Rooster7

Posted November 15: Liberal ideologues whine whether they win or lose. In fact, they're probably happier when they lose - Because they get to whine even more! The nattering posted to this thread since my last post, makes it appear to be a preamble to a sad and bitter anthem of liberal bellyaching. Perhaps they should hope that no judgement ever comes for their actions. Thats funny the whole basis for liberal theology is that that there is no judgment! In fact, most liberals cant even spell judgment. ;-) What's the extra e for Excused of Evil doing for Eternity? I doubt if God spells judgment the same way you do. Its what we deserve. If you dont believe it, look in a mirror. By the way, God-fearing, God-loving, Bible-believing Christians that embrace the Rapture dont have to worry about judgment. Someone took care of that for them. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Backpacker, gsmom, and some others... Here's my lessons learned - Liberal ideologues whine whether they win or lose. In fact, they're probably happier when they lose - Because they get to whine even more! Stop calling YOUR President a liar and grow up. gsmom - Bush did denounce those type of ads. Although, personally I think the Swift Boat Vets were very credible.

Okay, guilty as charged. I have to admit that I have somewhat oversimplified my arguments. Fact is, I don't believe all liberals are evil or amoral. There are quite a few that are just plain deceived. Furthermore, while I embrace conservative views and the politicians that support them, I realize that some politicians are just politicians - even amongst the conservatives. Having said all the above, I do believe this country is in a huge battle for its moral foundation. NJ, Certainly Bible verses can be twisted to support almost any argument. Im convinced that those who twist God's Word to fit their arguments know who they are, and hopefully they are praying for His mercy. While I pray for God's mercy often (for my many other sins), I don't believe intentionally twisting His Word is one of them.

NJ, But you did respond - by slighting my post as a comic-book version of politics in this country. It was a typical liberal smear; all style, but no substance. Did you work for Kerry? If youre going to jump onto the playing field, have some game to go with that trash talk. Otherwise, it doesnt impress anyone. Really, Rooster, do you say that whey Democrats are in office, or only Republicans? Glad you brought it up. I stand by my words regardless of who is in office, until the facts prove I should do differently (not a story on an Internet blog or a movie by Michael Moore) and/or the Presidents own words and behavior tell me otherwise. For example, I agonizingly supported Jimmy Carter for four years. But I danced with delight when Reagan came into office and restored some pride to this country. Since Clintons idea of morality contradicted mine, I found it a little difficult to support him in all matters. But if the facts and/or the Presidents words did not give me reason to object, I remained open minded and supported the president when I could.

The current view of the US is shaped by our policies, including our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo (before Supreme Court intervention they were held indefinitely without recourse to the courts), our rejection of treaties including the Geneva Convention as applied to certain prisoners, and our policy of preemptive war. Whether or not you agree with these policies, this is how they are viewed by a substantial number of British. Abu Graib and what is perceived as our government's inadequate response is also a factor. I find it painfully amusing that liberals in this country (and now apparently the leftists amongst the British population as well) are all self-appointed experts on matters of foreign policy, diplomacy, war, international treaties, and terrorism. Try trusting your President, his administration, the intelligence community, the US military, and those empowered to represent these United States. I know its a stretch, but they might know more than you doeven more than some reporter from the Washington Post or some other journalist major whos trying to make himself a name, just to impress his elitist boss or a bunch of bluebloods (probably living in the blue states). While no one is suggesting that you blindly follow your government everywhere and anywhere; have you ever considered the possibly that they - 1) Have our countrys best interest at heart, more so than any self-proclaimed international community (i.e. the U.N.) 2) Know more than what they could ever possibly share, 3) And are making tough decisions everyday which require taking some risks. Sadly, the liberal agenda has no conscience. They use every opportunity to exploit for political gain. Abu Graib is a prime example. Rather than recognizing it as an aberration, they treat it as common occurrence a typical example of abuse within the ranks of the US military. Worst, they spread this propaganda while truly innocent beings are being horrifically beheaded for merely associating with America or Israel. But no everyone is an expert, so everyone can say as they please. Facts and real knowledge be damned. In the name of free speech, the liberal media and their followers gleefully besmirch, slander, and sully the reputation of this President and everyone associated with him. Why? Because they claim to know better. Theyre enlightened. Just as an aside - do you honestly believe that the British press/media are not swayed by the American networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.) or internationally known newspapers such as the Washington Post or the New York Times? I realize the English are proud, but they do not live in a vacuum. How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? Proverbs 1:22 He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom is kept safe. Proverbs 28:26 (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I believe, aside from content, it is important to note that it comes from our strongest ally and may represent a rather popular view in the rest of the world. And that my friend is a microcosm of whats wrong with the Democratic Party and the world in general! These folks express way too much concern and tribulation over the popular thing to do rather than the principled thing to do. 12 years ago, Bill Clinton and his liberal cronies road into town with the bumper sticker anthem Its the economy, stupid! Back then, and still today, they stand convinced that those red states supporting Bush, just dont get it. Well, now its the red states turn. Perhaps this would make more sense to those in the blue states, if we had a bumper sticker. Try some of these Its called morality, stupid! Its a principled thing, you wouldnt understand! Got Values? "It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible." George Washington

Gsmom, One of the most disappointing aspects of Bush's presidency is his abandonment of the "uniter not a divider" philosophy. He is supposed to be president of ALL the people, not just the ones that agree with him. True leadership is building consensus even with those that disagree with your policies. If two parties (or individuals) are on opposite sides of an issue, such as the Iraq war, how does one build consensus? Capitulating will only serve to aid the enemy and demoralize our troops. OGE, Reread your first post. While it may have been good-hearted, it was really rather condescending to conservatives. As a conservative, let me say this I am not ready for homosexual marriage, nor will I ever be. I am not ready for abortion, nor will I ever be. I am not ready for many things that the democrats stand for. The point being, this is not about the conservatives being ready to accept change. Its about a large number of people losing their moral compass. 50 years ago, this ugly divide between democrats and republicans was not so large. Today, it is what is, not because democrats have evolved or grown, but because they have digressed from our countrys foundation (Judeo-Christian values) and embraced an amoral attitude. Sorry, but I have to call it as I see it. Clearly, until we all agree on the same moral foundation this country will remain sharply divided.

