DanKroh

BrentAllen says: " As I said - equally pertinent." Really? What serial/mass killing spree has Kudu gone on to make it pertinent to compare him with a list of killers? Kind and courteous, indeed. Brent also says: "I don't think either list or group is a valid comparison to a Scouter being a troublemaker with his District or Council." Let's see, Kudu stood up for an issue he believes strongly in by using his words (not guns, at least, unless I missed something in the news lately), without violating the liberties of anyone else. Hmmm... Sounds like social activism to me. Was was that about a duck? Oh, wait, I forgot, to some people, activism is a dirty word, a crime obviously comparable to multiple murders.... Sorry, Kudu, guess it's the death penalty for people like you and me!

SA, Doesn't the Minuteman council (which includes Boston proper) currently have a non-discrimination policy in effect? I know of at least one council outside Boston that also has a non-discimination policy. If these policies are still in place, do you think that might ameliorate any impact on membership the national policies might be having?

mbscoutmom, I'm pretty sure that your boys will still turn into men and your girls will NOT turn into men, no matter how deeply they may or may not be involved in Cub Scouting (tongue firmly in cheek). That said, I agree that it is a bad idea to have a coed kindergarten program that will then leave the girls stranded when they get into first grade. Yes, there is nothing that says that life is fair, but I think this crosses a line from "unfair" into "intentionally cruel". There are deep psychological differences between boys and girls, which is why (of the three "G" controversies) I come down on the side of the current policy for this one. However, I think that allowing siblings (of either gender) to participate in cub scouting activities is fine. The only caveat I would put upon it is that it should be up to each parent to gauge the comfort of their son with having the sibling hanging around. If my older son had ever complained about having his little brother tag along to cub scouting events, I would have tried to find a way to divert my younger son's attention to other activities during that time (which would be no easy task, considering I am a single parent). At the time, the cub scout experience was my older son's, and if having his little brother along was hampering that, then I would have tried to find a way to appease both boys, without making either one feel that they were missing out. My younger son had to deal with not being allowed to go to Boy Scout events (other than family events and COH), but only for a few months until he became a Tiger and had his own scouting "stuff" to do. But since I am not a leader (at this time) in my older son's troop, I can use that time to do something special with my younger son. I did take him along to the troop meetings when I was doing a merit badge session for a couple of weeks, but he sat quietly (well, as quietly as a 6 y.o. with ADHD can!) out of the way and played his game boy during the meeting. Although he did get the arrow I made as an example to teach the boy scouts how to make arrows. In short, as long as the sibling's participation is not taking anything away from the actual scouts (monetary, interaction, or comfort-wise), I don't see any harm in letting a sister or brother participate in pack and even den activities, as long as they are age appropriate. But I agree that siblings should not be eligible to earn advancement patches.

Hey Justin, welcome. If your posts are even a quarter as eloquent and thoughtful as your dad's, I look forward to reading them. Always nice to get the perspectives of a youth member!

Newbie Den Leader says: "The problem is that atheists do not have an unchanging moral standard to live by to determine what is "good" and what is "bad"." They don't? I think that would depend highly on the atheist. I know atheists who have moral standards that are set in concrete. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who subscribe to religion (i.e. non-atheists) whose moral standard changes with the wind. And history shows plenty of evidence that the "moral standard" of organized religions have and do change. Sometimes these changes actually spin off a new religion, sometimes they don't. Also, I'm not sure why having an "unchanging moral standard" would make a person "better" in any way. Please correct me if that was not your implication.

Rooster, your thoughtful, insightful post has added much to the discussion. Brent, I don't think it's necessary to have a financial stake in order for favoratism to still occur. Does Cheney NOT still have friends/colleagues who DO have a financial stake in the success of Halliburton? Does he not have any sense of loyalty to a company that he was the CEO of? (Or is his having been the CEO also incorrect?) OGE, if Halliburton IS the best thing going, then they should be able to win the contract in a competitive bid. I think the objection is not that they are awarded the contract, but that it was given as a no-bid.

Ed, do you honestly think that Lisa'bob believes that God is a vulgar word? How about those millions of "disrespectful" Jews who choose to write "G-d" instead of "God"? Are they doing it because they think they are writing profanity? Hey Ed, how do you spell "respect", as in "A scout respects the beliefs of others"?

