Rooster7

NJ, First, that people would leap to the conclusions that fgoodwin and Rooster apparently leaped to, without at least asking Terry to first explain how the "store" works and how the products are selected. I accept that I may have used the word (incredulous) improperly, but I find your reply to be unwarranted and manipulative. My post should not be construed as a slight against Terry or anyone associated with Scouter.com. I just find it difficult to believe that they would permit their site to be used to promote materials that are so blatantly offensive to the BSA organization and their supporters.

NJ, I think you prove one thing with your post. There is no thought or opinion - regardless of subject matter, brevity, or indifference, which you are incapable of transforming into a personal attack. Congratulations. You must be proud.

I find it incredulous that Scouter.com would sell these materials, but yet there they are I'm speechless.

Bob White, ...please be careful about judging my typos unless you believe you have never typed anything in error yourself. I asked for clarification, but your response was to summarily dismiss my inquiry. To refresh your memory, you said - "As far as the content of John 8:1 I am confident you have the appropriate resources at hand to discover the answer to your question." To be sure, its not your typos that bother me. I am interested in the part where you say you have taught scouts that homosexuality is a sin. Look again. I never said I taught scouts that homosexuality is a sin. I said I taught my children that homosexuality is a sin. While I have enjoyed the company of many of scouts, I never considered them to be my children. You know...we actually agree on the BSA policy. Why dont we just leave it at that.

tjhammer, And its all those other kids - like the ones in Matt's troop who taunted and teased him under the knowing eye of their leaders - who get a not-so-subtle message from BSA that it's OK to think of gay kids as "less than the best kind of citizen" simply because they are gay. It may be Rooster's right to teach his children to believe that way, but the same right should be afforded other parents in other neighborhoods who disagree and want no part of institutionalized prejudice. What exactly do you think I teach my kids? As you pressed Bob White, please provide some data to back up your contention. I dont know what kind of citizen the typical gay kid may be. Its not something I think about. What I do believe and teach my children is this homosexuality is a sin. Anything purported beyond this, is TJs speculation or projection as to who he thinks I am. Bob White, I see no reason for you to take offense. You asked a question and I answered it. In any case, both my posts were clear. I implied nothing, and I cannot control what you might infer. As far as the content of John 8:1 I am confident you have the appropriate resources at hand to discover the answer to your question. Then later Oops sorry, John 8:7 Apparently, I didnt have the appropriate resources to read your mind and discover the proper bible reference. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7 Given my previous posts, I dont feel this caution is appropriate. Ive never claimed to be without sin. Nor do I claim to have the ability to judge anyones standing with God. I am simply repeating what the Bible teaches which is homosexuality is not pleasing to Godit is a sin. I doubt if Jesus was upset with the crowd because they recognized the sinfulness of the prostitute. It was their unforgiving and ruthless desire to inflict judgment on her which caused him to rebuke them. I have no such desire for Matt, TJ, or any other homosexual or any other sinner for that matter. I know my sins, and I dont count them as less than others. However, in the context of this debate and the BSA policy, I do take issue with homosexuals who want to proclaim their sexual behavior as being normal (i.e., as not being a sin - or in the terms stemming from this debate, behavior which should not preclude them as being a proper role model).

Bob White, I asked for clarification. Your words seemed to imply something left unsaid. That is why I presented a question - not an accusation. As to your reply, I found it to be offensive. Although, to be clear, we all are sinners. What is the caution in John 8:11?

Bob White, Nor has the BSA ever found it to be their place to judge an individual as a sinner, that role in my personal opinion is best left to God. I assume that you have the same high regard for Gods Word as I. With that said, how do you reconcile the verses below with your comment above? I understand that the BSA is not in the business of identifying sin. However, you seem to be implying that we, believers and followers of Christ, should not be identifying sin either. My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. James 5:19 & 20

