littlebillie

"Bottom line is, I don't know if B-P was gay or not...no one will ever know. But does it matter??

No it doesn't. Or at least shouldn't - for B-P, or any responsible, mature - gay or straight.

Logical conclusion, yes?

may I assume that scouting freely welcomes gnostics? and polytheists?

Lord Sir B-P has been mentioned here as though he is the final determinant for all things Scout. IF (a big if, I think) this is true, consider this in terms of the local standards issues:

"Fortunately, in our Movement, by decentralisation and giving a free hand to the local authorities, we avoid much of the red tape which has been the cause of irritation and complaint in so many other organisations."

- from "Aids to Scoutmastership"

the menorah is the same kind of religious symbol as a Christmas tree, in the view of many, and possibly moreso, in the view of many others.

while Christmas can indeed (some say should) be celbrated without a tree, the Menorah is a necessary part of the Festival of Lights, and symbolizes the miracle that it celebrates.

the Menorah is older than the Magen David (Star of David) - at least in its religious symbolism, according to many scholars. from http://www.menorah.org/starofdavid.html

"With Jewish emancipation following the French Revolution, Jews began to look for a symbol to

represent themselves comparable to the cross used by their Christian neighbors. They settled upon the six-pointed star, principally because of its heraldic associations. Its geometric design and architectural features greatly appealed to synagogue architects, most of whom were non-Jews. Ironically, the religious Jews of Europe and the Orient, already accustomed to seeing hexagrams on kabbalistic amulets, accepted this secularized emblem of the enlightened Jews as a legitimate Jewish symbol, even though it had no religious content or scriptural basis.

When Theodor Herzl looked for a symbol for the new Zionist movement, he chose the Star of David

because it was so well known and also because it had no religious associations. In time, it appeared in the center of the flag of the new Jewish state of Israel and has become associated with national redemption.

During the Holocaust, the Nazis chose the *yellow star as an identifying badge required on the garments of all Jews. After the war, Jews turned this symbol of humiliation and death into a badge of honor. "

Regardless - display must necessarily be all or none, otherwise we have problems with establishment, even if the intent is more along the lines of religious affirmative action...

so 1/3 of the wilderness is frozen and not much use. how much of the remainder is desert? how much of the remainder is mountain?

less than half of the earth remains uninhabited or relatively so, even as human lifespan has trebled and quadrupled, and the bearing of children and the burning of virgin forest remains a HUGE part of the agricultural subsistence formula...

46%? that's pretty scary. esp. when we think about how much of the ocean remains "untainted".../

scoutldr - well and succinctly put. in fact, it really boils it down - good!

kwc57

"Can you name any sin that isn't disobedience or rebellion? They all are."

interesting to think that not all rebellion and disobedience is sin, tho...

"They celebrated their bounty and blessings from

God on that legendary Thanksgiving; not our country or our freedom (sort of predated our country and they weren't so pleased with old either)."

Ummm - you really haven't looked into it for the facts, have you? the above seems to parrot the standard myth (and really doesn't even get into the enslavement of Squanto at all, and the destruction of his tribe by European disease before he came back to save the settlers), and ignores the slaughter of Native Americans alluded to in the true and original FIRST official Thanksgiving proclamation of 1676, a slaughter of hundreds of innocents for which there is plenty of historical evidence, btw. THAT Thanksgiving proclamation mentioned Jesus Christ and the Heathen Native. One of many sites where you can read about this is: http://www.btigerlily.net/BTTheTruthAboutThanksgiving.html

But Jesus was missing from Geo. Washington's first American Thanksgiving proclamation, as He was from Lincoln's proclamation that established Thanksgiving as a fixed national holiday.

Further, as for Thanksgiving being a CHRISTIAN holiday, I think folks want to re-think that a LOT. The Jews fleeing the Holocaust, coming to America, had many reasons to be Thankful - ought they not to celebrate this day, 'cause some misguidedly call it Christian? Well, I'm sure some would say so, and ironically, given the celebration of genicide that was part and parcel of the MBC

While certainly there is a Theistic overtone and intention to the day, I can see even atheists gathering their friends and family about simply to say "Thank you, for being in my life"!

ANYONE can celebrate Thanksgiving - at least as we blithely know it today.

The ideal modern Thanksgiving is a day for ALL of us, citizen or no, atheist or believer, Merlyn or anyone :-) - ALL of us. Anything else betrays the ideals that Thanksgiving should be about. If, on a single day, an entire Nation can unite in giving thanks, to God, or each other, or that last lucky roll of the dice - then we have created one of the truly magical events of human history.

