A better question

[BubbaBear]

Quiote...yeh, I am hopeful too, although I choose to use the descriptive term "cynical" (these is a basic difference).

 

OK, so the fundamental difference between you and I in this idea of the Scouting Principles is that I believe it should be an even balance (and that is how I perceive the founders as having perceived it), and you believe that the Duty to God comes first and carries more weight?

[Quixote]

Bubba,

 

As far as BSA is concerned, i agree that for the most part it should be balanced which is most likely carried out at the local level anyway.

 

Personally, I put it in the order of God, Family, Country - self comes after that.

[BubbaBear]

Quiote,

 

That was a very concise answer, I appreciate conversation without rhetoric.

 

Forgive me for reading between the lines...I understand that you, Ed Mori, Rooster7 and others view God as the foremost motivating factor in your ministry of Scouting. Despite what you all might think, I have a deep respect for that. Truly.

 

Allussions have been made to a religious conspiricy in the decision we are debating and I personally don't believe that to be the case. As I said, I just think that like minds think alike.

 

In your last reply, you added (in fine print) "for the most part", which tells me that you really believe that national (as you believe in your heart) should put Duty to God above the other three.

 

And this is my point: If national is going to serve all the factions (religious, labor, governmental and fraternal) in equal light, it cannot overlook the fact that it has to weigh each one of the principles equally in making "national

policy" which applies to all concerned.

 

This leads to my earlier conclusion; that the only way this can be done is to allow local consensus (in terms of each CO) to dictate what they believe to be right or wrong. I believe that if this is done, public opinion will dictate what is right and wrong and who actually supports what is moral or not.

 

Even you said in your last astatement that decisions "are likely carried out in a local way anyway".

 

You and I are saying the same thing.

 

Respectfully,

Jake "BubbaBear" Lekan

[Quixote]

Bubba,

 

I don't see the leap from national setting equal policies to local contol of the program that it seems that you are making. While i agree that this balanced approach is well and good, just don't throw the baby out with the water though. (no, can't have that rule because we already have two duty to self rules and we can't unbalance the equation...) It has been my experience that the one area (at least in my local district and council) that gets shortchanged because of people wanting to stay PC is Duty to God (i've been guilty of that myself).

 

National has a duty set broad standards - membership, advancement, etc.. These standards should be as broad as possible to allow for all the flavors that exist in scouting. These standards must be in keeping with traditional values and morals.

 

Local units must operate within these broad standards and not go outside them. It really becomes that simple.

 

 

YIS

Quixote

[BubbaBear]

That is a problem I see, too. No one should get short-changed.

 

Let me try to explain my view this way...in a Boy Scout Troop, the PLC sets the rules for the rest of the troop. The SPL may say, "Fellas, when we arrive at camp, I want each patrol to begin making the evening meal. The meal needs to be nutritious, and should include the following food groups: 1)

Meat 2) Vegetable and 3)a Bread. Now you plan how this meal will be prepared, and remember; if anyone gets ill from what you cook, it is your responsibility to clean up the mess!"

 

The PLC has determined that they want a campout (loosely translated, a CO wants to sponsor a Scout unit). The SPL has laid out the rules, which the PLC has agreed to (the BSA lays out the rules and the COs agree to those rules), and the patrols implement the meals in they fashion they see fit adhering to those rules, and are willing to clean up the vomit if someone gets ill because of their choice (the COs run the troop the way they want to and agree to responsibility for their actions, i.e. bad public opinion).

 

The COs don't own the BSA, they own the troops. The BSA owns the program and sublets it those with similar goals. I don't see that it cannot be done.

 

In all fairness, I have not read the Policies and Regulations of the BSA. I am trying to get my hands on a copy but have been unsuccessful. If any of you people have a copy I sure would appreciate one!

 

I guess, in essence, if BSA wrote a broader definition such as "...values that are determined to be morally acceptable at local levels" or something of that nature, it would work.

 

BTW, what we are talking about here is nothing more than the fundamental differneces between the Republican and Democratic Parties...with the exception that the roles are reversed (the Dems are generally the liberal interpreters). How about that for irony?

 

(This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

[llwyn]

Bubba:

You sir, are gonna be a GREAT commissioner!

 

"This talk of religion is all fine and well but the point that needs to be discussed ..."

 

Whew, thanks Jake, for pulling us back.

 

Rooster:

"If so, you have plenty of company. Many self-professed Christians like to believe this. It keeps them off their knees and enables them to do as they please without guilt or shame."

 

Man, I wish I had said that ... so simple.

 

llwyn

 

[BubbaBear]

I have never met such outstanding people in all my life. That is the other reason that I cannot be pulled from Scouting.

 

llwyn...I am humbled by yours, sctmom's and tj's acceptance of my being, BUT, once again folks, this is NOT about me or you, its about the boys and our future.

 

Sorry to burst the bubble, llwyn, but I have accepted the District Camping Committee Chair in lieu of Commissioner status. Actually, I can do double duty from that position.

 

Jake

[llwyn]

aaaarrrrrgh!

 

=8-)

 

sigh, I suppose you'll be an effective chairperson as well...

 

I was only thinkin' of the boys, sniff, sob ...

 

Good luck, Bubba

[evmori]

Bubba,

I'm not a Bible thumper even though I always have one with me. And I do take offense when someone takes the Lor's name in vain. I feel my Christian beliefs can be taught and shown in the way I act and present myself. Being PC is only a cop out.

 

I know you will do a great job as Camping Chair! I am a member of my district's camping committee and know how important it is to have good people on board.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[fella]

A while back evmori said:

 

"RE: A better question

[...]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...] Just because body piercing is NOW popular doesn't make it moral.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1"

 

Oh. As a matter of fact, it's been suggested in 'Christianity Today' that some piercings like a third earring or a navel ring can be a good compromise alternative to some of the more questionable ones:

 

"[...] [T]ry to approach your child's desire to pierce in a rational way. [...] It takes a long time for the body to heal from a piercing. Ears usually take 4 to 6 weeks, but other piercings like those in the navel can take up to an entire year. [...]Compromise If you can't stand the thought of your child with a tongue bar, come up with a solution you can both agree on. Maybe you'd be more apt to accept a third earring or even a navel ring."

 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/cpt/2001/001/12.24.html

 

I think, eg., a earring for a boy, ought not to be too controversial