available?" I had the same thought, Trail Day, but somehow I doubt that grabbing Jewish Kosher meals would have been a popular option. In my understanding, it would have worked, however, as Muslim dietary restrictions are contained within a more restrictive Kosher law.

Regarding Semper Paratus and Semper Parati: In my understanding, the singular adjective is paratus while the plural is parati. As a motto of a group, it should be Parati. The Prepared is plural (this distinction does not appear in English). As the Username of an individual, Paratus is fine because it is singular. Such a person is Semper Paratus. The scouts are Semper Parati. This has been your five cent (cinq centimes) Latin lesson.

Bienvenue a notre forum, Hugolin. Certainment, mon francais est plus pauvre que votre anglais.. :-)

"If you ever see a full blown ODD tantrum, you will recognize it as not just a defiant child, although you will get defiant adults who struggle to accept reality..." That may well be the case, but it is important to remember that many disorders are diagnosed and defined entirely by behavioral guidelines. In other words, the acronym tagline of a clinical or personality disorder does not necessarily mean anything beyond the behaviors that are readily observable. The diagnosis does not mean that the disorder is not a learned behavior, nor that the best treatment for the disorder is not behavioral modification. In other words, the difference between "just a defiant child" and "a child with ODD" may not be as substantial as we like to believe. ODD is a wide category and there is not a set etiology for ODD at this time. In some cases, a child with ODD may be suffering from a chemical imbalance or other neurological abnormality, but this has not been determined at this time. Indeed, the criteria for a diagnosis of ODD are such that numerous biological situations may receive the same diagnosis. If you would like to see the diagnostic criteria for ODD, then investigate the following link: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/odd.htm This is from the DSM-IV, but there haven't been any changes for this disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. The main point that I am trying to get across is that psychological disorders are not necessarily physiological and that conventional wisdom is not always wrong in determining how to deal with these situations. Just because Jimmy has been given an acronym by a psychologist or psychiatrist doesn't necessarily mean that Jimmy can't help it and that Jimmy needs a pill. I would urge everyone to learn more about a particular disorder before assuming that it is a specific physiological assessment. Some disorders (like ODD) are merely collections of symptoms (antisocial behaviors, in this case) and not physiological assessments.

"Christian groups that I have run across seem to think that they have the only path to heaven. No one else does. I would think that there is a certain amount of arrogance there." Go to the nearest mosque and ask about the necessity of following the Koran in order to be rewarded by Allah. Go to the nearest orthodox rabbi and ask if the Law is merely one of many paths. Actually read the teachings of Buddha. The problem here is that the teachings of Christ are very clear on this point. Anyone who accepts the figure portrayed in the Gospels as authentic and authoritative have no choice but to accept the exclusivity of Christ. It is the same with the historic figure of Siddhartha Gautama. To call the Christians arrogant because they accept all of the teachings of Christ presented in the Gospel is bigotry itself. Are you arrogant because you "have studied and thought a great deal about [matters of highest import]" and know more than the ignorant and simple-minded Christians? Just because you believe in many paths doesn't make you any more humble than anyone else. Your words seem to indicate that you see yourself far closer to the mountain-top than the ignorant Christians. You see, Christians don't believe that they "have" the only true path. They just believe that there is only one true path and try to follow it. Is that arrogance? Is the patient who tries what they believe to be the only cure for their disease arrogant? The Christians that I know will not credit themselves with having found this path themselves; they are too humble. Those that I know who espouse many paths, however, usually indicate that they found this through their own study and efforts. Which is more arrogant?(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Kahuna, "Everybody's view of Truth is different. I don't see Christians as ignorant or hateful, but I do see them as arrogant in the sense that they believe they have the one true path and nobody else does. This wears a little thin with those who have studied and thought a great deal about it." Your doctrine is that there are many paths. The Christian doctrine is that there is one path. You seem to expect the Christian to accept your doctrine and reject his. Is that not the same bigotry that you supposedly recoil from? BTW, the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama are very clear. The Four Noble Truths state that the ONLY way to eliminate suffering consists in the Eightfold Path. According to your standards, the Buddha himself was as "arrogant" as you describe the Christians. Are you really a Buddhist, or merely an agnostic who wants everyone else to accept your beliefs and reject their own?

Good luck in your position. I am leaving tomorrow to be the chaplain of one of our council's summer camps. Halfway through the summer, I move to the other camp to be the program director. Whew..

