DanKroh

Trev, while your posting on Wicca is good for getting a general sense of it, it has a few errors. Wicca is not really an umbrella term synomymous with Neo-Pagan; the article seems to use the two terms interchangeably. That's like using "United Methodist" and "Christian" interchangeably. Pagan (or neo-pagan) is the umbrella term that encompasses many religions that are as different as the different flavors of Christianity (and sometimes as different as Christianity and Islam). Wicca is just the largest and best known of the Pagan religions. Wicca is a specific tradition based on the teachings of Gerald Gardener (among others), and is based in the British Isles (predominantly Celtic), not Europe in general. Wicca actually IS hierarchical if one practices it as part of a formal group, called a coven, in that there are degree levels based on how far you have advanced in learning within the group. However, there are also solitary Wiccans, who practice without belonging to a formal group. Wiccan covens are often oath-bound groups, which means that they are not allowed to talk about the specific teachings of their coven to outsiders (although that is changing). As far as gods, the article is essential correct that Wiccans believe that there is a male/female polarity to Deity, and that all the names used to represent gods and goddesses are only that, representations of different aspects (character traits, stages in life, etc) of THE God and Goddess. It was interesting that the article says that one of the "concerns" that led to the ousting of the boys was concern that they would "preach" to the other boys. Wiccans don't proselytize. We don't recruit. We do try to educate and dispel misconceptions, but we don't try to convert others.

Yep, Trev, you are right, it was the troop committee who decided to kick them out. For some reason when I first read the article, I thought it said church committee; probably because it said "troop committee of Holly Grove United Methodist Church". My mistake. In my mind, this makes the situation even worse. Scouters are supposed to know the BSA is non-sectarian. If they thought that Wicca did not satisfy the BSA's religion requirement, did they actually bother to try to find out anything about what Wiccans believe, or did they just assume that pagan=godless? My sons and I are openly Pagan, and neither the troop nor the pack has a problem with it. I have had a couple of instances of ignorance/mild prejudice by individuals, but have always had the support of the leadership. The Catholic Church who is the CO of our pack certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with a Cubmaster who is Pagan.

Two brothers in a troop in Louisiana were told they were no longer welcome after one boy admitted that they were Wiccan. Although they were later reinstated to the troop (a month later), the boys decided not to stay. Here's the article: http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060509/NEWS01/605090308/1002 I found this paragraph particularly disturbing (in so many ways): "[scoutmaster] Doherty called Army Cpt. Todd Buchheim, the boys' father and a former Eagle Scout stationed at Fort Polk, to inform him that the boys no longer were welcome in the troop. The Buchheims said Doherty told them that if Cody had lied about his faith, the boys could have remained with no problem." The CO for the troop is a United Methodist Church, and it was evidently their decision to kick the boys out. The pastor (who was out of town at the time) referred the question to the UMC council, who reversed the decision.

We have tried a number of different things. My younger son is only in 1st grade this year, so this is only the second year he's had to deal with the "what do I do with the mother's day gift I made in school" question. We've done the "give it to Dad". We've also done the "give it to Grammy (maternal grandmother)", even though we had to mail it because she lives in Philadelphia. One year, my older son was really fond of his teacher, so he gave the gift to her; she sent home a note telling us how honored she felt. Every Mother's Day, we go visit her gravesite, and the boys sometimes bring along the gifts to "show" her, before they end up going to their final recipients. As far as what teachers can do, the best teachers for my sons have been sensitive to the issue, and helped them by saying that the gifts could be for someone who was "as special to them as a mother is" (so that they wouldn't feel weird giving it to a man). But they also have to be aware that it is going to be an emotional time for any child. One year, my older son just absolutely refused to make something. Luckily, his teacher was accomodating and rather than trying to force the issue, let him choose to do a different activity. And there may be those times when sadness and even anger are going to make it too difficult for them to cope. My older son is in Middle School now, so not as much of a deal is made there about it, but the younger is only in 1st grade, so he is dealing with this. Also, he has the added problem that he was very young, and does not have a lot of memories of his mother. This year, we are going to make a "memory book" to try to help him hold on to the memories he does have, although that is probably not an activity I would recommend for school (too emotional). But even after 5 years, it is still a difficult time, and will be for many years to come.

