littlebillie

Ed,

In the giving of the law, I'll assume there were no parables or allegories, for the most part (I realize there are some who interpret a change in the dietary laws, but that's another issue).

So - if the Bible is all true, what happened to the 4 legged crickets? Did they evolve into 6 legged crickets? How is this addressed by Biblical literalists? I haven't really heard much about this and I'm sincerely interestd.

"In case you haven't noticed it, many tax dollars are spent celebrating minority skin colors"

Although when I hear it, this construction is generally delivered rudely, I haven't heard it this time, and will just assume that it's been delivered gracelessly and without rudeness.

See, this is tax dollars authorized in many cases by a white majority, and frankly taking advantage of something a handful of people worked really hard at to get and keep going. By "taking advantage" I mean that a LOT of literature and websites addressing the contributions of black Americans to our society that were quite frankly ignored entirely when I was in school.

From this perspective, a lot of majority tax money has been save.

REGARDLESS of how you look at it, it's the majority tipping its hat to a minority, rather than glorifying being white.

'S different.

It really is.

yet surely, if the majority decides to spend tax dollars to celebrate THE VERY THING that separates them from the minority (the birth of Jesus, for example), that's wrong. what if they were celebrating whatever the majority skin color was, would that be ok because it was the majority supporting it?

evmori, that's neither here nor there, argument-wise, is it?

even so, I'll counter with - after One builds petrified wood - or you build a birdhouse - why are there still trees?

or better, to help reign in human hubris and keep us reminded that the clay of our creation remains humble...

"For example, if a manger scene is erected on the grounds of a public park for Christmas in a predominately Christian township, this serves the people in the community. And if Jews in the same community want to erect a similar memorial on public property for one of their holidays..."

ummm - a query. who paid for this stuff? did the ALL the taxpayers pay for the Christmas exhibit? if so, are ALL the taxpayers gonna pay for the menorrah? the way this is written, it seems like it's if the Jews want to pony up for the 'memorial', then it's ok.

If that was the intent, I gotta disagree - but I should wait for clarification before going off half-funded! :-)

"creationism is bunk because a concept like radiometric dating is misrepresented intentionally by some..."

Well, an omnipotent, omnisicient Force could have devised a Creation with some amount of decay already in place, if not to show us what was, then the possible logic of how it could have come to be. otherwise - still assuming a Creator - it's a deception.

So - would God allow deception in His Creation, a flaw in His Handiwork, even to test our faith? I'd say no. Should we foresake science? I'd say no, again.

Should we find a way to see our world in a way that let's religion (God's light to our souls) and science (God's light to our minds) find common ground?

Here, I gotta say at least maybe. I don't think we should set faith against knowledge, or knowledge against faith, but rather figure out how these sometimes conflicting, often confusing world views can be broght together in harmony.

God would not have given us intelligence with nothing to use it on - THAT would be a punishment...

so the Bible is NOT the given word of God, and where it is that God has spoken is wide open to human error??? Given that, how do you know what's accurate and what's errored? We need to pick an choose from the parts of the Bible that which is real and that which is a mistake?

now THAT'S a whole 'nother can of worms, ain't it?!

Leviticus...

..." 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."

Since today's locusts, katydids, crickets and grasshoppers had 3 prs of legs, what do I conclude? Has evolution taken place? (The addition of legs, unlike a color shift, seems likely to require evolution.)

I'll assume that all other winged creatures with 4 legs have somehow become extict - I'm not aware of any today OR in the fossil record - but since it was God's words, there can have been no mistake or mis-speaking. Therefore, maybe we're left with evolution to account for this?

God has given us science and the ability to learn and the urge to expand our knowledge - as we learn more, so does He let us see more...

from: http://www.girlscouts.org/adults/beliefs.html

"We, the members of Girl Scouts of the United States of America, united by a belief in God and by acceptance of the Girl Scout Promise and Law, do dedicate ourselves to the purpose of inspiring girls with the highest ideals of character, conduct, patriotism, and service that they may become happy and resourceful citizens.

