AZMike

Glad you included yourself in that population of us stereotyping, pigeonholing offenders.

The collapse of marriage as the institution in which children are properly born and raised has created a very gun-shy generation of young men, especially among the urban and rural lower classes. I spoke with a 28-year male (hard to described him as a "man") who had multiple kids by multiple young women, did not provide any financial support for them to speak of, but still spoke fatuously of his "kids." I asked him if he planned to marry the latest girl, and he looked at me like I had proposed that he sprout wings and fly to the moon. "Oh, no...I'm really not ready for that!" I felt like shak

Fair enough, that's a legitimate argument as well. On the last quote, see my previous post: this is from the draft statement that will render the cite you gave inoperative, if they have their way: The committee also proposes amending the commentary following canon 2C. Under the committee's proposal, the commentary would retain the language noting that membership in religious organizations is constitutionally protected, but references to military and nonprofit youth organizations would be deleted.

My bad - I see this issue is under review: http://www.examiner.com/article/cali...ith-boy-scouts Per the article, California has an exception for BSA youth leaders that they want to remove. I don't think it is really an atheist issue, Merlyn. If the standards are rewritten, the new societally-approved code will also bar judges from holding commissions in the military reserves or National Guard, as the miltary still discriminates against women in certain specialties: The committee also proposes amending the commentary following canon 2C. Under the committee's proposal, the c

Merlyn, I don't see any exception for the Boy Scouts in the link you posted. Is there an exception for the BSA now, or not? There are any number of other private organizations that judges cannot belong to under these standards: Absent such factors, an organization is 38 generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership. One could of course argue that the BSA does not "arbitrari

Merlyn - They're on to us / me - RUN!!!

Merlyn and I inexplicably agree on an issue, which is probably one of the signs that were foretold. Next comes the Tribulation, and then the Lake of Fire.

Wow. Just Wow. One has the right to refuse service to anyone. I would have told him he had to leave. One can refuse to allow someone within the hall if they aren't wearing shoes, if they have been obnoxious in the past, if they aren't wearing a collared shirt, or certainly, if they raped a boy scout. You may consider me "discriminating" or a "bigot" for thinking that way, but if so, then fine. By your standards I'm a discriminating bigot. My charge to protect the boys in my troop overrides your feelings. If the individual doesn't like it, he can file a suit for unlawful discrimination aga

Found this is the business section of the AZ Republic today. Cliff Faraci is a former Scoutmaster and a genuine hero. He also got hosed by his insurance company for being out of network. Worth reading: http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/2014/04/24/injured-good-samaritan-billed-aetna/8129925/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/irving/headlines/20140417-poll-shows-decline-in-support-for-boy-scouts.ece The Boy Scouts’ image, once defined by idyllic Norman Rockwell paintings, has suffered during the contentious debate over whether gay youths and adults should be allowed to participate in Scouting, according to a public opinion poll. Rasmussen Reports, an independent polling firm, asked the following question in a telephone survey: “Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of the Boy Scouts of

May God watch over him and his parents. What a tragedy.

Still mulling over my answer.

Just like Bill Clinton was confused when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, or Obama was confused when he said he believed marriage was only between a man or a woman. Those statements went right down the Memory Hole.

There were, in fact, members of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s who supported a platform of homosexual rights, but it is probably a good thing from our point of view that their demands weren't met, as many of those supporting homosexual rights during that period in our history also supported the decriminalizing of "consensual" sexual encounters between adult homosexuals and minors. That was a demand that was wisely (mostly) dropped from the manifestos of the later gay rights movement that began with the Stonewall movement.

Given the feelings of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King about homosexuality, that would have been unlikely.

Huzzar is correct.

As well you should be, packsaddle.

Not really, Merlyn. I had no idea Disney donated to the BSA. And the post-Eisner Diisney is quite different from the old era. I was always more of a Bigs Bunny man than a Mickey Mouse man, myself.

Nice that a moral exemplar like the Disney Corp., which covers up cruelty to animals in its films (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/11/25/regulators-Hollywood-covers-up-plague-of-animal-babuse) and hires known, convicted child molesters to direct its films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Salva) feels entitled to preach to those of us in fly-over country about morality.

I guess the next step for the Mouse would be to immediately stop the sale of all DVDs of FOLLOW ME BOYS and order the original masters destroyed at high noon on Main Street in Disneyland, to prevent the unfortunate misapprehension by the public that the Disney Corporation ever considered the BSA to be an organization that was ever in any way moral or worthy of support, and to then donate an amount equal to all past revenues from sales of the property to whatever LGBTQQ political action committee most loudly applauds their corporate decision, then to ruthlessly Photoshop Fred MacMurray and Kurt

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/us/disney-pulls-boy-scouts-funding/

The difference is that Cyrus was making a lewd performance, and is still receiving awards, in the public spotlight, and raking in the dough. She is positioning herself as a "feminist" for her actions. In the circles in which she travels, that's considered a win. Gottfried, Diller, and Gibson were not making statements about their religious beliefs. (Gibson is a member of a small schismatic sect which broke away from Catholicism, but the views he stated are not part of their church's doctrine and he isn't considered anyone's employee.) Robertson was making an expression of religious belief and

I've lived in foreign countries where celebrating Christmas is not the norm, and been offered good wishes based on the predominant religious holiday there. My first thought is not to take offense, but to appreciate the good nature of the greeting, wish them a greeting for their holiday in return - "And a Happy Ramadan to you, also!" . (Why not? I don't celebrate it but that doesn't mean I don't want them to enjoy it.) I don't inform them loftily that I don't celebrate their holiday, or feel the need to inform them what holiday I DO celebrate. I'm aware that the holiday they proclaim exists, an

"Edgy" comics make far more inappropriate comments on cable TV than Phil Robertson ever has, and they get a pass. Miley Cyrus can simulate sexual positions with a married man and smoke a joint onstage and no one gives a crap. Express a view shared by most Christians - that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that we should hate the sin but love the sinner, even as we acknowledge our own sinful nature (Robertson's stated views, which are reasonable), and the network blows a gasket. The Robertsons were always intended to be the punchline of a joke by A&E. When they became so wildly popula