Rooster7

TJ, One can't help but notice that the "no credible reports" are not noted by name. Nor is the report that shows that such children are better adjusted.

I'm not a big fan of OA ceremonies when they celebrate multiple Gods and talk about animal deities. These ideas are against my faith. I must assume some church sponsors feel the same way.

Fuzzy Bear, Gods Law, not to mention common sense, tells me that murder, lying, pedophilia, bestiality, and adultery is wrong. I dont pick and choose my heart, soul, and mind unequivocally tell me that these things are wrong. Thankfully, most men seem to be convicted by the wrongness of these activities as well. Up until 30 years ago, there was overwhelming agreement that homosexuality was just as sinful. A well organized effort among homosexual activists, and a coalition of special interest groups seeking support from others, has done much to badger and condition society into believing that they are mere victims of prejudice. If you are truly trusting on the Lord, and not the influence of men, then Id like to present a challenge to you. Read the Gospels, pray about it, and then post here again tell me one more time that homosexuality is not a sin. If your pride doesnt trip you up, Im convinced that you will not be able to make such a post. I believe most folks that argue against homosexuality, including the BSA, are not judging the behavior to be more worthy of condemnation than any other sinners. However, there is no alliance of murders, or liars, or adulterers, arguing that their sins should be accepted. In my mind, a Scout leader who is struggling with homosexuality but rejects it as immoral, is just as qualified to be a leader as a man who struggles with desires of adultery. I dont see one sin being better or worse than the other...but truly both are sins. We all struggle with sins. Its those who dont struggle that concern methose who accept their sin as righteousness. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3

Amen. When you get that time machine built, let me know. I'd like to do a few "do overs". Peace.

Fuzzy Bear, Youre missing the point. Homosexuals are trying to legitimize their sin. They are not trying to changetheyre embracing their sin. While it is certainly possible some adulterers feel the same way, I dont know of any activist groups that trying to put pressure on the BSA.

If you want to look for other cases of mass murder being enacted on their citizenry, pick the African nation of your choice; you've got a pretty good chance of naming one that has a "bad guy" in charge that is trying kill off it's citizenry. Ill give you a point or two for Africa. I dont understand why we havent been more aggressive there. I know what the left would say thoughBush is racist. I dont believe that, but I agree that we ought to be acting more forcefully to give those folks some relief. You're right, one size does not fit all. However, one report I've seen estimated that Iraq was 5 years away from being a nuclear threat to us, while North Korea presented an imminent danger. Yet, we decided to strong action against Iraq, and have taken a more laid back approach to North Korea. Laid back? Let me see, two guys are threatening me (or a neighbor, it doesnt matter). One is about to reach for a gun, so I step in front of him and knock him out. The other has a gun, so I step in front of himwait a minute, maybe I shouldnt do that. Perhaps I should try to talk to this guy first since hes already has the capacity to do immediate and meaningful harm. Perhaps, this situation requires a different course of action. Additionally, Iraq proved that they are willing to go outside their own borders (i.e. the invasion of Kuwait). North Korea has stayed in their little corner of the globe for the last 50 years. From where Im standing, Bush acted properly by invading Iraq. Gee, I don't suppose you're anti-UN, are you? Im not a fan. Well, there's the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. (all so we could install the anti-missile defense system that only works if you put homing beacons on the targets. That hasn't stopped the Administration from forcing implementation even tho it doesn't work) When did we sign a non-proliferation treaty which banned the development of a defensive weapon? If we did, please provide the treaty name and the language therein. There's the Geneva Conventions, which we've been playing footloose and fancy free with. Well, there are two problems with this assertion. It applies to the nations who signed it, not terrorist organizations. And, according to the reports I hear, we are voluntarily following it. In what circumstance since 9-11 have we not? There's the Kyoto Protocols, which we gave every indication of signing on to, and then backed away from late in the game. Since we didnt sign, were not acting unethically. Close only counts in horseshoes. And, we're busily working towards violating the treaty, and I forget the name, that prohibits the use of space based weapons systems. Sounds like an unsubstantiated accusation. Could you provide some detailsany details? Saddam? No, he's not dead, but the citizens of Iraq probably don't take much solace from that. At the latest count, we've managed to kill more citizens in Iraq than we've killed opposing military forces. Man, do you know how to spin a web. First The Iraqi people are extremely happy that he is out of power. Ask the American soldiers who have been there and talked to those who were forced to live under his rule. Second, Saddam has murdered more people in one weekend than those killed by friendly-fire. Third, since when does the U.S. get the blame for murders committed by terrorists? It's not our job to install democracy throughout the world. If people want it, we should be willing to help them, but to force it on them is not our job. So the Iraqi people were happy? They didnt want us to overthrow Hussein? I dont buy that for one second. Furthermore, if we dont instill democracies where we can then dont be surprised to see your great grandchildren dieing to protect our borders. We cant play the isolationist and expect that we will remain comfortable within our own little world. Were a part of the bigger picture whether we like it or not. If we dont act today and pick our battles, then tomorrow the battles will come to us. But, now, back to the really important question, if you're going to answer ALL my questions...what about that retirement thing? Get yourself a time machine and invest in a small company named Microsoft...Or, if you're single, hang around a lady name Martha Stewart and encourage her to pursue a career in home decor.