Lynda, Lynda, Lynda Opening that can of worms is not going to help your case. Its sad that the hierarchy in the Catholic Church did not deal with this problem correctly (openly, swiftly, and with harsh consequences). However, statistically, there are no more or less pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood than there is in the general population. This is something that the homosexual community cannot claim. Studies show a much higher than normal incidence of pedophilia within that community. Matt, Add in questions of sexuality and the rejection that gay people face in society on a DAY TO DAY basis.... its no wonder why the suicide rate amongst gay and lesbian youth is so high. Who are you kidding? The culture at least the popular culture, has accepted you with open arms. It seems quite vogue to be accepting of homosexuality in my parts. The fact is - the BSA is one of a handful of organizations that is standing firm, by their values. As for your scripture quote from Matthew If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, I find it to be highly ironic. As a Christian, if I was to tell you that homosexuality is not a sin, then thats exactly what I would be guilty of doing Id be placing a stumbling block before you.

but I've heard it referenced that some skits are appropriate for campfires where there are no visitors, but not appropriate for "family night". I think this is a gray area that causes confusion in the mind of a twelve year old. Just my humble opinion. Not only does it created a gray area for the boys, but does for me as well. If I think the Scoutmaster and company was hiding the way they allowed the boys to behave (i.e. there is one standard for when no one is looking and another when mom and dad are around), Id be livid. Im depending on the adult leadershipthey have my trust. If they ever broke that trust in such a way, Id be in their ear like there was no tomorrow. As for banned skits, if the skit is truly offensive why would I mind? I think there is a time for this. Unfortunately, people do go way too way (i.e. banana skit, guns, etc.)

May I stress... CHILDREN!!!!!! How is it even close to being moral and ethical for the BSA to discriminate against (and thereby hurt) CHILDREN! Assuming a troop can ban homosexual parents from actively participating in an outing, why would it have to preclude the participation of their son as well? I fail to see how you make this correlation. Second, while I happen to like children very much, invoking their name does not make me genuflect. That is to say, no matter the topic of debate, children are not excluded from examination as if their innocence is unquestionable. I want my children to embrace God and His Will for their lives. I owe it to them to monitor who they associate it with very closely and as necessary, to separate them from those that would attempt to nullify Gods Will in their lives. Until they leave my household, Im convinced that God wants me to take this duty seriously. Lastly - discrimination simply means to separate, to make a distinction. As to how much hurt it causes, has more to do with the mindset of the person being discriminated against than the person who discriminates regardless if the discrimination can be rightly justified or not.

Regards gays, my point wasn't that they "appear" normal, it's that they "are" normal. But, that's a debate that's defined in terms of belief systems, which really aren't subject to "evidence" or "proof", so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I suspect that we will just have to agree to disagree. Regardless, Id like to suggest that through the study of basic biology and genetics, one can easily find evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is abnormal and behavior based.

I would think that the BSA would be skating on very thin ice if it banned gay parents from outings. Based on what legal grounds? The fact is, if the BSA wanted to become a blatantly bigoted organization (which some have already accused them of being), they have a legal right to do so. The way I see it - If the BSA has any concerns regarding this issue, its how to convey policy to its members so that it cannot be abused by the truly ignorant and/or bigoted. In my opinion, theyve done a good job of that. I think the BSA policy makers understand how such policies can be abused, inciting needless and harmful accusations. Thus, the current policy does not encourage witch-hunts, which is how it should be.

If they are not proclaiming their homosexuality, or demonstrating it in any manner, how can a troop know? Likewise, for any other behavior such as alcoholism, if the adult has kept it hidden whos going to make the accusation and why?

Prairie_Scouter, To follow up on your reply While I personally believe there is a link (although not necessarily direct) between homosexuality and pedophilia, that was not my point. My point was - the same argument that folks make in support of homosexuality (i.e., look how normal we are or look how similar we are to you), is the same kind of argument that NAMBLA makes. The appearance of normalcy should not be used as a gage to determine moral righteousness. Secondly, I do not believe the so-called religious right is a small vocal group. If they were, how do you explain the election of George W. Bush (twice!) who openly sought this groups support. If what the religious right stands for, is so counter-intuitive to the morality of the rest of the country, why didnt the majority prevail in the 2004 election? Fluke? Right-Wing conspiracy? Hanging chads? Complacency? Or all of the above?

