Adrianvs

"In the struggle for existence, it is only on those who hang on for ten minutes after all is hopeless, that hope begins to dawn." "There are some desires that are not desirable." "The voice of the special rebels and prophets, recommending discontent, should, as I have said, sound now and then suddenly, like a trumpet. But the voices of the saints and sages, recommending contentment, should sound unceasingly, like the sea." "Great truths can only be forgotten and can never be falsified." "Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice." "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." "The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people." "Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline." "It is a good sign in a nation when things are done badly. It shows that all the people are doing them. And it is bad sign in a nation when such things are done very well, for it shows that only a few experts and eccentrics are doing them, and that the nation is merely looking on." "The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." "Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." "Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it." "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." "A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." More from the incomparable G.K. Chesterton. (This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Public universities and high schools sponsor religiously exclusive organizations all the time. But that is not really the issue is it? The issue is whether theists have the right to public facilites as atheists do. Merlyn has no problem with public school teachers being paid with public funds to preach pragmatic atheism, but when civic theist groups meet on PUBLIC school property after hours without undo fee, he cries foul. Don't bother, Merlyn. It's not going to change in your lifetime and after that, what really matters, my egoist friend? (This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Wonderous story!

"You should also tell the scouts not to get in his car and explain the danger to them, explain to them that if he leaves you are required by law to report him to the police and to the Scouing office." This goes beyond the "Recognize and report. Period." sutra that you have been repeating, however. Since we have established that the proper recourse in the case of a tired driver is to call the local law enforcement agencies and Scout Executive, what about the cell phone driver? Statistically speaking, the case still holds. MORALLY speaking, do we have an obligation to act as well? Some people have a difficulty distinguishing between legal and moral obligations, but I submit that they exist. Should I call the police when a scout reports to me that assistant scoutmaster Jim talks on his cell phone while driving? Statisticians and cognitive psychologists alike tell me that it is more dangerous than driving above the average BAC allowed in most states.

RECOGNIZE AND REPORT. PERIOD. "Hello, 911." Yes, this is Robert Smeghead, Assistant Scoutmaster of Troop -5. One of my fellow assistant scoutmasters is extremely tired and is planning on driving his son home tonight. Given his state, he would be endangering himself, his son, and the others on the road." "What is your location?" "Asinine State Park. Youth camping section." "Thank you." "Now what is the Scout Executive's number again..?"

"If you suspect that a crime has been, or is being, committed..." No, I was referring to the case of the fatigued driver, an individual who is statistically as dangerous as a drunk driver. In most places, this itself is not a crime. My questions refer to the cases in which the dangerous behavior of the adult is not criminal or specifically forbidden by BSA rule. It is a moral question, not a legal one. We all have a hesitation in responding to a fatigued driver in the same way that we respond to a drunk one. Of course, the legality of fatigue gives us less options than we have with drunkeness (i.e. law enforcement), but do we use our other means of confrontation to respond to the situation? It is a difficult question..

"If I found the person to be half asleep, I believe I would have serious reservations releasing the Scout. But that is quite a leap from having a high BAC. Plus it entertains a certain level subjectivity that may not have the same accuracy or legal ramifications as BAC." Is not our hypothetical or actual assessment of the adult's drunkeness just as subjective as our assessment of his tiredness? There are indeed means to assess BAC, but no one is claiming to have tested them prior to acting. If there are morally necessary responses to a potential driver under the influence of alcohol (and I believe that there are), then what does that signify in cases of fatigue or tiredness? They are not so different as one might assume. In addition, the assessment of drunkeness seems to be based primarliy on causal behavior alone. Substitute "had been drinking" with "had not been sleeping," and the question becomes much more difficult. What are the responses to an potential driver who shows signs of fatigue and how do they respond to a potential driver who is known to have been drinking, but shows no signs of drunkeness? For some, this may be a moral question. For others it may be decided simply by which is a legal issue. In regards to Youth Protection, however, how should one respond to such a case of endangerment as grave as that of drunk driving? Just some thoughts..(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"So if a Scout is wearing his Scout shirt and blue jeans, he's not in uniform and should salute the flag by placing his hand over his heart?" I found this to be the most interesting question and it hasn't been answered yet. We know that the field uniform shirt alone (with non-uniform pants) does not constitute a uniform. Does that mean that we should instruct any scout not wearing uniform pants or shorts to place his hand over his heart instead of saluting? I understand the principle here; how does it translate into practice in this instance?

"If your Troop Committee rules that electronic devices are not allowed at camp and includes cellphones in that description, then I cannot understand why you would have the attitude you have. If you don't like the rules of your troop, change them. But, don't encourage your son to disrespect the authority of the Committee and violate them." What if the PLC rules that electronic devices are allowed at camp and other troop functions? What if they rule that cell phones are too distracting for the adult "leaders" to handle? I'm with Eamonn on this one; let the boys run their own program and stop making up rules for them. If you want to dictate to a bunch of boys then volunteer as a baseball coach.