Kahuna, We do not share the same faith. However, I find myself nodding my head to your posts. You seem to have a good understanding of the political landscape in and out of this country. There are several folks on this forum that I have really come to like. Some, we share the same faith. Others, I agree with politically. And for some others, simply because they can put together a well reasoned argument. As Meatloaf once sang, two out of three ain't bad! Be that as it may, I will pray for you. Please take that as a compliment - as it was meant to be.

Prairie_Scouter, ANSWERS TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS: So, we're not supposed to believe the findings of the 9-11 commission? Where does it say: It is impossible that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated? Not being able to find proof to substantiate a claim, does not nullify it as a possibility. I repeat. The absence of proof is not validation for either side of the argument. At what point do we have enough evidence? Who would you find believable? We may never know all of the answers. The so-called evidence is lacking on both sides. If you want to believe the worst conspiracies, corruption, etc. thats your prerogative. However, your apparent preference for such an ugly outcome does not make it so. Don't you find it kind of bothersome that so far nobody's been able to substantiate any of the claims the U.S. made before invading Iraq? At some point, don't you need some evidence? Frankly, I hope the President was wrong. I would prefer to hear that Iraq wasnt able to develop any WMDs, despite their desire to do so. No matter, I think the President and those around him acted reasonably and honorably. They felt Iraq was a threat if not directly to us, then to peace in the region. Either way, Im convinced we America, did the right thing. But, if the reason we did that is because he was a terrible leader and killed a lot of his citizens, I guess we've got a few more invasions in front of us, given the number of bad leaders who are killing their citizens that are still around. Perhaps we do. If these governments are set on evil ways why shouldnt we consider military action? Which does bring the question of why haven't we done anything about other occurrences of this kind of thing around the world? North Korea? China? Im not sure which governments you are referring to but surely you have the intellectual wherewithal to understand that every situation is differentthat one size does not fit all. We are applying pressure to these countries and others. Regardless, our government is not so stupid that they would approach every enemy or hostile nation as if one was exactly like the other. Are North Korea and China already in possession of a nuclear weapon? If so, doesnt that change the scenario? Does each of these nations have a well developed conventional military? Yes. At what point do you recognize these differences and change your approach? The U.N. isn't there to forward the agenda of the United States. That much is for certain. It certainly isn't perfect This is perhaps your biggest understatement. but I think it does a reasonable job of trying to bring together a large number of countries, each with their own agenda. Yes, an assortment of countries (China, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, etc.) which want to grind an ax with the United States are given plenty of room to rant. The U.N. has done a great job of unifying their animosity and providing them a worldwide platform. It doesn't help the U.N. that the U.S. is walking around basically saying, "we're a member of the U.N., but we're not going to let that stop us from going and blowing up some other country if we don't happen to agree with their agenda". Call me silly, but I think a government should act in such a way that it represents the best interests of its citizenry - even if such actions goes against another country or a multitude of countries. The U.S. should be working to ensure this countrys survival and prosperity above any other nations or nations desire to the contrary. Sure, we could walk away. We've walked out on other treaty obligations during this administration; what's one more? Well, before I comment, youll have to produce more than a slur. What treaty did this administration agree to and then ignore? What makes you think that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with "righteousness"? Ive already answered that question. The disposal of a ruthless dictator is a pretty good reason by itself. And, how is suggesting that someone read a book "slanderous"? It doesnt take a secret decoder ring to figure out what this poster is suggesting - that other posters in this thread are incapable, or refuse to, to see the truth. Since I am obviously on the other side of fence here yes, I find his suggestion to be insulting. Hes not arguing any points made for or against his viewpoints. He is simply smearing those who disagree with him. What part of our Judeo-Christian ethic says if you don't like somebody, it's ok to kill them? Is that what happen to Saddam Hussein? Is he dead? Was his Republican Guard destroyed because they refused to hand out candy to little children or sing God Bless America? Please, keep it real. Dont ignore the truth about Hussein's regime. I know an Iraqi or two. I know what that government was about. Do you know who and what you are defending? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