And if any one group says it is especaillay theirs - well then, I thin they miss the point.

Thanksgiving should NOT be about the historical past, not anymore - it should be about our personal pasts, and it should look to hope in the future.

THAT is what I celebrated yesterday, with Jews and Buddhists at my table, along with Christians and atheists.

And the only thing I regret is that we ran out of pecan pie before I got to it!

from http://www.christmas-tree.com/where.html

CHRISTMAS TREE TRADITION HAS ANCIENT ORIGINS

King Tut never saw a Christmas tree, but he would have understood the tradition which traces back long before the first Christmas, says David Robson, Extension Educator, Horticulture with the Springfield Extension Center.

The Egyptians were part of a long line of cultures that treasured and worshipped evergreens. When the winter solstice arrive, they brought green date palm leaves into their homes to symbolize life's triumph over death.

The Romans celebrated the winter solstice with a fest called Saturnalia in honor of Saturnus, the god of agriculture. They decorated their houses with greens and lights and exchanged gifts. They gave coins for prosperity, pastries for happiness, and lamps to light one's journey through life.

Centuries ago in Great Britain, woods priests called Druids used evergreens during mysterious winter solstice rituals. The Druids used holly and mistletoe as symbols of eternal life, and place evergreen branches over doors to keep away evil spirits.

Late in the Middle Ages, Germans and Scandinavians placed evergreen trees inside their homes or just outside their doors to show their hope in the forthcoming spring. Our modern Christmas tree evolved from these early traditions.

Legend has it that Martin Luther began the tradition of decorating trees to celebrate Christmas. One crisp Christmas Eve, about the year 1500, he was walking through snow-covered woods and was struck by the beauty of a group of small evergreens. Their branches, dusted with snow, shimmered in the moonlight. When he got home, he set up a little fir tree indoors so he could share this story with his children. He decorated it with candles, which he lighted in honor of Christ's birth.

The Christmas tree tradition most likely came to the United States with Hessian troops during the American Revolution, or with German immigrants to Pennsylvania and Ohio, adds Robson.

But the custom spread slowly. The Puritans banned Christmas in New England. Even as late as 1851, a Cleveland minister nearly lost his job because he allowed a tree in his church. Schools in Boston stayed open on Christmas Day through 1870, and sometimes expelled students who stayed home.

The Christmas tree market was born in 1851 when Catskill farmer Mark Carr hauled two ox sleds of evergreens into New York City and sold them all. By 1900, one in five American families had a Christmas tree, and 20 years later, the custom was nearly universal.

Christmas tree farms sprang up during the depression. Nurserymen couldn't sell their evergreens for landscaping, so they cut them for Christmas trees. Cultivated trees were preferred because they have a more symmetrical shape then wild ones.

Six species account for about 90 percent of the nation's Christmas tree trade. Scotch pine ranks first, comprising about 40 percent of the market, followed by Douglas fir which accounts for about 35 percent.

The other big sellers are noble fir, white pine, balsam fir and white spruce.

Premission was granted for Internet use by --- Written by: David Robson, Extension Educator,

Horticulture; Springfield Extension Center

Boy Scouts of America, not BIBLE Scouts of America. Hindu Scouts can have a polytheistic religon, and no one else?

Not really sure where I stand on diversity, since it's become SUCH a buzz word - but I strongly believe in tolerance, and this thread seems to displays some lack of it...

"The name of the corporation created by this chapter shall be ''Boy Scouts of America'', and by that name it shall have perpetual succession, with power to sue and be sued in courts of law

..."

I would expect that being able to sue for use of the single word "Scout" would be like Toy'R'Us taking someone to court for use of the word Toys. And since the GSUSA has its own charter, there'd be precedent for permitted infringement anyway.

Since Spiral is not a gender word, I think they have fairly solid grounds. Even "Youth" might be challenged on the basis of the age thing - Boys and Girls are Youth. By choosing a word w/out any such tie-ins, it would seem as tho' they've got themselves covered.

My stance on the gay issue is - I hope - clear. The BSA should be persuaded to allow responsible, mature gays into leadership positions. I said persuaded, not forced. That's an important point. No pedophiles or sex criminals of any kind, btw, gay or straight.

Ok, got my plank in there - now for a response.

