Replies

IMHO...

Pocket knives ? Fathers can’t teach pocket knives ?

Fatherless ? Mothers with children and no husband should marry.

There’s this thing called extended family. Cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. They help get family through the rough spots.

Then, if the limits of extended family are reached, there’s something called Church. Church can help with temporary needs.

It’s also the best place to meet a future spouse.

That all takes care of “fatherless” children, all according to how the Bible exhorts us to take care of the fatherless.

Women with children who remain single for many years remain so because they choose to (for the sake of getting money from an ex or the government, or because they prefer the idea of living as they please without a husband), or because they unwittingly present themselves as a not very appealing future wife (they’re simply acting the way the financial oligarchy has brainwashed them from kindergarten into acting).

Show me a women who will be a good wife to a husband in the Biblical sense and I’ll show you a women who will have no problem attracting many qualified suitors whether or not she already has children.

The financial oligarchy would have women believe that all men are concerned with is sex when it comes to finding a wife, and that is the best way to attract a man. Of course, sex outside of marriage attracts either the inexperienced or gullible man, or the man who is specifically not looking for a wife, but is looking only for sex outside of marriage. Of course, for the godly man who is truly ready for and seeking marriage, loyalty and ambition are the two most attractive qualities in a wife (as opposed to disloyalty and laziness), which are enhanced by a woman’s ability to raise children and keep a home well, followed by perhaps the “icing on the cake” of possessing some degree of wisdom, tact and good demeanor.

Not to leave out qualities of a prospective husband and thus enrage those smitten with modernism, the servant leader is the ideal, with the same list enumerated above for a wife except for the replacement of “keep a home” with “provide for a home”, and to keep in mind the differences between the father’s and mother’s natural roles in raising children.

As far as “certification” goes, poppycock. My grandfather hunted and fished all the time, was a locally well-known small-game hunter and dog breeder, raised 5 children with his faithful wife, and never had a certification in anything relating to knives or guns and was never in the Boy Scouts. Many a time it was what he hunted and fished that was the food on his table.

As far as the “metro kids” situation goes, numerous people in my family were born and raised in or near “the city” and their parents sojourned out to the country many times and many moved there later in life. Actually many old families in America started in the country, later generations moved to the city, and then later generations moved back out to what was then the suburbs, often not even realizing where their early ancestors had lived.

Amazingly, this all happened WITHOUT the assistance of government or any other organization.

The Boy Scouts, as well as ANY government or any organization, for that matter, do not have any legitimate right to be the gatekeepers to knowledge of outdoor living, be it in the subjects of hunting, fishing, or even farming, ranching, or any field of study or knowledge of nature. People can directly study these bodies of knowledge for themselves without the government or some organization interposing themselves. Some organizations start with good intentions, others are started by financial interests that seek to have monopoly control over the particular field. Often those organizations that started with good intentions are stealthily commandeered by such monopolists after they run as intended for some time. Often often the takeover begins by offers of funding or some sort of management assistance, i.e., bringing in “professionals”, who in actuality are simply frontmen.

One of my Scout Leaders had served in the military. I was not aware of this at the time, I just knew he was a great guy. I’ve recently learned that his son that was in my grade went on to West Point and years of honorable service. In such cases, the experience is good for the boys, as opposed to some situations where the leader is a jerk (like the guy who had us go back down the mountain to fetch his “gear” which was coolers full of beer and ice - needless to say that guy didn’t know diddly about anything except nepotism). In any case, local townspeople can actually get to know each other and do things together - amazingly, without having formal organizations. If the parents make sure to actually know that a man is decent (as opposed to never venturing inside his home like those who were friendly with the creepy Ohio kidnapper) they can get the benefits of living in society without providing an organizational target for those who (like we’re seeing the culmination of now) seek to subvert organizations for their own demented purposes.

Most parents do not thoroughly investigate organizational leadership members, nor do they monitor much at all other than their own child’s success. To most, it’s a combination of a) tradition, b) keeping the kid occupied while they hopefully learn about the outdoors - without the parent having to hike through the woods themselves (in the case of those who don’t volunteer to lead), and c) the glory of my kid’s badges, awards and honors, or using those to have a better college application for the parents who plan on sending their boys to college.