"Adrianvs, science does not speak to the personal beliefs of a scientist." Sure it does. All scientists believe in science. They believe in scientific empiricism. They believe in reason. All of the theoretical physicists that I have know about were mathematicians, not empirical scientists. I agree that a mathematician may also be an idealist. In fact, many of the historical idealists have been mathematicians or placed a high value in mathematics. That has never been the issue. "It only matters that they are willing to assume that the world can be observed and something can be reasoned from those observations." That is correct. Just as some religions state that God exists and some state that He does not, so do some religions state that the physical world exists and some that it does not. Empirical science, just like the BSA, takes a religous stance whether its adherents realize it or not. Merlyn says that the government cannot fund organizations which require a belief in X. He happens to take the case where X is God. He refuses to take the case where X is the physical world. Both are religous issues for some people. There are a lot more government grants going to groups which discriminate on the latter issue than on the former.

"Science in not an ideology, it is a way of approaching and solving problem and answering questions. Science organizations dont concern themselves with the religious beliefs of their members or grantees." I did not say that science was an ideology. What I said was that any individual (or group) which uses empirical science is making certain presuppositions. One of these is that the physical world has an objective reality. This notion happens to be contrary to idealism. Idealism is an ideology itself and is an integral part of some religions. Some religions state that there is a God or gods and don't concern themselves with the existance of lesser spirits or the physical world. Some religions are based on the existance of spirits and may or may not comment on the physical world. Some religions state that the world exists and some state that it exists. The point is that the theism/atheism dichotomy is not the sole criterion and issue in religious matters. It is true that persons of some religious persuasions are excluded from an organization that requires belief in a God or god. It is equally true that persons of some religious persuasions are excluded from an organization that requires belief in the physical world. They just aren't as vocal about the government funding such groups. The point is that not every religion concerns itself with the existance of a God or gods. No, science (or empiricism) isn't necessarily religious. Neither is idealism. But both rest on presuppositions that have religious implications. You may not believe that "God exists" and fight to prevent groups which hold the proposition from receiving government funding. Just remember that some people do not believe that "the physical world exists" and that groups which hold this proposition are practicing de facto discrimination against them. This IS a religious matter for many people and your principles of "nondiscrimination" would prevent the government from funding a whole lot more than what you consider to be "religious." Nondiscrimination based on theism/atheism alone is only the beginning of a consistent position. You must apply it to all religious issues and principles. Many of my idealist friends could care less whether there is a God or not. What offends them is the absurd proposition that the physical world is anything more than a cognitive construction. You may not be able to honestly join the BSA because of your religious beliefs. They cannot honestly join any scientific academy because of their religious beliefs. If the BSA is government funded discrimination, then so is every government funded science organization.

Ohhh... I get it now! Atheism is YOUR creed of choice, so there can be no publicly funded organizations that exclude them. But idealism is NOT YOUR creed of choice, so there is no problem funding organizations which exclude them. It's all really so very simple now.. Sure, you can dismiss idealists as fringe crackpots who choose to exclude themselves by virtue of there bizarre beliefs. Just don't be offended when others feel the same way about your negative creed. The point is that it comes down to the principles that you invoke. Even if it were only religous creeds that would not be discrimintated against, the principle would still hold. Idealism is as an essential aspect of some religions as theism is of others. You can't reduce all religion to the theistic issue alone simply because you disagree with the majority on it. There is a smaller religious minority which you refuse to protect with your own principles. Don't whine about government funded exclusion of atheists until you commit yourself to the eradication of government funded exclusion of idealists. It's much more common. Somehow, I doubt that your "principles" are quite that dear to you, however.

"I happen to think principals are important." They are. But principles are more important. In your opinion, can organizations which discriminate on the basis of non-theisitc ideology or creed receive federal funding? Every science-based organization is practicing de facto discrimination against idealists (religious or otherwise). If a science based organization made members sign a document stating that they believed in the objective reality of the physical world, then they would be discriminating against idealists in the same way that the BSA supposedly does against atheists. Can science based organizations receive federal funding in Merlyn World? Isn't discrimination based on creed prohibited as well? A lot of people are idealists. Should they not get the same protection as atheists?