Wow, I had a nightmare last night, too. I dreamed that I was back living in Pennsylvania and being represented in the Senate by the likes of Santorum and Specter. I'll take Kennedy and Kerry any day....(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

If so are they twisting the G2SS in the same way as the young man mentioned in this thread? I am also unclear how honoring both the letter and the spirit of G2SS while allowing boys to pursue something that obviously holds a lot of interest for a lot of them is "twisting" anything. Why is target shooting with paintballs "twisting" G2SS when target shooting with REAL firearms is ok (assuming target range safety rules are followed)?

What a clever young man.... I like the idea of target shooting with paintballs, as long as it's not in violation of G2SS rules. I also like SR540Beaver's idea of teaching tracking. Just out of curiosity, do dart guns and disc guns (shoot small plastic discs) which are spring action (don't travel nearly as fast as paintballs) also disallowed under G2SS? When I was in college, we had a group that played "Patrol" which was a game where teams hunted (tracked) each other with dart guns. The point of the game was to work on stealth and teamwork. I was just thinking of Beaver's tracking suggestion. It's always more fun to have a way to "tag" someone who has been found; could dart guns be used for that (the ones we used were single shot, needed to be reloaded after each shot), or even water guns (assuming warm weather)? I've never been completely clear whether this was solely a safety issue (in which case, water guns and even dart guns might be ok) or a philosophical issue of no pointing anything resembling a weapon at someone else (in which case, even water guns would be verboten).

Does anyone know of any alterntives for the swimming requirements for Second and First Class ranks? Have you ever had a scout in your troop have an alternative for the swimming requirments approved by Council? If so, what were the accommodations made? My 11 year old son, who has high-functioning autism and a coordination problems, will probably never learn to swim without the assistance of a floatation device. One suggestion from one of the Disabilities Awareness couselors I have talked to is to have him do his swimming requirments for rank wearing a PFD. I'm interested in knowing if anyone else has every had to do alterntive rank requirements, and what they were. Thanks!

"the Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International charters Troop 8" Well, a CO doesn't have to profess a belief in God to be a CO. After all, lots of secular organizations can charter units. But can a Scientologist (who professes no belief in any form of god as part of the Scientology faith) be a member of the BSA (either as youth or leader)? Or am I mistaken about the role (or lack thereof) of any gods in the Scientology religion?

"I think L. Ron Hubbard got there ahead of you!" That's a more interesting question, I think, Trevorum. Is Scientology (which as far as I know, is a religion without a god) considered acceptable by the BSA for the purposes of membership?

"I find that analysis of the Mormon faith to be highly suspect. It seems pretty incredible to say they are trying to restore the Church as it was before the Council of Nicene (325 AD), when much of what they believe comes from books that were published by their prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., who lived and died in the 1800s." Actually, that's not an analysis, it's simply a statement of their purpose. From the official website of the LDS church: "Joseph Smiths First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth." and "In 1829 Joseph Smith received the priesthood authority to organize Christs Church. In 1830 the same Church of Jesus Christ that existed centuries ago was organized and restored to the earth." Emphasis mine; the century they are referring to is the 2nd century CE, which was before the Council of Nicene. I made no value judgement as to the validity of their claims, I was just trying to pass along correct information about how the LDS church can be categorized with respect to traditional Christian churches.

I couldn't get the edit to work on my previous message, so I just wanted to add that I would gladly accept any correction to what I think I know about the LDS faith by those who have greater, first-hand knowledge of it...

The official position of the United Methodist Church is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith." Furthermore, they feel that Mormonism has "some radically differing doctrine on such matters of belief as the nature and being of God; the nature, origin, and purpose of Jesus Christ; and the nature and way of salvation." Similar official stances have been taken by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Southern Baptist Convention. Mormonism is considered a Restorationist movement, which may or may not be considered Christian by other more traditional Christian movements. They certainly consider themselves Christian, since they seek to restore the Christian Church as it was before the Council of Nicene. The Book of Mormon is not an "an interpretation of the Bible by Joseph Smith". It is a new set of "scriptures" that Smith found and translated. It is considered one of the "Standard Works", along with the King James version of the Bible and several other books, that the LDS church uses as their "authoritative sources" for their faith.

I know I've lived in Boston too long when I read this thread title and thought "Isn't hockey season over?"

