packsaddle

Littlebillie, I think a better term than 'anti-gay' is 'homophobic' which I think better applies to BSA because it implies more fear than hatred (it still is prejudicial). BSA only excludes or rejects homosexuals that are not willing to lie about themselves. This policy is not so 'anti-gay' as it is 'anti-truth', is more about appearance than about honesty. The policy is not particularly BRAVE. Rooster, You must already know about the numerous denominations that accept homosexuals. Would you really have us adhere strictly to all the laws set forth in Leviticus (Vayikra)? I, for one, am not

Rooster, some of my guys are interested in this also. I would like to hear about your trip to learn from your experience and plan one for our unit. I have done trips like this solo but not with the boys.

ScoutParent mentioned the twin studies and it is true that twins have been extensively studied for nature vs nurture insights as well as other interesting comparisons. The specific study mentioned is found as: A genetic study of male sexual orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991. The results of comparisons of monozygotic (identical) twin males showed that where one was known to be homosexual, approximately 52% of the brothers were also homosexual. ScoutParent did not mention that for the associated study of dizygotic (fraternal) twins, where one was kno

"Smart money says God was omniscient enough to foresee it!" Thanks PFANN, should I add gambling to my list? I personally try to avoid wagers(maybe because I tend to pick losers).

One more thing in response to an earlier post... in addition to the current BSA blacklist (that I don't agree with completely), I do believe that persons who have drug or alcohol problems or who use tobacco products should be ejected from BSA leadership because they are poor role models for the boys. Also anyone who is a felon or has a history of domestic violence. Not, of course, to necessarily equate the judiciary with the above.

Wow! Ok, first, (and not necessarily to defend the Raelians) the previous characterization of their group is not too far off from one that could be made about Joseph Smith and the Mormons. I don't think the Raelians are trying to harm anyone so I don't judge them too harshly except for the stupidity of following someone who makes some outrageous claim (I admit this may be unfair). Someone please tell me the religious group that hasn't been labeled as a cult at one time or another by someone who was in disagreement with that religion. (sorry, I don't intend to play the role of Merlin here) S

kwc57, The KKK (one label of which is the 'Christian Knights of the KKK') is not chartered by congress, also an important distinction. I agree with an earlier post that this topic is tired...but soon we may have the means for better answers to some of the questions regarding nature vs nurture. Assuming that the religious group promoting human cloning is successful (and especially if China gets into the vanity cloning business), we will have the first extensive group of genetically identical persons for tests of all sorts of hypotheses. The results will be interesting.

Hello Folks, I see the inevitable has happened and the topic has turned to science vs. religion. As a diversion, I offer the following to remind us how lucky we are to be able to invest time in such discussions. A Thanksgiving story from Costa Rica: My friend from Costa Rica works in the Ministry of Education. We had visited schools with him for much of the week and he invited me and my companion visitor to his home for dinner one evening. Although he was a little hesitant, he really wanted us to meet his family so we graciously accepted the invitation. His home was an

Hello Folks, I found this thread after returning from an extended Alaskan trip and it has been great. The fact is that I feel good that we can disagree without fighting and we seem to respect each others' rights to speak. I wish BSA did too. Littlebillie, hold down the fort for a while (great quotes, by the way). Alaska was good (cold, clean, a little shaky at times) but I am going to leave this thread for a while to travel to Costa Rica. It's a rough life. I'll try to check out Scouting down there. Later

OGE, I agree too. What you say reminds me of something A.N. Whitehead also said, somewhat harshly: "History, down to the present day, is a melancholy record of the horrors which can attend religion: human sacrifice, and in particular the slaughter of children, cannibalism, sensual orgies, abject superstition, hatred as between races, the maintenance of degrading customs, hysteria, bigotry, can all be laid at its charge. Religion is the last refuge of human savagery. The uncritical association of religion with goodness is directly negativated by plain facts." If this offends anyone, I ad

Rooster, I won't try to speak for all of 'you guys' but my view is that the common morality we share, regardless of its derivation, is acceptable to us because we choose to accept it (sorry for the circularity but it seems unavoidable). We collectively write the laws through a democratic process (citizenship in nation, community) and we individually decide right and wrong. Whether a person uses a Bible passage as their authority or if they derive it logically, they still decide individually how to think and act. I can't sort out the source of my or our development of this common morality bec

littlebillie, "Hammurabi rocks" Uh, I don't know...'STONES' is more like it. Some examples from the code: 6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death. 7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death. 8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goa

KWC57 I hope I didn't offend you by my lack of understanding in that 'submit' example. When I married my wife I felt lucky not to have to change MY name. Seriously, I must be undergoing ZORN withdrawal. I miss that guy. Also MERLIN, where is he? Please don't tell me they were the same person, I couldn't take that. Everyone, have a nice day. Think I'll just have to overeat at lunch, maybe take up smoking...Nah, I'll stick to the food.

littlebillie "Are you suggesting that the exercise of Free Speech ..." According to my reading, this HAS happened (check with the Unitarian Universalists and others). You better watch your step, me too, because the thought-control police are in charge.