It just bothers me that so many reasonable people still believe... You find a web site which claims to be non-partisan and thus every word must be true? Im not saying there is a connection. However, Im not convinced that there wasnt either. No credible evidence, doesnt mean there isnt any to be found. Likewise, contacts which "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship, doesnt mean there could not have been one. As I said, Im not convinced either way. However, to totally dismiss the possibility is just as unreasonable and irresponsible. The absence of proof is not validation for either side of the argument. Furthermore, President Bush never said we went to war because there was a connection. As I recall, it was mentioned as a potential concern - but it was not the impetus for the war. Evidence of Iraqs intentions to pursue WMDs and Husseins lack of cooperation prompted our military action. Whether or not WMDs are found or not, does not negate the intelligence that Iraq, given the opportunity, would have developed these weapons. Lastly, try to remember just what kind of a man Hussein is. Removing him from power was the right thing to do no matter what Iraqs capability was or could have been. He murdered thousands. He was not going to change his ways. If the foolishness of the U.N. is willing to permit such a tyrant to exist, even when they have the power to do something about it, then we (the U.S.) should reconsider our participation in such an organization. As much as wed like to believe the U.N. is a precursor to The United Federation of Planetswe must come to grips with the fact that such an organization only existence in Gene Rodenberrys mind. Its a great idea, but the governments of this world the real world, do not reflect those selfless, peaceful societies that joined forces to bravely explore the fictional world of Star Trek. So, please, spare me the speech as to how our government has caused you embarrassment by ignoring the U.N.s desires and striking out on their own (never mind that it was done in the name of righteousness). Find a copy of "Leadership and Self-Deception" and read it. All of this (this entire thread) and more will begin to make perfect sense. Careful though, you may not enjoy the implications of what it means. Instead of slandering those who disagree with you, try to argue the facts. Otherwise, you will only lose your credibility.

"Peace loving left"? As opposed to what? The "war loving right"? Both claims are equally silly. That is perhaps the one thing we can agree upon. I'll leave history to decide who was a good president and who was not. As for Carter, I liked him - as a man, until he decided to be this country's unofficial ambassador to Cuba.