Eagle76 wrote: "The subject came up in conversation recently, and she said that autism used to occur in 1 in 1000 children, but in recent years it has approached 1 in 150." It is unclear if the apparent rise is due to there actually being a higher incidence of autism or that we are getting better at diagnosing cases that in the past would have gotten labeled as something else. Like many other neurological/psychological disorders, such as ADHD, schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, etc, our increased understanding of the symptoms of the disorder have lowered the threshold for diagnosis. Even within the past 5 or 6 years since my older son has been diagnosed with high-functioning autism, I have noticed an increase in awareness among the public about autism spectrum disorders (ASD). When he was first diagnosed, many of his teachers were ready to label him as a "willful, poorly behaved" kid, because they did not understand that he could not control some of his behaviors. And these are people who have been trained to work with children, but their education about children with special needs (unless they specialize in that) has generally been woefully lacking in the area of neuropsychological disorders. The higher incidence of ADHD and ASD may also have to do with the stricter roles that our society forces our children into these days. More rigorous schedules, days packed full of activities with little "down time", fewer chances to burn off excess energy, expectations that children act like "little adults" have made it more difficult for children with these disorders to function in society. And the more that a disorder interferes with one's ability to function, the more it is going to be recognized as a valid diagnosis.

Yellow-hammer writes: "What you seem to be saying is that if you are pro-life and not 100% full-tilt no-exceptions pro-life then you are a hypocrite and all of your pro-life arguments are illegitimate." I think that depends on the basis of one's anti-choice position. If one uses the rationale that as soon as the egg and sperm join, it is life, then yes, anything short of "100% full-tilt no-exceptions" seems inconsistent, and even hypocritical. "Many people (on both sides) don't have fully formed opinions and are not ready to defend them against someone as fully armed against them as you are." I agree. However, I think an opinion that is not "fully formed" is a poor position from which to demand legislation taking the choice away from women. As I said before, anyone who supports legislation controlling reproductive choices should be prepared to have answers to tough questions about the practicalities of how such laws will be enforced, under what circumstances exceptions will be granted, and exactly how far governemtn control over reproductive choices should extend.

Gern, from the CDC website: Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at 21 weeks. I could not find data on how many of the 1.4% of late-term abortions were performed for medical reasons.

Ed, I made no such implication that oral contraceptives worked exclusively by preventing implantation. However, just because it is the exception rather than the norm does not change the fact that it results in what is technically an early abortion. Funscout, I think that view is a vast oversimplification of a complex issue. Also, I think it is incorrect to characterize everyone who is pro-choice as also being pro-abortion. I am personally not in favor of abortion, except under certain circumstances (health of the mother, rape, incest), however, I am not willing to force my view on others, nor do I think it is the place of government to regulate reproductive choices. Just because I am understanding and nonjudgemental of the reasons a woman may choose abortion is not the same as being in favor of it.

Ed, that is how oral hormone-based contraceptives are *supposed* to work. However, in actuality, in a small percentage of cases, ovulation *does* occur, but the presence of hormones in the maternal bloodstream prevents implantation. Thus, the fertilized egg (actually a multi-cell zygote at that point) is shed by the body.