KWC57, I like your hypothetical. littlebillie Question at large - COULD AN ATHEIST SIGN THIS WITHOUT DUPLICITY, HYPOCRISY OR FRAUD? My answer, Yes an atheist could sign this statement. I am trying to think of who COULDN'T sign it, the statement is so wishy-washy. The BSA 'maintains'...it is their opinion and does not explicitly reject the possibility of an alternative. The BSA policy designates a clear hierarchy of 'home' over 'organization' over 'group' with regard to religious life. Except that it is basis for prejudicial views and actions, I have no problem with the statement.

kwc57, in your reply to weekender - great reply and I agree with your philosophy. As an example, although I disagree with the Baptist doctrine of the wife 'submitting' to the husband, I respect your right to follow that doctrine (I suppose your wife would have to agree, too). I respect others' beliefs and I demand similar respect from them. I know of no faith that has not received rough treatment from other faiths and many of our wars have religious conflict as their cause or at least a significant component. Anyone who has attended Camp Meeting understands the desire for religious dominance a

KWC57, STAGED? You sayin' it wasn't? ACCO40 If the BSA revoked the membership of every over weight SM, every smoker, etc. membership would decrease tremendously. Am I not trustworthy because I say the Scout Oath and am guilty of not getting enough sleep on camping trips? I believe that smokers pose a greater proximate health threat to youth than atheists and that anyone with a drunk driving record should be bounced ASAP. But don't stop at overweight. From my observations even to place the bar higher, say, at 'obese' would eliminate 50% of leaders. We don't exactly cover ourselves wit

DeMann, I found a couple of quotes that may satisfy part of your original question. From a site on Hinduism: "Hinduism believes in the concept of evolution of life on earth. Although it is not the same as the one known to modern science, in many ways and in a very fundamental sense, it is not much different from the latter." From a site on Buddhism: "Buddhist philosophy is evolutionary and thus agrees with the scientists rather than the theologians. Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading . Buddhist philosophers consequently

OGE, I liked your comment, "And thats the hardest thing about religion, sometimes you just have to suspend human rationality and just "believe"". It is represents the strength of faith. And I believe that it will always play a role in mankind. Science continues to advance in its own realm, however, and vigilance is needed to insure that we recognize its legitimacy. DeMann mentioned a very good example of one of the pithy questions that science still wrestles with, I am not sure it is addressed biblically at all. Gravity. Even if we understood the physics necessary to explain gravity in co

What happened to Zorn?

Rooster7, Thank you for your heartfelt and sincere thoughts. I think we have a lot of common ground and, as you say, there are both scientists and non-scientists who hold very rigid, conflicting views. I agree that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. In my view science can be used as a way to expand our sense of wonder and awe. I get the impression that DeMann, for example, sees science as some kind of enemy and I am still trying to understand such response. All of us, I think, are looking for answers to what are often similar questions. Inevitably, we tend to answer the easy ques

Hey, I think I said (or meant to, anyway) that there aren't answers presently in hand to all the questions. Emotion is a good one, too. The assumption is that there 'is' (in the sense of 'within the realm of possiblity') a rational explanation, not that such explanations are in hand. As for the Bible, I like some parts more than others. Like that? For example, I don't particularly like that part about visiting the iniquities of one generation on future generations (who otherwise may be quite innocent of those iniquities). I don't particularly like the idea of killing first born children

Rooster7, I repeat, science does not address God in any way. It does not refute God or religion nor does it support God or religion. It is totally consumed with the rational world and has plenty of questions there without tackling those that are solely a matter of faith. I am sympathetic to some persons who sincerely feel that science is in conflict with religion but there simply is no such conflict, only a personal perception of such. On a different thought, does anyone have any idea of what all this has to do with Scouting? Have I missed something, is there a movement out there to ejec

DeMann, to your questions: 1. to add to my original answer, no one knows for sure but...My bet is that it was very simple, mostly employed the same amino acids as we do, and had the same base pairs that we have. (It might taste sour if seasoned improperly, though) It reproduced because (and this is going to be a bit circular) reproduction is one characteristic in the definition of life (which, incidentally, is still being debated in some circles, the definition, that is). If it doesn't reproduce, you have to work hard to qualify it as life, much less an organism. Crystals reproduce but don't

Americans are notoriously deficient in foreign language skills and I must confess that I contribute to this sad situation. I...don't...know...Aramaic. I know, it's ugly -but it had to be told.