Adrianvs

"Do you eat pork? Do you eat animals that are "clean" or "unclean"? Or have you disregarded those terms because you feel they no longer apply today." You have ignored the brief explanations regarding this issue. If you want to understand it better, read the Acts of the Apostles, particularly Peter's speeches in Act 10 and 15. I accept the words of Peter as the Prince of the Apostles and he whose "faith may not fail." Now I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't simply "carry words two thousand years forward and expect them to have the exact same meaning as they did at the time they were written." I am following the consistent teaching authority on the matter from the last 2,000 years. I agree that others shouldn't present Scripture itself to nonbelievers as an infallible authority simply because it doesn't mean anything to them. But I will not accept your proclamations and interpretations regarding the authorship and inspiration of Scripture. I think that you need to give the notions of Scripture and inspiration more thought. You seem to want to understand it, but have largely given up. Don't do that; keep studying and thinking.

nsnowman, I'm sure that you draw the line on "tolerance and acceptance" when it suits you. Even limiting it to sexual acts between consenting individuals, I am sure that there are many that you would not want presented to your children as "acceptable lifestyles." Where and how do you draw the line? As for using Bible passages, most do not see Scripture as a homogenous collection of direct commandments to the reader. That is an Islamic notion. Jewish and Christian Scriptures are historical records using many literary forms. The New Testament explains why the Levitical laws no longer apply. It also explains why Paul's admonitions do apply. I assume that you aren't really so ignorant of Scriptural understanding as to believe otherwise, however. If you want to argue that a particular writing of Paul's was directed to a specific local church, then proceed. But don't present some absurd means of Scriptural understanding and pretend that you have done something by refuting it as absurd. It is absurd. And it is absurd to bring it up in ignorance.

Please stop using the Constitution against _____________. It was written in a time when _______________. Fill in the blanks to your liking.

Wheeler, As you probably know, I feel that all life, including the Scouting program, should be informed by philosophy. I am a student of Plato and Aristotle, among other classic writers, and have written a considerable amount on their writings and ideas. As such, I find the introduction of classical thought to the Scouting community to be a most beneficial move. I have made it myself, in somewhat more subtle ways. On the issues of gender, I am not of the "unisexist" camp. I accept different trends of behavior and roles for men and women. Some may consider me "conservative" or even "backwards" on this point. I agree with you on many points regarding the importance of classic thought and virtue. I do, however, take objection to the notion that some virtue or property such as courage or leadership is entirely male (or female). Joan of Arc is a true woman, just as Francis of Assisi is a true man. I have a feeling that you would object to both of them as malformed individuals. I also noticed that you make a mistake common to many philosophers. While a theologian may quote Scripture as an authority in itself, a student of philosophy must quote a philosophical thinker merely as a means of conveying the argument at hand. Plato may be an authority, but he is not an infallible one to any person here. In fact, I know of no such person alive today (academic or otherwise) who accepts all that Plato taught. (That entire departments are funded for the sole purpose of determining what Plato taught is another matter all together.) The point is that Plato or Aristotle or Epicureus or Epictitus or Sophocles or Homer or any other Greek writer cannot be used to make short dogmatic prounouncements. It is a mistake to refer to those who seemingly disagree with a short quote of Plato as "completely ignorant." You yourself disagree with much of Plato's teaching. You refer to Marxism as a false and destructive political philosophy. I believe that you are right on this point, but you wouldn't accept Plato's political philosophy as any less false or destructive. His calls for complete class division, collective raising of children with anonymous parentage, and the decidedly "effeminate" nature of the Guardian class of philosopher rulers would all be rejected by you most vehemently. In addition, Plato states that women are as suited as men to compose the Guardian class. You state that "leadership is male." Are you in complete ignorance or is Plato? Perhaps we can have disagreements on points without either side being completely ignorant or knowing. Remember, Aristotle rejects the Stoic notion of knowledge and virtue as being competely present or absent. Instead, he teaches that virtue and knowledge are acquired through practice and action and attained progessively by the individual, much like a skill or trade. I'm not quoting Aristotle as an authority, of course. I'm merely inviting you read the work yourself and see if the arguments hold. That's what philosophy is all about. The works of Plato weren't recorded as a series of short quotes to assert some point; they are dialogues in which correct ideas win out over false ones throught the strength of their arguments. That is philosophy. Until you can use that method you are not a philosopher at all. At best, you are a "philosophy-ologist." Or a fortune cookie writer.