Packsaddle, unless Ed was born after 1973 (which I think he mentioned that his age is a bit older than that), his mother probably DIDN'T have a choice, unless she wanted to risk possible death from a back-alley abortion procedure. Ed, I'm so glad that you can look into the hearts of all the women out there and determine that they are having abortions because of "convenience". Every woman I have ever counseled has characterized their decision as agonizing and heartbreaking, regardless of which way they chose. To trivialize the difficulty of making that decision does a grave injustice to women. To say that women who don't want to "accept the consequences" shouldn't have sex is equally trivializing of a complex situation as a matter of responsibility. It smacks of an attitude that women who have sex should be "punished". Many women have taken responsiblity by using birth control, which unfortunately is not 100% effective. Many women who have abortions are married women, whose pregnancies have resulted from failed birth control. So they should not be having sex? If the couple already have children and choose adoption instead of abortion, how do they explain to their existing children that they are giving up their brother/sister? I have seen the adoption issue from many sides. My good friends gave up a child for adoption (who resulted from failed birth control at the start of their marriage), and she tried to returned to their lives when she reached 18, and basically harrassed them because she felt they should "pay" for giving her up. I have another set of friends who have tried to adopt, but had the mother change her mind after they had the baby for 3 months, and he was taken away from them. Adoption is not a simple answer, despite what the anti-choice faction would like us to think. I have also had personal experiences that have challenged my views on abortion. When my spouse and I lost twins at 19 weeks due to unstoppable preterm labor, I held my son and daughter as they died. So I understand the emotional response that seeing a fetus that is recognizable as a baby evokes, at a very personal level. That is why I personally oppose abortions after the first trimester, but I can think of many exceptions to that stance, which is why I am unwilling to support legislating that choice for others. I used to personally oppose abortion at all, until we chose to terminate a second set of twins in the first trimester for completely medical reasons. And while this case would fall under the exemption that many anti-choice proponents are willing to give of saving the life of the mother, that did not make the decision any easier. So I find extremely distasteful any attempt to trivialize such as decision as a matter of "convenience". Someone suggested that anyone who supports a pro-choice stance should first watch a late-term abortion procedure. I would likewise say that anyone who supports an anti-choice position should have to listen to the stories of women (and couples) who have made this most difficult decision. For myself, what it comes down to is that there are just too many extenuating circumstances for me to support sweeping legislation about abortion. As I said before, I would much rather see improvements in birth control, sex education, and adoption services that would reduce the circumstances under which a woman would seek an abortion.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Beavah writes: "Im curious how within your belief system you would justify going out of your way to help others, to the point of laying down your life for your friends. Threefold return wouldnt apply, unless you believe in an afterlife. Do no harm wouldnt apply, the loss of your life would harm you and others. How do you get to "no greater love hath man than this, to lay down his life for his friends"?" The only honest answer is that I don't get that out of my religion. Being the sole support for two children, I would have a great deal of difficulty rationalizing sacrificing my life for someone else's. The only time I could see myself doing this would be to save my children, and I do that out of love for them, not out of a command from my religion. I would have done it for my spouse, again, out of love, and because I would not have then been the sole support for my children. Any other urges to help others come solely from my own internal set of ethical values. My other set of guiding principles come from the Unitarian Universalist church, which also include an acknowledgement that we should help others as part of recognizing the inherent worth of all human beings. I find it interesting that you want to attribute everything that is ethical and caring as being Christian based. There were ethical, caring religions around before Christianity, you know. I actually feel that I draw many of my personal ethical stances from Buddhism.... You also seem to think that Wicca means that I must have an absolute sanctity for all living things. Uh, no. There is life in a seed, but that's not going to stop me from eating them if they provide me with nourishment. I'm also not a Vegan, so while I do not believe that animals should be killed brutally or wastefully, I still enjoy a good steak. "Do no harm" is not a black-and-white, soundbite philosophy. For three words, it is an astonishingly complex concept, one which I strive to understand better and struggle to live by every day. Beavah also writes: "When do you believe life begins? There really are very few logical choices. Conception, heartbeat, neural activity, or birth." Actually, my best answer would be when consciousness develops. But I admit that I don't know when that is. However, from my ignorance, I choose to take the position of not to try to tell others how to make that decision. I can only make that decision for myself. I don't feel qualified to make that decision for anyone else. Beavah writes: "Because it is the most egregious and viscerally hideous manifestation of the consequences of such choices and arguments. It throws into stark relief the way human life is devalued." So, by analogy then, I would be justified in bringing up the hate spewed by Reverend Fred Phelps anytime someone stated a Christian position? After all, he is a Christian, and represents "the most egregious and viscerally hideous manifestation" of hate that Christian doctrine represents, no? (And just for the record, I don't believe that Christian doctrine encourages hate, even though the likes of Phelps obviously do.) Don't be so quick to lump everyone with a pro-choice stance as supporting late-term abortions, and I won't lump all Christians in with Fred Phelps (or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robinson, or... hmmm... I could start developing quite a list here)