Beavah writes: "The quest for findin' somethin' dat works, or for somethin' closer to "objective truth" is sure as shootin' going to lead to plenty of doozies of mistakes, and some over-reachin'. That doesn't mean that the quest ain't worth pursuing." First off, Beavah, I had to read your post three times before I understood what you were trying to get across. I'm not trying to be the grammar police here, but I think it's worth saying that I find your ideas harder to understand when you use non-standard English like this. Anyway, to the point. I agree that the quest for truth is extrememly worthwhile. In fact, it's one of the principle doctrines of my religion (UU). However, when a person seeking truth stops at the first thing that works for the moment and declares "This is truth", that person is more likely to have found a belief or opinion, rather than a "universal truth". It is my experience that conservatives are more likely to take their personal belief and opinions and declare that they are "universal truths". Now, here in the hotbed of liberalism that is Massachusetts, I may not encounter too many conservatives (although there are more than some people outside MA might think!), but I grew up in central PA, certainly a hotbed of conservative thought. I have seen it frequently on this board, where some posters have declared their Christian beliefs to be "universal truths", rather than beliefs, based on faith. I think the reason you perceive "liberals" as speaking less in terms of "truth" and more in terms of their opinons and beliefs is that (again, in my experience) liberals are more cautious about declaring something a "truth" until other points of view have been considered. But to many conservatives (and especially those of the religious-right), other points of view, other beliefs, are not valid, and therefore not worthy of consideration. THEIR truth should be truth for everyone, and they are willing to ram it down the throats of everyone else. You spoke of patriotism as one of the "objective truths" that conservatives speak about. Well, I can guarantee you that the definition of patriotism held by many conservatives (at least, the ones most vocal in the media) is NOT the same as mine. Their definition of moral is NOT the same as mine. How can these things be "objective truths" if they differ from person to person? And I think johndaigler has some valid points. When you speak too much about ideologies (conservative vs. liberal, for example), you lose too many individual IDEAS. My ideology is the DanKroh ideology. Some ideas are liberal, some are conservative, some are in the middle. When you try to stuff all those ideas into a label, you lose their individuality. You presume that by labelling me "liberal", you know ALL my ideas, many of which don't fit into the "liberal ideology". I think that is what johndaigler is trying to get at, and I agree with him. Edited to fix some typos, because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet....(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Beavah writes: "But I think one big difference between the Blue-L's and the Red-C's is that the Red-C's are more comfortable with the quest for objective, impersonal truth, that goes beyond what "I believe" to "What really works" or "what makes us us." In that way, they are more apt to use the language of objectivity or "common belief" like patriotism, even overbroadly. This drives many deconstructionist Blue-L's batty, as you illustrate." Actually Beavah, it is my opinion that Red-C's are more likely to try to extole their personal beliefs and opinions as objective, impersonal truth. Perhaps the Blue-L's are just a little more aware of what "objective truth" actually is. And just because something is "common belief" doesn't mean it's objective truth. Four centuries or so ago, it was "common belief" that the world was flat. Won't it be interesting to see what "common beliefs" of today will turn out to be complete horsepucky tomorrow?

As I approach our Blue and Gold Banquet, when I will be inducted as the new Cubmaster, I admit that this topic has been on my mind. I want to get to know all the boys in our pack (and know them by name), and as many of their parents as I can. However, I, too, am generally terrible at remembering names. In my business, I remember an amazing number of details about each of my clients, but have a hard time associating names and faces with people who I haven't sat and talked with for at least a few minutes. I've thought about doing nametags, but that seems like a crutch to me. I'll have to see how feasible it is to sit with each boy for a few minutes and talk to him, find out his interests, etc., during the controlled chaos of the pack meetings. Any other suggestions for ideas for remembering names would be greatly appreciated by this CM-to-be.

I did look at the web site you linked to, Ed. It was very interesting. However, since you were quick to grill BadenP on another thread when he mentioned that he had a formal education in theology, I notice one bit of information greatly lacking on the Equip web site. What are Mr. Hanegraaff's credentials to present his interpretations of the Bible? Where did he attend theology school? What noted scripture scholars has he study with?

Wow, I guess I've never heard the rest of the song. Our version must be the "short & sweet" one: Announcements, announcements, announcements, A terrible death to die, a terrible death to die, A terrible death to be talked to death, A terrible death to die Announcements, announcements, announcements. And that's where our song stops. The rest of the song does seem a little harsh toward the speaker, even if done in jest. There was a tendency in the past for the song to be shouted as loudly as possible, and for the tempo to drag like a dirge, which made it long and too loud for some of the younger boys. We now have some of the adults subtly "lead" the song from the back of the room to keep the tempo moving and to prevent it from becoming a contest to see who can be loudest. But the boys love singing it, and the most of the adults find it pretty amusing. Maybe suggest using the "short & sweet" (hey, just like the song says, right?) version?

Also, Ed, please remember your own words-- "I don't have the answers but dismissing something as myth simply because it seems impossible is very narrow thinking."-- next time that you dismiss the beliefs of others as myth.

Thanks Fred. Again, I apologize for sounding overly harsh.

Wrong yet again, Ed. Another logical fallacy. "I have no proof" does not follow from "I refuse to air proof in a public forum". If I didn't have proof that satisfied me, I'd probably still be a Christian, wouldn't I. And a Biblical literalist, to boot. Sorry, Ed, try your taunts somewhere else. They don't fly with me.