Acco40, I drink alcohol on occasion (never during BSA activities). The BSA does not ban me from outings. Does the BSA consider drinking alcohol to be immoral? No. Does the BSA and/or most of its charters consider drinking alcohol excessively to be immoral? Yes. So, lets change this scenario a little bit. An adult parent announces to other adults in the troop that he likes to drink alcohol in excess and often. Is it not reasonable for that troop to reconsider allowing him to participate on outings? This is a man who will be interacting with the boys. Lets not be naive. There is great potential for him to influence them. Suppose he announces to adults in the troop that he relishes pornography? Is it not reasonable to limit this mans influence over the boys? Wouldnt you, as a parent, want him kept away from your son? The question is not - who has ever acted immorally? This, without doubt, we are all guilty. However, embracing immorality as normal is quite another matter. When this occurs, I think If its not the troops legal right (i.e. within BSA policy), it is certainly within the troops moral right to protect the boys from these peoples influence. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, When I made my original post I was thinking of a number of factors related to behaviorsome of which, you noted in your reply to me. Still, I am not quite convinced you are right. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, if homosexuality is deemed by the BSA to be unacceptable behavior, which precludes one from membership then a troop should be able to prevent parents who claim to embrace that behavior from attending a Scouting event. But since I dont have any BSA documentation in front me to counter your words, I will acquiesce to your superior knowledge of written policy.

Prairie_Scouter And thanks for providing your thoughts. I think you should continue your efforts; you show how "normal" gays are, regardless of the religious rights efforts to condemn gays as some sort of "religious abomination". I see three major flaws in your assertion, which attempts to portray people of faith in a very negative way. 1) First and foremost, its my experience that most people of faith (Christians, Jews, and others) are not on a mission to condemn gays. They are, trying to uphold a moral standard. Folks, who identify sin as sin, are not claiming to be sinless or condemning those who practice a certain sin. They are, speaking truth as they know it. 2) There is no religious rights effort. There is no conspiracy against those who are not religious. There is a ground swell of people in this country who feel God and morality has been discounted for far too long. If there is movement of sorts, it is only a reaction to the pendulum which has swung long and hard against all things that reflect a belief in God. 3) The appearance of normal has nothing to do with right and wrong. There are plenty of folks who appear normal in every way but continue to embrace immorality. This is not limited to homosexuality. Take pedophiles for example, NAMBLA has argued for years that if society would simply accept their love that wed realize that they are normal in every way. As gays continue to become visible in the mainstream, my hope is that BSA will see the err of its ways and make some changes. Remember that there's nothing in Scouting or BSA underlying "law" that disallows gays. It's merely an interpretation. Saying that gays are a "bad role model" is just an opinion of those in power. Leadership can change, and so can opinions. True enough. Leadership and opinions may change. However, despite your assertion, the BSA has spelled out in writing that homosexual members will not be accepted. There is no BSA Constitution to interpret. The leaders of the BSA have no legal obligation to stay true to someone elses belief concerning their original charter. They are free to change the organization in any way. Our government and its judicial system have nothing to say about it. Having said the above, it is my belief that those empowered to lead the BSA are staying true to their original charter.

OGE, I respectfully disagree. Local units have some control over who is allowed on outings. There are many circumstances in which I can envision a troop banning the participation of certain adults.

I guess that comment is still smartingeh? Okay, if were going to be factual. Spoken like a true liberal doesnt necessarily mean one is a liberal. If it makes you feel any better, I probably didnt eat my bran that morning. It was somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction. Still, I dont think its fair to characterize a viewpoint that you disagree with, as posturingeven if the people presenting the said viewpoint happen to be politicians. But thats an explanation, not an attempt to derail this particular thread. Peace.