Beavah writes: "Oh, I dont know. The few Quakers I know would say dat nonviolence is a practice of the community of Friends. The beliefs that underlie it are much more complex." Well, the Quakers I went to school with (at a Quaker school in PA) would say that the belief is pretty simple, but at this point, this is becoming an argument of semantics, not substance. Beavah also writes: "As to the prohibition of polygamy, I would suggest that it values women as equal to men, rather than subservient property. I believe that benefits society. Long-term marriage between a man and a woman creates a home environment most likely to yield the best upbringing for children. That has a huge benefit to society." Actually, there is a movement being started to decriminalize polygamy, and it is being spearheaded by... a woman. BTW, polygamy can also be the practice of a woman having multiple husbands, so it doesn't necessarily devalue women (polygyny is the specific practice of multiple wives to one husband). And how do we know that a polygamous household isn't good for raising children? Can you cite any studies? Beavah also writes: "What a bizarre prejudice you must have against Christianity to believe it is any different for us." Actually, my point was that it is not any different. I was responding to the seeming prejudice of your implication ("Christian values of positive duty to self and others") that I cannot be charitable, self-sacrificing, have a duty to others, etc., because I am not a Christian. Non-Christians CAN be all those things, and just as ethical, caring, and moral as the most righteous Christian, just that our reasons for being those things are different (but no less valid). Beavah also writes: "Well, certainly we do when confronted by anyone who thinks sticking an icepick in the brain of a partially-delivered baby is just a medical procedure." Why do those opposed to abortion always bring out the late-term abortion as an example? Honestly, none of the pro-choice people that I know think that late term abortions (other to prevent the death of the mother...possibly) are acceptable. I'm sure that they must exist out there somewhere, but my experience tells me that they are a vast minority of the pro-choice group, and the rest believe that there should be *some* limits on abortion. But we don't all agree on what those limits should be, hence the position that it is a decision that must be made based on one's personal beliefs. But you also never answered my question based on your definition of the beginning of life. Is abortion before the heart is beating (before 5 weeks) acceptable? What about the "morning after" pill? What about "birth control" devices that do not prevent fertilization (conception) but prevent implantation, such as IUDs and even hormone-based contraception (which is intended to prevent ovulation, but can also prevent implantation should ovulation "break through")?

I missed these questions in your previous post, Rooster: "First, who gets to determine whether or not a value is of Christian origin? And second, who gets to determine the mindset of each voter as they cast their vote seeking to have such a law created?" Well, I think any reason for wanting a law that starts with "The Bible says...." should send up a red flag. I don't think that a law that is based on a religious value should automatically be discouted, because there are plenty of religious-based values that are shared by EVERY religion. However, when a value NOT shared by the minority religions is being considered as a law, extra care should be taken to think about whether that law will really be of benefit to society or is only being enacted to appease the morality of the majority. In other words, sometimes the rights of the minority do need to be considered above the will of the majority. This is the point I've been making all along, and which you have stated, Rooster, that you disagree with. So we seem to be at an impasse, and will have to agree to disagree.

Rooster writes: "Again, the government is violating everyones right when they strike down laws supported by the majority. Every law has a moral origin, and it is not the governments job to limit the morality of the people to secular values (if anything can be rightly labeled as such)." I disagree. A government can strike down a law supported by the majority without violating their rights. For example: Let's say that the majority of voters in Massachusetts get a law passed that bans same-sex marriages. The MA Supreme Court overturns that law as unconstitutional. How does that violate the rights of those majority voters? Is their ability to practice their religion compromised by overturning this law? Are their rights to marry being compromised by overturning this law? The only "right" they are being denied is the ability to impose their morality on others. If you can think of a way that allowing same-sex marrige violates the rights of the majority, I am very interested in hearing those ideas.

Beavah writes: "Yah, those exemptions are carefully tailored to protect religious practice, not religious beliefs, eh? There's a difference. And even then, there are limits (ex. polygamy)." Well, except that the Quaker exemption to the draft was based on belief, not practice. So I would argue that there are exemptions based on both. I'll try to think of some others based on beliefs. As far as limits, this is my point. On what basis does society regulate marriage, if not the morality of the majority? There is no benefit to society to prohibit polygamy, other than to satisfy the morals of the majority. Beavah also writes: "Your one commandment strikes me as being somewhat indifferent to the welfare of others.... Do no harm does not get you to charity, or self-sacrifice, or personal growth in wisdom or relationship with God." That's true, it doesn't in a strict interpretation. But I also see "do no harm" covering inaction as well. If I allow someone to suffer because I am not charitable to those in need, then I am doing harm. Furthermore, in Wicca there is also something called the three-fold law, which says that what you do returns to you threefold. So if you are charitable, you get charity in return. If you are a selfish so-and-so, you should expect selfishness in return. So while we have no strict commandment to be charitable, self-sacrificing, etc., we recognize that there are consequences if you choose not to be. I guess to me, it is more a matter of personal responsiblity; I choose to act in a certain way towards others because I personally feel it is the right thing to do, not because my gods have commanded me to do so. I choose to strive to be closer to my gods because I feel their calling, not because I fear retribution if I don't. It is possible to feel very strongly about the inherent worth of all life, to care about the ills of our society, to want to uphold love and partnerships between any consenting adults, for reasons other than "because the Bible tells me so". The only arrogance I see is that come Christians think they have a monopoly on being ethical, caring, moral people.