RobK defines the discrimination thing succinctly. And I have to agree that, say, if the GSUSA is there, then the BSA has the right to be there as well. The Girl Scouts position is a lot more similar to the BSA position than a lot of folks believe.

BUT if there is/was in fact a contract, in perpetuity, etc., as eisely believes, then the marina privileges haven't been provided "free of charge". I'll be interested in hearing WHY some judge tore up the contract, AND if the BSA will at least be paid for the rip rap provided if the city of Berkely decides they no longer wish to abide by the terms of said contract...

If the Scouts indeed paid for this - even if just in rock - then the actions of the City are reprehensible.

I'd also like to point out that if the Federal Goevernment recognizes "don't ask don't tell" and if the GSUSA treats religion that way as well, then it really should be good enough for Berkeley AND the BSA.

NJCS,

I've always seen that "in His Own Image" stuff as akin to a human sculpt a statue - a statue can be in OUR image, but of a totally different substance or 'stuff'. The statue of a human being looks like a human being but can't do anything but sit there. The human may be in the image of God, but we are otherwise very unGodlike.

Now, in the case of humans and God, we are made in His Mental image, not physical, and the stuff of our minds and souls - compared to God's - is as cold marble compared to our bodies.

but again, this is from someone who sees the Bible as a symbolic instrument, a thing of simile and parable, rather than something wholly literal.

firstpusk, some really interesting sites. esp germane for those who say evolutionists lack OBSERVED or EXPERIMENTAL evidence was the plant stuff, I thought - obviously some folks only want to consider that which has been observed immediately and directly.

The ancient DNA stuff was also fascinating.

Thanks!

...better not be instilling ANYthing sexual, gay OR straight... that's REALLY TRULY the philosphical position... it's up to families and churches, not US!

Weekender,

from:

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/bk26/distinctions.html

Later Peter realized the significance of the revelation. It was that "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse

28). Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles (non-Israelites) God called into the Church (verses 45-48).

???

on the other hand, if the law can change - as you describe - and the land can change - erosion - then why not life?

hey, here's a Gallup poll article.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html

I don't come to the same conclusions as you, looking at this, ScoutParent. While it's "most Americans" don't buy into evolution, it seems more do than buy into strictly literalist creationism. Can I ask what poll you're looking at?

Thanks!

oh, and fyi

Genetics also addresses hybridization and mutation

thanks again

kwc57 "Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't God create man from the dust of the earth in Genesis? That is quite an "evolution"!"

Not only man from the dust, but chimps from the same dust, with just a flick-o-the-wrist's difference in the DNA!!!

You just GOTTA wonder what the point of that was!?

Weekender,

I can appreciate where you're coming from, and respect your stance - I jsut don't accept it for myself. I continue to see the "days" in Genesis as "vast time periods" of indeterminate length (one acceptable translation of the original text). Indeed, the original texts refers to elohim, gods, plural, but that seems to have been lost through the process of translation and transcription, and no matter. Faith is faith, and I believe that God told a story of Creation in Genesis that was at our level of understanding at the time. He also gave us science, and our understanding has grown.

For me, a micromanaged creation of 14 billion years standing sings more loudly to the Glory of Him Who made it than the story of Creation. But again - that's just me.

I gotta ask, do you take ALL the Bible literally? Where do you stand on the unclean foods issue, for example? I ask about this one, just because it seems like it's one area that seems to be interpreted a couple of different important ways - and I ask not challengingly, but out of honest curiosity.

Rooster7, I acknowledge and respect you as an individual of faith and sound argument within the context of that faith, and be aware that know I can never shake that faith. My discussion is just that - let's consider the points, and see where they take us. Neither of us has changed the other's mind, and that's ok. It speaks to the strength of our respective beliefs. If I ever thought something I wrote here might actually shake anyone's FAITH, please know that I wouldn't post it.

A scientific theory points to a piece of rock, a rock that can be handled and touched and vouched for by a Buddhist or a Jew or a Hindu or any at all. None would deny at the least the common appearance of the rock, reagardless of any story of origin they might bring to it. The rock is there and tangible across the boundaries of faith.

This is the dividing line between the THEORIES of evolution and literal creationism.

a scientific theory is founded on demonstrable physical evidence and conclusions drawn logically therefrom.

a religious theory is founded on faith - believe this, because we are told to believe it - with no exceptional credence given to or even sought for physical evidence.

while i'm at it, even mathematics talks of theories, tho' a lot of those look pretty incontrovertible.

when we use the single word "Theory" we are muddying the linguistic waters, when to be properly descriptive we should indeed specify Religous or scientific. Failure to do so accidentally leads to confusion; to do so deliberately, to obfuscation and deception.