I believe in the concept of redemptive suffering. I also believe that pain is a part of life and any life training should prepare one to endure painful or unpleasant situations properly. Or, in the words of a particular BSA program, "...to preserve a cheerful spirit even in the midst of irksome tasks and weighty responsibilities." I believe that hardship strengthens the body, mind, and soul in very important ways. HOWEVER, I think it would be a mistake to assume that something cannot be good without being painful or difficult. A campfire is a good thing because it is beautiful, provides light, and warms our bodies, not because it is a chore to make. Yes, there is a lesson in enduring the labor to produce the fire, but the fire does not gain its goodness from the labor or difficulty. As we remember the merits of enduring hardship, we must not forget the objective goodness in such things as beauty, fun, play, and friendship. These things are good in themselves, and we do not need an excuse to seek them or make them part of our program. (This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

I think that a black arm band (and/or neckerchief) would be appropriate. While I wouldn't begrudge one who wanted to wear black shoulder loops in mourning, I think it better to add the symbol to the complete uniform rather than replace a uniform piece with another symbol. You could just as easily attended wearing all black "civilian" clothes, but you chose to attend as fellow scouts and scouters. It only seems right to be properly attired as such as you demonstrate your reverence and rememberence. Again, I don't look down on anyone who has or wishes to wear the loops. I just think that an armband is more appropriate.

I prefer to wear boots with the field uniform (Class A, VentureScout), whether formally or informally. For some reason, dress shoes don't seem to go well with the uniform to me. For formal occasions, I must admit, I have a pair of "dress boots." Comfortable, functional, and snazzy looking. Note: this is probably the first time I have used the word "snazzy" in print. Suggestion in alternate spellings are not welcome.

Acco, Eagle54 wasn't proposing that "non-denominational" services were somehow made more specific. I don't think that is possible, as your example indicates. He was referring to the common practice of having services conducted by and for members of the religions in question. As Bob states, one should try to represent all religions as possible and necessary. There is nothing wrong with Scouts' Own or similar services, but it doesn't meet the needs of every religious group. If numbers are significant, it is often worthwhile to let groups worship in the manner designated by their faith. "For those that feel non-demoninational service are watered down, get a life." Your feelings regarding the mental state of those who hold specific religious beliefs is obvious. Again, I would advise that you keep your antagonism towards those of faith to yourself. Indifferentism and agnosticism aren't the only faiths recognized by the BSA. You may feel that those with specific religious obligations need to "get a life," but they don't need you to enlighten them.

Ozemu, While Wheeler is working from a Christian perspective, most of the works that he is quoting from are pre-Christian. 4 Maccabees and the Book of Wisdom are Hebrew writings from the period before the birth of Christ (500-100 BC, I think). While the latter is part of the Catholic canon, the former is not canonical in any major religion and was offered as a piece of Hebrew thought informed by Greek tradition. The Jewish community rejected these Greek writings as inspired in a council around 100 AD, but I think they are still held in esteem. Of course, the Hebrew or Hellenistic traditions may mean nothing to you as well, but we must recognize that Wheeler is drawing from three major traditions. Actually, the title of "Lord" signifies the Baroncy which Baden-Powell was given by the King in 1929. Before that, he was Sir Robert Baden-Powell, as he held the title of Baronet and several knighthoods. When he was given the title of Baron, he became Lord Robert Baden-Powell, as he was then a member of the peerage. Baronets (as opposed to Barons) rank just above nearly all the orders of knights, but below all other aristocratic titles.

And yes, raising chickens was a purely hypothetical example. May I assume that your example of what you are looking at on the public computer was hypothetical as well? Obsession? That I find government ownership of one's home more intrusive than government access to public library records is hardly an obsession. I do see evidence for obsessions, delusions of persecution and delusions of reference on this page, however.

"I'd like to see us spend more time figuring out why people in foriegn countries hate Americans, and less time figuring out how to protect ourselves from them." Do you want the Freudian answer or the theological one? Do you think that the US government officials should make pilgrimages to Mecca and the tomb of Lenin on their knees instead of working on national defense? You seem to know why Americans are hated; why don't you enlighten us? While you're at it, tell us how many American civilians have to be killed to pay for our nation's sins. The enemies seem to indicate that total annhiliation is necessary. I hope that your answer is somewhat more reasonable.

"However, we (I guess that's the editorial we) have not learned to live with the government snooping into what we are reading or looking at on our computers.." I agree completely. If the Patriot Act allowed the government to snoop into what we are reading or looking at on our computers, I would be concerned very much. The issue at hand, however, is what we (or anyone else) are checking out of a public facility and typing on a public computer. It is not the same.