Still at the computer terminals in your anonymous crusade against the BSA, eh Merlyn et al.? You freed yourselves from the shackles of superstition; is this the most interesting thing that you can find to do with your new liberty? What strange ascetics you are.. If I had been a Heathen, I'd have praised the purple vine, My slaves should dig the vineyards, And I would drink the wine. But Merlyn is a Heathen, And his slaves grow lean and grey, That he may drink some tepid milk Exactly twice a day. If I had been a Heathen, I'd have crowned Neaera's curls, And filled my life with love affairs, My house with dancing girls; But Merlyn is a Heathen, And to lecture rooms is forced, Where his aunts, who are not married, Demand to be divorced. If I had been a Heathen, I'd have sent my armies forth, And dragged behind my chariots The Chieftains of the North. But Merlyn is a Heathen, And he drives the dreary quill, To lend the poor that funny cash That makes them poorer still. If I had been a Heathen, I'd have piled my pyre on high, And in a great red whirlwind Gone roaring to the sky; But Merlyn is a Heathen, And a richer man than I: And they put him in an oven, Just as if he were a pie. Now who that runs can read it, The riddle that I write, Of why this poor old sinner, Should sin without delight- But I, I cannot read it (Although I run and run), Of them that do not have the faith, And will not have the fun. With apologies to Mr. Chesterton..

A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.

"...imposing our ideas of peaceful democracy on a people who have little or no interest in these ideas.." Interesting. Very interesting. Are you proposing that they have an interest in absolutism, tyranny, oppression, and violence? If so, how did they get this? Was it imposed at some point in the past? Is it genetic, mein Herr? Is it cultural, Monsieur? It seems like quite the dilemma. One can impose absolutism on a people, but it can never be reversed. I'm sure that the Japanese after WWII would agree with you. I tend not to, however. Everyone has an interest in peaceful self-rule. Everyone deserves the chance to it. One more question: if these people have no interest in peaceful self-rule (which would indicate that they prefer violent absolutism), then why would they object to any "imposing" at all? Or is it just that you feel the 'subhuman dogs' not worth our enlightened interest? Or do you think that they would more likely have an interest in some form of secular and socialist absolutism? What would you propose that the Iraqi people need right now? Bring back Saddam? Bring over the Ayatollah? A People's Revolution? A coronation of a king?

Beaver, Have you always been an isolationist, or did you suddenly become one some time during the last president's term?

"That would be the bombshell of the year if it turns out some officer or NCO was staging all this for the purpose of creating (or having the ability to create) such a scandal. I don't think it is likely, but it is certainly possible. I can also see the Army deciding to cover up such an event, since it really doesn't benefit anyone for that to be the explanation." No, it would be the media trying to cover up such an event. I think that the Army would be glad to pin the abuse on the schemes of an anti-war saboteur within its ranks. As I said before, there is no evidence (aside from circumstantial) that this is the case, but it is interesting. There is an important question to ask, however. If some brass is/are involved, what could their motivation possibly be for producing these pictures and allowing them to be distributed among enlisted?

I'm having trouble accepting the notion that these 6 enlisted acted entirely on their own as well. It first I thought that the main factors involved were the combat and prison conditions, psychology of martial training, and just plain old-fashioned sadistic "blowing off steam." What is giving me pause is the motivation of those who orchestrated all of these events. It does seem to be a set of isolated incidents. They seem to be planned and staged isolated incidents, however. Soldiers were recruited to perform these acts and others were instructed to take pictures. That is more disturbing than the notion that these soldiers went did this to get some 'funny' for posterity. Somebody else wanted the pictures. Who was that and for what purpose did they want them? I am beginning to accept the possibility that the pictures have already served the purpose for which they were made.. There is little evidence either way yet, but it would not surprise me at all.

Do you believe that US soldiers behave worse towards captured enemy soldiers than capturing forces in most other countries? While no one is defending the actions, we have to keep in mind that these are two groups of people whose jobs prior to the capture were to kill each other. This is a military prison and as FScouter pointed out, there is a long and ugly history of what soldiers do to captured enemies. Compared to the historical (and contemporary) "standards," this is mild. Should every effort be made to prohibit such behavior. Certainly. Is it surprising that something like this happened somewhere? Of course not. We can condemn the actions and work to prevent them in the future all we want. That is fine. What we cannot do, however, is make broad national or societal comparisons based upon this. The kettle may indeed be black, but all the pots of the world don't need to remind us of that.