We believe that the motivating force in Girl Scouting is a spiritual one.

We affirm that the Girl Scout Movement shall ever be open to all girls and adults who accept the Girl Scout Promise and law."

Preamble of the Constitution of Girl Scouts of the USA

Spiritual force. God comes before country in the promise. And so on. So is the GSUSA really as atheist-friendly as some media reports make them out to be, or is it just that their stance hasn't really been stress-tested to the extent of the BSA?

yep - sure sounds like everyone's human out there!!!

bless us all!

while y'all are at it, could someone let me know if the neckerchief officially goes over or under the collar?

Thanks!

"Of course to get elected, JFK said his first priority would be the country."

This suggests that you think he only said this to get elected, and not that he actually meant the words. Was that your truly intent?

If so, is there documentation?

here, again, seems to be another area where there IS some room for local practice, for standards set by the CO or the Troop.

seems like the BSA is not as uniform across all areas as has been stated...

'Making factually wrong statements (about an organization he clearly dislikes) is called "lying".'

Well, until prior knowledge and intent are established, this is should initially be called being mistaken. Fairness, courtesy and truth all demand it.

Jumping right into calling a mistake a lie is in itself a kind of falsehood, I think, and a tactic that really should be avoided.

That said, when the ACLU has been disparaged, apparently that's ok - but when one of the disparagers is taken to task, that's not? (BTW - are there really folks out there who think the ACLU has done NO good?)

I really don't get these rules of engagement!

VH-50

a man's speech should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaPHOR?

:-)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pledge12jul12.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia

Check out the story at this site - tho' I'm sure a lot of you have bumped into it elsewhere already.

One thing I've noticed here in the forums - I think - is that regardless of how anyone beleives a prayer should be worded, whether someone thinks gays should be admitted or excluded - whatever - EVERYONE thinks its the kids that come first, and the kids should NOT be used in the backroom politicking...

...unlike folks who just want their names to become some footnote part of legal history, and don't care who they use to make it happen.

ARRGGHHHHHHH

"I agree that any prayer officially adopted by a troop should consider the entire troop and not just a segment of its population, with exception to troops chartered by and for a particular faith."

So one CO should have a prayer acceptable to its full population, and another CO doesn't have to?

Well, taht sure sounds like a "local standard" to me! :-)

Rooster7

'If I feel prompted by the Holy Spirit to say, "In your Son's name, the Lord Jesus Christ", and I say the "Great Chief of all Scouts" instead, I have offended my Lord and Savior.'

well, that seems to suggest a) that yours would have to be the one single true faith, and that b) God as you know Him has no patience for religious tolerance, or even courtesy to other faiths..?

I'm asking a serious question, and not trying to be a smart aleck here, so please don't read it that way...

tjhammer seems right to me - at any multiple troop function, invoking Jesus would automatically EXCLUDE the Jewish kids, for example, and that doesn't seem right.

Rooster7, how would you feel if a Hindu leader invoked one of the Hindu trinity at a group prayer? You would happily grin and bear it, with love and understanding?

Just curious...

I like to begin any group grace or invocation with the words"Oh, Thou, Shepherd of Many Flocks..." and while strictly speaking I suppose the Singular Shepherd may possibly be deemed exclusionary of polytheists, I stand ready with the argument that even polytheist religions have one deity that's most apporpriate to the moment - but so far, I haven't had to use it! :-)

"Every chartering organization, so long as they do not directly oppose BSA policies, has the right and freedom to tailor a program that reflects and

emphasizes their values."

Rooster,

What's a policy, in your definition? As far as written practice, rules, or documented instruments go, I mean?

One of the problems some of us on the knee-jerk liberal side of the fence :-) have is that since it ain't writ down, there's a certain arbitrary nature to it that just doesn't seem right.

You can say "we don't want gays" in a couple of letters in the 70's, but never put it on an application form or in a handbook, or amend the charter - so is that a real policy?