As to the so-called quotation battle, I see it as being mostly one-sided. Try to follow these basic considerations: 1) Leave out quotes from history books, whose authors are merely expressing their personal opinions about history as opposed to recording it. 2) Drop the quotes from 20th century politicians, who like the aforementioned authors, are just providing an opinion and/or serving their own purposes. 3) Put all quotes from our founding fathers in context. Dont accept one line quotes at face value. Obtain some background. Im not going to join the battle of quotes. I do ask that you examine the quotes already provided by others, take note of their source, put them in context (that may require some work), and draw your own conclusions. In other words, if you going to examine history fairly, then do just that NOT ALL QUOTES WERE CREATED EQUAL. Hunt, The Constitution says that the federal government shall establish no religion. What else do you think it says about the church? Jeffersons letter was written to a Baptist minister, with the intent, to reassure the minister that the state would never be allowed to direct the internal affairs of the church. It was not meant as a declaration that the church (i.e., people of faith) shall never have any influence over the state. Some folks like to interpret these as mutually inclusive propositions. They are not. It is completely within the realm of reason for persons of faith to seek the creation of laws which are rooted in faith-based values. If the majority of voters and/or their elected representatives can be persuaded to vote for such laws, the government should respect the collective will of the people. These laws would in fact represent the morality or values of the majority. Where those values come from, should be irrelevant. It is not within the realm of reason for the government to abolish laws or to ignore the will of the people, because it can be argued that the impetus for such laws was/is derived from faith-based values. This is religious bigotry. The state is trampling on the rights of religious persons by ignoring their values. SR540Beaver, I am not sure why my name was brought into your post, but please be more direct if you want to take issue with anything I may have said to you or others concerning this topic. As for the United States government doing their job - as a citizen, I have a vested interest in the moral foundation from which our government operates. All laws are based on a moral premise. And all morality comes from God. If we truly want to remove all evidence of God from our government, then we should simply abolish all laws, and do as we please.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

The Ten Commandments has historical significance to this country and its government. It is the most renowned set of laws ever given. In particular, the Ten Commandments are significantly important tenants of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Until the revisionist of the sixties and seventies came along, most in this country agreed that the American legal system was based on Judeo-Christian values. In fact, Id be willing to bet that most folks still believe that to be true. It should not surprise anyone that the SCOTUS accepts these monuments (recognizing the Ten Commandments) as having historical significance to these United States. What is surprising is that they cant seem to accept it as being universally true, only under the right conditions.

Eagledad, As one man to another, I'm impressed that you're willing to admit that you worry so much over your son. It's often frowned upon, even among Christian circles. I applaud your character you not only have a loving heart, but the courage to share it with others. Women often get chided for mothering their children. The truth is, men are just as protective, and often worry more than the mothers. Its definitely possible to be overly concerned, but Ive seen far more examples of parents showing no concern at all. With that said, I think you should probably let go - at least a little. Philippians 4:6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

I appreciate the efforts and concerns of the staff members. Obviously they are seeking to make our debate more "friendly". So be it. Still, I can't help but laugh. If this was the sixties, there would be black magic marker all over this thread.

Synonyms for Ilk type, like, sort, kind, class, breed, manner. If my professed beliefs arouse the condemnation of atheists and others that seek to deny God or portray Him as something hes not, Im probably doing something right. Now, thats not an insult or a compliment. Its just what the Bible told me to expect. In short, you and your ilk, are free to believe as you wish. Me, and my ilk, will do fine with or without your approval. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

It is time for Americans to wake up to the real dangers in our society, groups like the KKK, American Neo Nazi Party, these crazy survivalist and paramilitary groups, etc. all which are undermining the fabric of our society today. This amendment seeks to honor and protect the one symbol which we all should be willing to rally behind, the U.S. flag. It represents our form of government, our freedom, and the people who fight gallantry to preserve both of the former. Your object of concern has some validity, but it could open a Pandoras Box that we ought not to tamper with. It has implications which are much more dangerous and frightening than those brought to the fore earlier in this thread. Im not going to lose much sleep over their unease, i.e., who is going to decide what constitutes desecration of the flag? However, if the U.S. government starts to target law abiding groups which they deem to be undermining the fabric of our society, that will cause me great alarm. Where does their charter start and end? While many of these groups are despicable, who decides which groups are worth pursuing? Am I worried about the rights of a Neo Nazi group? No. I'm worried about the rights of law abiding groups that are deemed a threat because they don't represent popular opinion, or the opinion of those in power. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)