We have become so accustomed to goverment agencies and programs that we sometimes fail to remember what public facilities are. We assume that the goverment is somehow a distinct (yet elusive to define) entity from the institutions like the post office and public library which we use every day. Perhaps it is the streaks of libertarianism in me, but I usually make note of the public or governmental status of any institution when using it. Because of this, it didn't shock me to think that one governmental agency is able to look into the records of another. Perhaps I am just hoping that the government will never have a monopoly on every particular service, requiring all individuals to use them. In such a case, where the government and public services are the all, a cohesive and intercommunicating government would indeed be concerning. That, however, is not my vision of America. The things that I find invasive and concerning are usually accepted as the norm. I find the notion of a tax on income to be disturbing. Income. Being taxed for using your money is one thing (and a debatable one at that), but being taxed for receiving compensation? Wow. I also find the notion of property tax to be disturbing. It seems to me that no one can really own land at all. If you disagree, stop paying the "rent" and see what happens. There are so many zoning and construction laws regarding what you may do on your own land. Can I please build this? Can I sell this? Can I hire someone to work here? Can I raise chickens here? Can I keep this rock? Can I tell my associates about this? Can I wear this? In all these things, the government has their finger. Should I be shocked that they may take a peek at how I use public facilities? Not when I already have to tell them exactly how many pennies I received this year and hope that they don't ask where every single one went. Now that's invasive. The government has been using income tax information for political reasons for decades. Remember all the enemies of Clinton who were audited for the first time after becoming vocal? I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the same thing comes up under Bush. The point of all this is that public facilities usage is the least of our concerns. Let's just be sure that we are being consistent in our vigilance here, and not simply jumping on the anti Patriot Act (or anti-Bush) bandwagon. There is a lot more involved here and it has been going on for a long time.

OK, Here is the real question: Who would win in a fight between Herbert Hoover and J. Edgar Hoover? Seriously though, I don't want to give the impression that we shouldn't be vigilant regarding government intrusions. I just don't happen to think that looking into library records happen to be an invasion of any right. In fact, it wouldn't bother me if the usage records (as far as checkout goes) were open to the public. If the government owns the facilities, the usage records should be open to them. If the people own the facilities (I tend to lean this way), then the usage records should be open to them. Yes, we should keep an eye on such actions, but this particular instance seems too benign to cause much concern. In fact, I'm surprised that the government even felt it necessary to notify the public. Hey, maybe it's a decoy for the real intrusive espionage that we will never be told about..

Any member of the local judiciary with "proper authorization" may create a search warrant on the spot. It's only a phantom difference. Would you rather the federal agencies need a "search warrant" to force library employees to turn the screen around at the counter? Whom do you think is being unjustly "looked into" here? Exactly how is it more invasive than giving an account of how all your income was dispersed throughout the year? If you have no problem publicly carrying a book to the library counter and checking it out, why is it so bloody embarassing to have it come up on a screen? If that's the biggest governmental bogey man you can come up with, then I must say that the anonymous men in black suits aren't doing their job very well.

I just can't seem to work myself up to shock that government agencies can examine records of public library use. I always assumed that they were public records that could be easily accessed by even local law enforcement. Perhaps I just assumed that my transactions with such public facilities were a matter of public record. All it takes is a nod from one of myriad black robe wearers to authorize the local law enforcement agency to search your entire home. Don't suddenly feel violated that the federal government has the ability to visit your local library and type your name in the database. Any seventeen year old library employee can do that.

We have had a female program director at our camp for the last four or five years. It has worked well for us, although there is consequently a distance between the program director and the rest of staff. While some of this may be due to age differences, I feel that gender plays a role as well. I have no problem with a woman serving as program or camp director. It would seem preferrable, however, for at least one of the two to be a man. This just seems intuitively right, but the conditions at other camps may differ on this.