I'm sorry, but hasn't pretty much EVERY legitimate intelligence source said that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda before the war started? Which agencies are the legitimate intelligence sources? Legitimate intelligence sources were convinced that Iraq had WMDs. For all we know, they didstill do. I dont buy the argument that they would have been found by now. How many small children are abducted each year in America? Do we find them all? What makes you think that our intelligence gathering is so refined that a country with billions of dollars to draw upon could not find a way to hide these kinds of weapons? When so-called legitimate intelligence sources claim Iraq never had a connection to Al Qaeda before the war all liberals bow down and believe. Yet, if another legitimate intelligence source says Iraq was conspiring to build WMDs, liberals cry foul claiming the agency to be a puppet of the Bush administration. Do you really believe that George Bush is planning his retirement by invading Iraq? Was not the president doing pretty well before he took office? Wouldnt you think that hed rather do some good for our country than submit to sleazy influences so to earn millions that he doesnt need? Isnt that the implication being made by the peace loving leftthat Bush is corrupt...hes complicit with the oil companies. I find it all to be quite preposterous a desperate and ridiculous claim by a bitter and disillusioned left. No lie too big to tell so long as they achieve world peace. If the people of this country swallowed this kind of dribble when Reagan ran against Carter, wed probably be speaking Russian by now.

This country was founded on the right of religous freedom. That no religion should control the Government. Actually, you have that backwards. The government shall establish no religion. This does not preclude the government from any religious influence. Eagledad said it quite well. The majority, regardless where they derive their morality, are free to vote for those who represent their interest. And those representatives are free to create laws that reflect those peoples interest. Of course, your natural reaction will be what about the protected rights of individuals? Or rather, that seems to be the refrain chanted as if it were a natural reflex, by those who support homosexual rights. Fine, a perfectly reasonable question assuming that homosexual behavior is a protected right. However, many Americans if not most believe that such a protection has been the invention of liberal judges, who like to create law vice interpret it. Individual rights are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Even back in those days, they were aware of the existence of homosexuals. And more so then than now, they believed that homosexuality was behavior based not an inherit orientation. Clearly, if the founding fathers thought this was a behavior worth protecting, a right which should be afforded any and all, they had the intelligence to ensure its protection by incorporating the necessary language in The Bill of Rights. I wonder how they managed to over look this protection. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Excerpted: from Adult Registration Application B.S.A. No. 28-501K The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely non-sectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. non-sectarian in its attitude toward that religious training How can one interpret that to mean that the BSA will not embrace values which may have a particular religious origin? It only says - they will remain neutral in regard how one receives religious training. The BSA is free to embrace any value of their choosing. Their right to do so, does not conflict with their policy which is, to allow Scouts to pursue their religious training independent of Scouting. Those who claim it does, are simply fishing to find a reason to condemn the policy which is fair and reasonable. So what if one of the values embraced by the BSA is also a value of the Jewish and Christian faiths? No one is being forced to follow the Jewish or Christian faiths. The fact is - any value embraced by the BSA need not be neutral in terms of its religious origin. No matter the origin, Scouts are free to pursue their religious training through the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected. If it pleased the BSA organization to do so, they could embrace every value of a particular Christian denomination, and still remain true the declaration of religious principle (which only speaks to religious training). (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

No doubt there are many different interpretations of the Bible. However, there are probably countless interpretations of the U.S. Constitution as well. Do we ignore the entire document because some folks cannot grasp the simplest concepts? We take our Supreme Court very seriously, as we should - because we understand the courts interpretation will have long term consequences for our lives. Christians should consider the Bible with the same seriousness as we do our Constitution; how we receive and understand Gods Word has eternal consequences for our lives. Dismissing the Bible as controversial or subject to human error is a huge mistake. In short, there will always be people who will attempt to hide the Truth this fact does not stripe us of the responsibility to seek it.

NJ, A local option will only be invoked when the policy makers decide that is what they want to do. So yes, I do not consider myself to be a BSA policy maker...only an inactive adult volunteer. In the meantime, I do not believe the BSAs support of Judeo-Christian values constitutes the "narrow-minded following of a particular faith" a.k.a. sectarianism. Their policies reflect the traditional values that this country once embraced. If you dont see it that way, thats finebut thats just your opinion, like many others. To me, the idea of a national organization with universal standards makes sense. The BSAs mantra of building character in boys would ring hallow if they allowed local units to pick and choose their own standards. Biblically rooted or not, I am free to embrace any set of values which I deem appropriate. Furthermore, I am free to promote those values as I please. Labeling them as religiously inspired does not nullify them. In short, the fact that I believe in God, that doesnt make my values less worthy of consideration even in a so-called non-sectarian organization, if indeed that is how the BSA would describe itself. Lastly, if you want to bring this discussion back to the local option, then please refer to my first paragraph.