If so - see, this can be nasty. If the Executive board suddenly issues a statement saying, we don't want polytheists- well, i'm guessing they're within their legal rights to do so. And with this, since the line reads "God and my country", there seems to be real documentation. And the lack of solid documentation makes shifts like this do-able. Very unsettling to consider, from my position.

Anyway - basic question, what do you consider a "policy" and should it be written down in applications, handbooks, etc, really spelled out and explicit?

Just curious...

This seems to me to be one of the biggest issues facing the BSA today. It's an issue that affects many of us, in and out of Scouting.

I can understand someone saying, "hey, I am SO tired of this issue, unless someone can come up with something new, don't expect any more posts from me". I CAN'T understand saying, "let's ALL stop talking about it". Since it is now a funds-impacting hot button, major social issue, and great divide between the BSA and the GSUSA, I'm thinking that NOT discussing the issue is playing ostrich.

Since it's not going to go to the local level, a forum like this is a wonderful service for a discussion of a national issue in a wide-open, ostensibly national arena.

It's easy to find anti-scout, pro-gay forums, and pro-scout, anti-gay forums.

But for those who are pro-scout AND pro-gay - well, I for one am glad this is here.

um - THANKS!

"Not discriminitory. Just excerising their rights afforded by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "

...ummm, these are not mutually exclusive. as stated above, it's really the same umbrella that covers the KKK.

...and in its wake, the glacier leaves the scree of forgotten ages, the rubble of that which it has crushed and collected and carried - and forgotten.

but standing before the behemoth is a slow path to self-destruction. years, and decades might pass before it takes you undertoe - more likely, you will be pushed blindly aside, for know this - the glacier is mindless.

it is an unintelligent, unthinking force that passes no judgement - it does not because it cannot.

Behold the glacier.

First, I figure everyone knows I'm a "gay sympathizer". I don't think that orientation, in and of itself, should automatically disqualify anyone from Scouting.

That said, I gotta fill in another square. We sometimes forget that society is based on folks working together, and sharing - it's not really based on 'individual rights' per se, tho' these are very important. Individual rights need to be balanced against community rights. There's a point where one person's desire to keep a pet (too many cats, a smelly ol' rhino) or play music (too loud, or anyhing with an accordion) begins to impact an entire neighborhood. We are a social animal, and it is the community that represents that social nature.

A single chimp is less important than the troop, and while it is regrettable that anyone be thrown to the wolves - well, the greatest good for the greatest number.

So - while I think that in the short term setting local or community standards might very well start allowing greater gay participation in the scouting movement, I'm not sure that i can fully support that approach. I say this sadly, because too many issues are at conflict here.

Regardless of my 'gay symp' position, my community rights position makes me worry that once one community allows something, certain militant factions would then take this as legal precedent to ram an open door policy down everyone's throats.

Doors should be opened with a hand of welcome from within, not beaten down from without. So I think there may be danger in *forcing* a church to 'allow' gay leaders in its pack or troop before its faithful are ready. When the individual can trample on the rights of the community, we all lose.

So - limited compromise? Not if it ultimately means unlimited loss of community and neighborhood rights.

So it looks like I gotta just keep trying to get Irving to re-evaluae its position statement!

:-)

(takin' it)

no one should be holding their sexuality up as a model, gay OR straight. and no one should be condemned based on it.

Any leader, or anyone, chosen as a role model is NOT being chosen for studliness on either side of the great divide. They're being chosen for their camping skills, or their communication skills, or their compassion. They're being chosen because they're good teachers. Sometimes they're being chosen just because they can show up regularly. So, I put issues of chosen companions aside and if they are responsible, dedicated folks, I welcome them.

I don't know anyone living who is a totally perfect role model. But I DO know a lot of folks who are really terrific at one or more things that are appropriate to scouting. If they can pass their scouting-related skill along, terrific.

That said - a pederast's a different matter altogether. Drawing and quartering, boiling in oil - that's letting them off too easy, gay or straight. Touch a kid, go to prison. Hitting a kid - we've all heard of it - that's out, too. Any abuse of the young by someone in a position of trust - must be punished.

(passin' it along)