PatBB, How did I disrespect your beliefs regarding the supernatural? By asking you to explain your beliefs for us? "Freethinkers" always want the freedom to attack others' religious beliefs, but rarely take advantage of the opportunity to use that same freedom to explain and defend their own beliefs. Regarding your first post, the BSA does NOT require that members believe that the "Universe was created by a Creator," at least not a benign one. It is not necessary that a member of the BSA associate God with the creator of the universe. Buddhists, Gnostics, Zoroastrians, and others do not believe that a God which they follow created the universe, yet they are allowed to be registered members. The BSA has interpreted "God" very loosely and the principle that members must accept is that acceptace of a higher power is required for moral development and good citizenship. A Platonist, for instance, would have no problem becoming a member of the BSA, even though what they call God (Theos) is completely impersonal in nature. Do you have any ethics to submit to us which don't rely on acceptance of anything which may be called God?

PatBB, Do you think that the BSA would have less honesty scandals if it abandoned its stance on sexual morality (by adopting whatever lines you happen to draw) and the need for one's recognition of a greater power in moral development? Explain to us, using whatever enlightened ethical system you espouse, exactly why the actions of this particular SE were wrong. Also, explain why the BSA should keep the virtue of Trustworthyness (or any other for that matter) if it chooses to drop Reverence. Should every scout and scouter be able to choose whatever 11 points they agree with? Whatever 6? Should the Scout Law become BP's Antiquated Guidelines? Why not? And please don't appeal to any higher powers. That includes the virtues, which many consider to be superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Formulate your naturalistic ethics and present them for the rest of us. We aren't going to start jackhammering our foundations until we see your blueprints, friend. It's been done before; read the political history of the twentieth century so see how your selective moral demolitions work out in the end. Edited part: Removed inappropriate apostophe(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Keep in mind that Bob's question was not fundamentally an ethical one, but a pedagogical one. He wasn't stating that anyone who breaks national laws of BSA rules is immoral (although he may believe that). Rather he was asking how one teaches ethics when one breaks the rules all the time. This is a more relevant and interesting question than many give Bob credit for. It is especially relevant given that even those of us who accept another ethical system beyond rule-based ethics still teach children (especially young ones) proper behavior with rule-based ethics. Indeed, cognitive psychology tells us that until children reach the Formal Operational Stage of cognitive development, they aren't really able to understand other ethical systems anyway. Heck, even Plato believed that one couldn't understand ethics until one was about 30. Do we really expect young persons to understand the nuances of our ethical system (which we can barely grasp at times) which allows us to break rules? How do you teach ethics in the absence of a neat rule-based ethics? How do you justify to scouts that they must obey the rules that you deem important when you don't follow the rules that the BSA or legislature deems important? Don't pretend that there is a consensus among everyone regarding what rules are important. Anyone who has been a child and/or a parent knows this not to be true if they simply think about it. If you attempt to teach scouts the nuances of your ethical system which makes the "silly" rules not worth following, then that is fine. Just tell us HOW you teach it. That is the question. Rather than take offense to Bob's question, try to answer it. Perhaps you may want to do it with another thread. How do you teach ethical principles without recourse to consistent rule-following? I, for one, would be genuinely interested in hearing.

I would like to see a direct answer to Bob's question, although like Acco, I find the question too loaded for anyone to accept the first premise. In any event, the force of Bob's argument rests on the presumption that everyone operates under a rule-based ethical system. Given this assumption, one who violates the rules within a particular system or systems is unable to teach or model ethical principles. This is absolutely true within a rule-based ethical system, for within such a system, the ethically or morally straight person is one who consistently follows the rules. Bob is working from within such a system and he is absolutely right in that he could not effectively teach or model rule-based ethical behavior if he himself was a rule-breaker. Now, the complications come in because very few people on this board are likely followers of a rule-based ethics. It seems to me that most are going to be utilitarians, pragmatists, or epicureans. When people discuss ethics from within different systems, confusion inevitably results because they are using a different language and starting with different assumptions. Now, I can tackle Bob's question (or attempt to tackle it given that I also believe that rule-following should be the default behavior of a scout or scouter unless ethical principles are violated), from my position as a natural law ethicist with an emphasis on virtue ethics, but I doubt that many would be interested at this point.