I wonder if the Onion was really that far off. God didn't say anywhere that "gays are bad role models". We humans made that up. Sure, we justify it by quoting chapter and verse from a book that may or may not be translated and interpreted correctly. If the Bible cannot be trusted, then the entire foundation for the Christian faith is questionable. My faith tells that the Bible is from God, and thus it can be trusted 100%. My common sense tells that most contemporary translations were concocted so that people could re-interpret and proceed to live life as they like. Well, there a lots of different religious groups represented in BSA, they all believe that they're way is the only way to get to "salvation", and guess what? They can't all be right. Thrust and parry, eh? Yes, you are correct. However, the value system which the BSA leadership chooses to embrace is still their prerogative. They are not compelled to collectively represent the values of all the various religions encompassed by its membership. If it did, they would have no values to stake claim to, because they would cancel out each other. Thankfully, we have a political system and a government which recognizes the rights of private organizations. This is how Satan wins battles. First, he deceives folks into believing that hes a myth. Then he whittles away at our morals until we are left with nothing. Today, its homosexuality. Tomorrow, itll be the age of consent. In a few more years, it will be who is entitled to give consent. Dont think this is out of the realm of possibilities. Its all a matter of time and who we embrace as our God.

Hunt, You explained that very well. Feeding off Hunts explanation - what if it could be proven that pedophiles were born with their tendencies? So what? Its still wrong. They know it. We know it. Tendencies do not make a person act. Tendencies are just that an impulse to behave in a certain manner and/or an attraction to something or someone. If I acted on every tendency I ever had, I would have been put in jail or killed many years ago. Some folks save themselves from acting on tendencies out of self preservation (i.e. if I do that, then I will have to pay this earthly consequence). Others, justify their tendencies so that they can act on them without guilt Not because they are courageous (as many liberals like to think), but because the satisfaction that they derive from those actions out weigh the risks (the potential consequences). OGE, I cant explain every biological aberration any more easily than I can explain - Why do bad things happen to good people? However, I know that God has a plan. I believe in Him with the same degree of faith and confidence that I know that good and evil existsor that our existence as human beings is more than a freak act of nature. I know that our hearts and souls are as real as our bodies. I know that God is talking to me. In fact, I know that hes been talking to all of us. It doesnt take a rocket scientist only someone willing to mediate on these things without an agendasomeone willing to sit in the quiet of their room and silently ask questions without preconceived notions as to what the proper answers ought to besome willing to ignore the intellectuals of the day and to just seek God. Ive done all of these thingsbut only when I sought God and Him alone, did any of it make sense. Im sure you know what I mean.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

More to the point, Ed and others would have us believe that this innocent child chose to "sin against God" at 7 years old. It is very possible for a seven year old to sin. When I was five years old, I played doctor with the girl next door And guess what, I was fully aware that it was sinful And, I didnt need my parents to tell me so. Regardless, if a seven year old boy told me, I think Im a girl I would gently tell him that he is confused. I would not label this confusion as sin. However, any adult that would feed into such confusion and steer that boy towards the path of homosexuality would be guilty of sin.