Ed, let me see if I can summarize the evidence in the article you posted. 1. Evidence has been found that there were once human civilizations under where the Black Sea exists today. 2. There is evidence that about 7000 years ago (and where does that fit in the Biblical timeline?), the Black Sea changed from freshwater to saltwater. Ergo, the "Great Flood" happened????? Sorry, but even my 6 year old could spot a logical fallacy that huge. Ed, you say that I have not presented any proof "disproving" Biblical events. You are right, I have not. And I will not, for three reasons: 1. You are the one who made the claim of "fact". Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me. It is not up to me to educate your about your religion. I suggest you consult a learned person within your religion for such answers. 2. I am not in the habit of publically refuting other people's religious beliefs. To do so is disrespectful to their beliefs. And "respecting the beliefs of others" is not just an oath I take as a Scouter, but also one of the principle tenets of my church. 3. Biblical literalists have a "final" argument to dispute any physical evidence that does not support their Biblical-based view of the world. "God created that evidence to test us." No productive discussion can occur in the face of such circular logic, so I tend not to waste my time and energy.

Yes, Fred, there are several reasons why I can't start one. 1. I don't have the time to reinvent the wheel, especially when I can walk down the street and buy a bicycle. I'm busy raising two youngish boys, one of whom has numerous special needs, running my own business, volunteering in my church and community, and dealing with my own health issues. Which of those should I give up to have the time to start a Spiral Scouts group? 2. The population density of pagans with young children interested in scouting isn't great enough to sustain a group at this time. I live a fair distance west of Boston, and the pagan families here are spread far and wide. I subscribe to a Spiral Scouts yahoo group, and ever couple of months, someone will post an interest in a group, but none of them are within 25 miles of me geographically. Sorry if this sounds a little harsh, but I get deathly tired of the "if you don't like the BSA, start your own group" arguments. Some of us just don't have the time, energy, or resources for that to be realistic.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Spiral Scouts looks like a great group, but that is still in its infancy. I investigated it as an alternative, and there are no groups currently operating in my area.

Ok, Ed, let me get this straight. You want me to provide evidence that the "great flood" DIDN'T happen? I'm not sure exactly how I can provide proof to that something didn't happen. How about a total lack of physical evidence in the geological record of the Earth? You'd think something that big would have left a mark, don't you? I also can't provide proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. My bad, I guess. And you've made my point by missing it entirely. You can't prove it, and I can't disprove it. That is the nature of faith.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Brent, I'm glad we found something we can agree on. I'm sure there are plenty of other things we would find common ground on, too. Good luck with your meeting planning, and congratulations on earning your beads. I'm looking forward to taking the Wood Badge course myself next year.

Thank you, Ed. I'm not sure I remember the details of the Jerico story entirely, but wasn't that the one were someone blew a horn to bring the walls tumbling down. Does the archeological evidence show that the walls were brought down by the blowing of a horn by a supernatural agent? But I'll give you that one for now. So, it of course follows that if I can provide archeological proof of any of the places named in Norse mythology, that all of the Norse legends (and the Norse gods) are then acceptable as fact? There is some archeological evidence the battles attributed to in the legend of King Arthur actually happened. Does that mean that the entire King Arthur myth is fact? I'm sure you believe that the stories in the Bible are true. But that is because of your faith. Someone who doesn't share your faith would be very justified in viewing the same stories as myth, just like you view the Norse stories as myth. The point is, one person's "facts" are another person's myth (as Trev already said very well in his early post), and it is only faith that makes gives each of our myths the ring of truth and fact for us.

Well, I agree, but to a different set of terminology. Irresponsible sexual activity (hetero-, homo-, or bi-) should be discouraged, because it can lead to STDs and unwanted pregnancy, as well as psychological damage to the participant(s) if they are not ready for the emotional impact that being sexualy intimate can have on some young (or immature at any age) people. Being unfaithful to a partner that one promised to be monogamous with should also be discouraged, yes. Promiscous is a term that is heavily-laden with moral judgements that are based in the JCI belief system. I am curious where you are going with this entire tangent, now....

Well, Ed, it should be easy to find out, shouldn't it? Please provide a corroborating source or evidence that is not derived from the Bible for any of those events. And as always, your respect and sensitivity for the beliefs of others continues to underwhelm me.

Well, first off, again, you are really asking some personal questions that are none of your business. What moral values I decide to teach my sons about sex are between me, them, and our god, and not relevant to this discussion at all. No, being married does not "suppress" heterosexual behavior, it institutionally validates it. So, to follow your argument, then gay marriage would "suppress" homosexual behavior. Then by all means, lets do that right away. Or do you mean that once you and your wife had your children (which must have been conceived by artificial insemination, since no heterosexual behavior was involved), you never engaged in heterosexual behavior again? And that is a thought question only, I am not asking you to reveal details about your married life here.

Yes, Gern, I must shamefully come "out of the pantry" as an ex-obese person. Although I prefer the non-judgemental term, "metabolically challenged". But I saw the sinfullness and immorality of my food-promiscous lifestyle, and with the help of a holy bariatric surgeon, bless her for doing god's work, was able to turn my back (or would that be stomach?) to that lifestyle. My family history and genetic susceptibility to obesity did not stop me from repressing my subversive behavior, let it be a testament to others! I am a much happy person now that I have shed that 120 lbs, and can be accepted into mainstream theater, airline, and amusement park seats, not to mention no longer displaying my repulsive behavior in public eating establishments. All praise bariatric surgery!(This message has been edited by DanKroh)