Fortunately, I happen to have a copy of the 2004 National Camp Standards for Cub Scout/Boy Scout Residence Camps sitting right here.. :-) -------- Standard Number M-34: (The M designates this standard as mandatory.) The council has engaged a physician licensed to practice medicine as a health supervisor to approve and oversee the health care practices of this camp. Current written operating procedures are approved annually by the licensed physician. The on-site camp health officer is a responsible adult holding a current license or training as required for the position. Check one: ___ Physician ___ Nurse Practitioner ___ Nurse (RN, LPN, or LVN) ___ Physician's assistant ___ Medical student (completion of second year or more) ___ Paramedic ___ Emergency medical technician ___ Military corpsman/medic ___ First responder program (any training provided by a nationally recognized agency): Alternative coverage could consist of American Red Cross Emergency Response, which includes CPR; or National Safety Council First Aid and Advanced CPR; or Outdoor Emergency Care conducted by the National Ski Patrol, which includes CPR; as a minimum requirement as long as a current letter of agreement states that an advanced life-support system's response time to the camp health lodge is less than 10 minutes. The camp health officer also has current training in CPR by a recognized community agency: The camp health officer has completed the one-time computer-based self-study Camp Health Officer's Training Course, available from the Health and Safety Service at the national office. There is an established location for contacting the on-site camp health officer. One staff member for every 40 campers must be coached in first aid practices for conditions most likely to occur in camp, and trained in CPR by a recognized agency. When the health officer is out of camp, another adult with the above qualifications is available, or nearby emergency coverage is provided. ------- So there you go. If the camp is at a military base, you may be able to conscript a military medical person as your Health Officer. I don't think that they have to be registered BSA members like other staff members. I'm surprised that your Camp Director and Program Director don't have their own copies of the Camp Standards. I assumed that all BSA camps underwent inspection to be accredited. These Standards are the guidelines that inspection teams use to determine this.

"It looks like the far-right-wing version of the black helicopter and tinfoil hat (to hear the alien radio transmissions) crowd." Very interesting.. What do you mean by "far-right?" Isn't that just a meaningless label the likes of which you decry? Hmm..

NJ, You are right. It is difficult to generalize what ALL liberals believe. But since you self-apply the term, please inform me of what it means. You must hold that liberals believe some set of ideas or you would not use the term yourself. What do "liberals" believe? You don't seem to mind generalizing about liberals in positive terms.. Is it really the generalizations that you take issue with? Do you have any generalizations about "conservatives?" If not, then you have no conception of what the word means. All words are labels. Deal.

I find it amusing how liberals suddenly have a great respect for the anti-homosexuality taboo in Arab culture. It's not surprising, however, given that they routinely defend the degradation of women, deliberate murder of innocents, schooling of children for violent crime, and totalitarianism as part of some valid "cultural heritage." The following article provides some good commentary on the issue of prisoner abuse and Arab outrage: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13239(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

The problem is that Merlyn would have the opinions of Rich silence the opinions of everyone else in every other situation. It's not enough that the religious keep their religious talk confined to church buildings and religious services. Religious and theists are expected to shut up whenever nonreligious or atheists show up to visit. I've seen folks at Easter and Christmas masses with their arms crossed and scowls on their faces as they end up hearing "religious blather" when they would rather not. "Why can't those religous just keep to themselves. This is a church for goodness (subjective) sakes.. Can't they find a closet someplace?" Is there anything wrong with the majority voicing what they believe about a deceased person at the service designed to foster such commentary? It's hard to say that is wrong if you don't believe in objective moral truths. The most that you can say is that it displeases you to hear such things. Well, given that they please nearly everyone else present, you don't have much to go on. It is not hypocrisy to celebrate what you believe to be true. It is hypocrisy to pretend that you have a moral basis for your distain for any actions that do not involve you directly. Merl, No one is ignoring people like Rich. In fact, it was only the "superstitions" of everyone else present that prevents Rich from becoming a corpse himself. After all, what direct good was he providing for those present? If Rich wanted his own service where he could sit with the corpse and ponder on the non-existance of Pat's soul, then I'm sure that he could have scheduled one before or after the service designed for other reasons. You seem very concerned about whose feelings are being defended. Have you considered that the majority of the people here are defending the majority opinion at the service because we believe that they are right? It is obvious that you are defending Rich's opinion because you believe that he is right. I still don't see the relevance of the opinion and factual claim of one person at the service. Is that supposed to change our opinion of the existance of God, the nature of the soul, or Pat Tillman's level of virtue? What is the point? For someone who apparently doesn't believe in the immortality of the soul, you sure do spend a lot of time trying to antagonize a subset of the population (theistic scouters). Time is ticking away.. Is this really the most fulfilling thing that you could be doing right now? There is no karma involved. You aren't growing in virtue. You aren't working out a salvation. It's all physical which means that its all downhill for you. The only things that you could hope to affect are the action potentials in the brains of a bunch of bewildered apes which you will never come into contact with. What does it matter if society continues in the superstitions that it has held for thousands of years? What does it matter to you? Have you reached middle age yet? Every atheist is a terminal patient, so to speak. If this is all that I had left in existance, I certainly wouldn't be harrassing self-deluded people on message boards. Im sure that I would find something more interesting to occupy myself with while my body slowly decayed...(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)