Lynda J, The one boy that is gay was very feminine from the age of 1. How exactly does a 1 year old display his/her feminine qualities? Perhaps this was something that the parents created in their own mindsa self-fulfilling prophecy. So setting the example of a gay relationship isn't going to cut it for me as far as gay parents producing gay kids. In terms of the BSA argument, the concern is not that boys will become gay although I do have reservations about what may happen in specific scenarios. The general concern is that they will be forced to witness the immoral behavior of homosexualsincluding what Trevorum might describe as tenderness expressed between two men. This kind of intimacy between two men (or two women) is wrong. A straightforward examination of general biology testifies to this fact. The letter included a court order to stay away from all family members. You know. I don't care what my child does A truly bizarre story, but hardly typical, Im sure. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Even soDo you sincerely believe that this family is representative of most families that must deal with this issue? Whats the point of telling this story? No doubt, many especially those on the right of the political spectrum, would be upset by such news. However, to flat out reject and abolish the relationship I dont think so. Speaking for those that I know best - most would maintain the relationship certainly they would continue to love their child. But just as certain, they would try to convince their child that homosexuality is not from God. Its popular today to portray oneself as tolerant - loving and accepting of everyone. While I agree that we should be loving and accepting of one another, I do not agree with how liberals have expanded and distorted that definition. Sometimes, to truly love someone, you must reject some of their behaviors. In fact, it often takes much more courage to confront those that you love, than it takes to be the open minded and tolerant individuals that society says we need to be.

Get Wisdom and after you get Wisdom (i.e. book knowledge), get understanding (i.e. how to apply that book knowledge in your life). Matt, I realize that you dont want to debate the Bible, but let me clear up one thing. Wisdom the Wisdom described in the Bible, has nothing to do with book knowledge. It is about seeking Gods Will, knowing our relationship with Him, and discerning His expectations for us.

Trevorum, Rooster, you are confused. That is NOT heterosexual behavior. That is merely normal tenderness between two people who love each other. It is not the exclusive domain of straight folks. The tenderness exchanged between a husband and wife is not the same that is shown between mother and child. Spouses often unwittingly and subtly communicate sexuality and a degree of familiarity. It may not be the exclusive domain of straight folks (per the popular culture), but for my children, I dont want that kind of familiarity being modeled by two menapparently, neither does the BSA.

At one point in this country, it was perfectly acceptable for adult males, in and out of Scouts, to teach and demonstrate to boys the proper way to treat a lady. Even if we ignore this, today, it is not uncommon to see a man kiss his wife good-bye as he ventures off for the weekend with a troop. Also, in normal day-to-day interactions, husband and wives demonstrate a certain degree of intimacy to those around them. To pretend that heterosexuality is not on display in the Scouting community is inane. It may not be overtly taught, but it is plainly there for the Scouts to see. Are you suggesting, as a matter of political correctness, that troops should attempt to regulate those customary exchanges between husband and wife? Surely, any attempt to do so will fail. My point is heterosexuality is taught to our children. Its not a formal education, but it is clearly and openly communicated to our children.

Matt, Do you study Gods Word? Or do you simply look up verses? James is warning believers not to swear by Gods name or by anything else that is sacred. He is not condemning the taking of solemn oaths. Jesus took an oath before Caiaphas (or at least, he responded affirmatively to one posed to him). But even if your charge is correct, homosexuality would still be a sin. As to it being merely a belief yes, it is. But then again, every moral premise is based on a belief. The question is - what moral beliefs is this society going to support? Where individuals derive their beliefs is a pointless exercise. Religious beliefs, family upbringing, government education, or something else in our society, none have more weight than any other. We are all entitled to an equal voice. That voice can be expressed on forums like this, through membership in an organization with common beliefs, or at the voting booth. In my case, Ive done all three. My point is declaring a moral belief to be null and void because its supporters are religious, is counter to the democratic roots of this country. They or we, as the case may be, are free to weigh in on any debate and influence any organization, including the U.S. government.

acco40, I dont know how much of what you said was tongue in cheek, but heres my explanation for the perceived discrepancy in my pervious post: When I used the word normal, I meant it in terms of acceptability. While sin is common, it should not be considered acceptable. Or rather, no specific sinful behavior should be regarded as acceptable merely because all are guilty of sin. If so, the standard of behavior for all of humanity would be the lowest discriminator.

OGE, I think your analogy fails. The library of Congress is just thata library. The Scouter gift shop should be unashamedly pro-scouting and they have no obligation, nor should they attempt, to show the other side. By your logic, "Mothers Against Pornography" should have a link to Playboy. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)