Creationism is a theory in the religious sense until someone can show us the four-legged cricket, or a galactic path that can be traced back 6000 years and then end mysteriously - something outside of the bible - AND at the same time explain what fossils and the apparent age of the earth are truly due to.

without challenging anyone's faith, I have to ask, BESIDES your faith, what TANGIBLE, demonstrable proof is there of any religious theory of origin?

If God is truly omnipotent, how many countless realities can there be - can He not make all seemingly conflictive beliefs be true, if He chooses? What are miracles but the impossible made to happen? This seems almost simpler to believe than what some would have...

The arguments that were lined up against Galileo have all fallen aside, and he was finally REcommunicated. Out of curiosity, does anyone out there disagree with the currently held opinions of astronomy?

It's pretty tough sitting in the middle - a religous evolutionist. The fundamentalists think you're a heretic for not taking Genesis literally, while a nonreligious evolutionist thinks you're an idiot for taking it at all! Still, it's the most satisfying position, I think, intellectually and personally. But ok, enough of that.

I am on record as saying that I am in sympathy in principle with those families who truly have deep religious objections to evolution. I believe in evolution, but recognize the possibility that evolution in the classroom at too early an age may conflict with early formative family teachings. AND I've said that perhaps it should be withheld in the classroom until high school, but I see that as an imperfect solution. We're already so far behind academically... and I fear where it could lead. Geography that doesn't show the world on the back of a turtle may step on some religious toes, and discussing the idea of life on other planets may step on others. Any health education that discusses medicine is in danger of offending some, and a cafeteria that serves any kind of trayf is unclean in toto.

Regardless the preceding.

Scientific theory - demonstration and deduction.

Relgious theory - faith and tradition.

I still say they can get along; I still say we need them both!

"While you did not write that my religous beliefs were contradicted by the theory of evolution, firstpusk did, and my reply was addressed to you both. Pardon me for confusing you. Forgive me also for expecting a reasonable level of reading comprehension on the part of my audience."

So let's see how this works - you address TWO people, ACCUSING one of them - and the confusion is based not on the resultant inaccuracy - caused by YOU - but by my own lack of ESP and resultant failure in recognizing that what you say is not waht you mean - and it all boils down to MY problems in reading comprehension?

Ok, you got a gold star on that one, you bet!

(Imagine Bill Cosby's voice from the Noah bit) RIGHT!!!!

Why is it some folks just autoamtically asume that it's the OTHER person at fault if there's been a misunderstanding? You know, the ones who never stop to say, hmmm, I may have been unclear, let me rephrase that?

It must take a load off your mind to know that you always express yourself flawlessly, eh? At least knowing you're a perfect communicator means you can get on with other things. And even if your every third posting has to begin with "you misunderstand" or " improve your reading comprehension", well, despite the annoyance of never being understood by lesser minds, there must be an offsetting comfort in knowing that you yourself are never at fault in confusion!

Now, let me get this straight - modern astronomy would have to be a religious teaching, right? Those pillars, that giant turtle? Health ed? Oh, and saying the pledge impinges on certain groups as well.

Ok. Um - btw, where did I ever write that YOUR religious beliefs are contradicted by the theory of evolution? just outa curiosity? um - if I'm making myself clear?

"Reasonable, unbiased scientists need to either prove beyond a doubt that evolution is valid (to the exclusion of creationism) - or acquiesce that [LITERAL]creationism has the same the right to claim its validity as a theory."

The word in brackets seems necessary to the statment I'm assuming you intend? Please remember that there are many scientists of great faith who take the story of Genesis allegorically.

The corollary for your statement must needs be "Reasonable, unbiased [LITERAL] Creationists need to either prove beyond a doubt that all English texts have been properly translated and that the seeming contradictions, impossible animals and other puzzling issues in Genesis have been resolved - or acquiesce that Evolution has the same the right to claim validity as a theory."

Once again, those can who see Genesis as allegory need stand off to one side here, it seems...

the Consitution is not "closed on Sunday".

"Granted, not all religious faiths can be true, because many contradict one another."

The Sufis say that Allah makes Himself known in time and manner and place appropriate to each people...