"It is not illegal. I respect the right that Achileez possesses in his ability to choose a religion, just as he respects my right to make that decision. We don't have to agree on the choice, but the freedom to choose is what's important." Must we respect all choices that are currently legal? It is one thing to respect an individual's human dignity or the virtues which they possess. It is another to "respect" an false belief or wrong action. I don't think the latter is possible. I respect many people with whom I disagree, but I cannot respect ideas or choices which I perceive to be wrong. If you state that it is only the freedom to choose which is important and not the choices themselves, then you completely devalue all choices. If every choice is of equal value, then there is no point of choosing at all. I don't think that anyone here means that, but the words involved are heading in that direction. Yes we can admire free will itself, but in order to praise right choices, we must acknowledge the existance of wrong choices. One necessarily exists if the other does. Regarding the legal right to choose religion, it was developed to allow the free discussion of religious concepts, not to stifle them. It was established so that people might converse and convert without walls to thought impeding the way. As a great thinker once said, "Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it." The first step in this is stating that you respect ideas which you believe to be wrong and expecting others to do the same. (This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Regarding the dogmatic materialists who attempt to rely on what they call reason... In the words of G. K. Chesterton: It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." In the words of Blaise Pascal: ... Let them at least learn what is the religion they attack, before attacking it. If this religion boasted of having a clear view of God, and of possessing it open and unveiled, it would be attacking it to say that we see nothing in the world which shows it with this clearness. But since, on the contrary, it says that men are in darkness and estranged from God, that He has hidden Himself from their knowledge, that this is in fact the name which He gives Himself in the Scriptures, Deus absconditus; [is. 45-15 "Thou art a God that hidest thyself."] and finally, if it endeavours equally to establish these two things: that God has set up in the Church visible signs to make Himself known to those who should seek Him sincerely, and that He has nevertheless so disguised them that He will only be perceived by those who seek Him with all their heart; what advantage can they obtain, when, in the negligence with which they make profession of being in search of the truth, they cry out that nothing reveals it to them; and since that darkness in which they are, and with which they upbraid the Church, establishes only one of the things which she affirms, without touching the other, and, very far from destroying, proves her doctrine? In order to attack it, they should have protested that they had made every effort to seek Him everywhere, and even in that which the Church proposes for their instruction, but without satisfaction. If they talked in this manner, they would in truth be attacking one of her pretensions. But I hope here to show that no reasonable person can speak thus, and I venture even to say that no one has ever done so. We know well enough how those who are of this mind behave. They believe they have made great efforts for their instruction when they have spent a few hours in reading some book of Scripture and have questioned some priests on the truths of the faith. After that, they boast of having made vain search in books and among men. But, verily, I will tell them what I have often said, that this negligence is insufferable. We are not here concerned with the trifling interests of some stranger, that we should treat it in this fashion; the matter concerns ourselves and our all.

"I can tell...you're a Mediterraneanist." Is that a compliment, Pack? Seriously though, I don't think I am. It's just that the discussion at hand was about virtue. Virtue is a Greco-Roman concept that was later adopted by Europeans under Roman influence. If we were talking about karma, I would be quoting Siddhartha Gautama and Patanjali. I don't speak Greek, Sanskrit, Latin, or Bengali. It doesn't have anything to do with barbarism. Nor does having a beard, surprisingly. Your Latinist friends may disagree, of course. If by dead languages, you mean those that are no longer spoken by entire peoples, then I suppose that Latin is dead. Queen's English is dead too, of course, but that doesn't stop English teachers from emphasizing its importance, despite the protestation of youngsters everywhere. "Da bizitch's wak," asserted Randall. "True dat," replied Jameson, "S'all like bob n'schtuff."

'Saddle, I think that Ozemu was implying that the virtues are the same for men and women (which is correct). Perhaps he was referring to different means of training and education which may allow these virtues to be attained by men and women. It may also be a case of mistaking different behaviors of men and women ruled by virtue as different sets of virtue. In such a case, the specific traits of virtuous men (as opposed to virtuous women) might be considered manly virtues (as opposed to womanly virtues). I don't know. If you really want the virtues, here they are: Prudence Temperance Fortitude Justice Those are the classical virtues. The ecclesiastical or theological virtues are: Faith Hope Love And no, you aren't a barbarian just because you don't know Greek; Latin will suffice perfectly.

Is the prohibition of laser tag and similar activities within the Guide to Safe Scouting? If so, then it would be quite misleading, given the supposed reason given for it's prohibition. In other words, if the issue is simply that of combat simulation, then the prohibition on such activities should be moved to the 2004 issue of the Guide to Politically Correct Scouting, not the G2SS. Or are there actually safety related reasons for its prohibition?(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"All due respect to the old Lad - He is very longwinded." You have no idea, my friend.

Does the military use of "US" designate national or governmental affiliation? Or does it signify ownership (national or governmental)? The French refer to their own nation as "la France," but they refer to ours as "Les Etates-Unis." Is it an inconsistency?

"Am I missing someting or is the aisle not wide enough for the US & Church flags to process together?" If I am not mistaken, the flag on the right of the bearers during procession would be in prominence. That is why having the flags cross is necessary if they are to be posted on a raised level (thus having their positions reversed). If the flags are to be posted on the same level as the "audience," it seems that they would not cross. In Catholic churches, the bishops' liturgical committee recommends that the flags are not posted in the sanctuary (usually raised), so a crossing would not be necessary.