I see the 08 election shaping up already to be: Rudi Guliani and John Edwards Besides being a national hero (at least to most of us), Gulianis potential to take the state of New York is most intriguing. Otherwise, hes simply a proven leader who has all the tools and know-how to get the job done. Also, I think hed kill Edwards in a debate something I hope to see in four years. John Edwards comes a lot close than John Kerry to evoking the memory of John Kennedy. Kerrys blatant and shameless effort to imitate Kennedy was ridiculous. Yet, it was somewhat logical and predictable. Democrats, for the last four decades, have been waiting for someone to step into Kennedys shoes and pick up where he left off. As a young kid growing up in the 60s, I was taught to morn the death of a great president, cut down in his prime. And like most Americans, thats exactly what I did. Regardless, looking back, Im not convinced that we were deprived of the greatest president ever as many seem to think. No matter what I believe, I know that there are millions of democrats looking for the next great president the next John Kennedy a romanticized, fairy book president who will bring back Camelot. Edwards seems to be the Democrats man for that job. Hes young, good looking (or so Im told), and likes to make emotional speeches. But in my eyes he is all style and no substance. Hillary, as you noted, would be a joke. So you heard it here firstwhen it actually happens, I will point back to this post and thump my chest: Guliani and Edwards in 08. Guliani will win in a landside (taking the state of New York)! Anyone else want to make a prediction for 08?

What did the Dubya poll watchers do? They requested to see IDs from selected voters. First - to my knowledge (and someone correct me if Im wrong) - a partisan poll watcher has no legal right to demand ID from anyone. Second assuming these folks did as advertised, requested to see IDs from selected voters how exactly does that qualify as intimidation? And please, dont tell me that intimidation is in the eye of the beholder. If the rule of law is going to prevail in this country, we need to have some objective criteria to determine if/when a law has been broken. In 2000, and again in the 2004 presidential election, this claim has been raised several times. However, I have yet to see any evidence from a real case, which might validate those claims of voter harassment or intimidation. In one state, someone argued that the presence of police cars qualified as voter harassment. Whos is that meant to harass felons? It might intimidate someone from trying to vote twice or cast a vote for someone else But how is the presence of the police going to intimidate law-abiding citizens?

Hunt, Both are sexual sins. While I view homosexuality as a sin and a perversity within its own right, I also see it as a slippery slope to other sins of a sexual nature. Not unlike the idea that those who engage in smoking pot are more prone to escalate their abuse to more powerful drugs. In the realm of sexual sin - men engaged in homosexuality have already proven that they are willing to cast aside social norms and risk the potential wrath of society (whatever form that may take), so long as they can pursue another man to gratify their sexual needs. Their pursuit of happiness (or rather sexual gratification) is very insular and selfish. So consumed by it, nothing else matters as much religious faith, their family, the acceptance of their community, everything else is secondary and a candidate for disposal, if need be. Given what I know of homosexuality or any other sexual wantonness for that matter, I would not say its safe to assume that their yearnings will always be subdued to one group and/or a particular behavior. Placing your son in the hands of a homosexual is not unlike trusting a gratuitous womanizer with your 16-year-old daughter. His preference may be for adults, but given his propensity his myopic quest to seek gratification unabashedly and without regard to social norms and/or judgment from others - its not wise to assume that he has disciplined himself to practice restraint when it comes to sexual temptation.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Hunt, If your child is ever sexually molested by an adult, it will most likely be by somebody who is not openly homosexual. Now why is this? Is it because a self-admitted homosexual is so consumed by his moral principles, and so well disciplined, that taking advantage of a young boy is prohibited from his thinking? Or is it because most people are wise enough to take measures to prohibit circumstances whereas a young boy would be left alone with a self-admitted homosexual? So if you're really concerned about it, you should never send your son away with any adults at all. Your child's protection from molestation in Scouting is two-deep leadership and background checks. If that's not good enough, you might want to reconsider having your child participate. Yes. We all should be cautious when we send our children away with other adults. Certainly, the concept of two-deep leadership is a good one. However, I still need to examine closely - exactly who and why it is that I allow others to lead my child. I study their behavior well. I make discreet inquiries. I pray about it. As God leads, I place my trust in others. If I come to the conclusion that someone has questionable morals and/or behavior, partnering that person up with another adult that fits the same description, is not going to alleviate my concern. In fact, no matter who the second person may be, I am not going to feel comfortable if the other adult is someone I cannot trust. So while two-deep leadership is a good concept, its not a catchall and wed be wise as parents to keep that in mind. Personally, I would not be concerned about homosexual leaders molesting my child, any more than I'm concerned about my daughter's male soccer coaches molesting her--which means, I'm concerned enough that I think there should always be two adults present. Still you want to be able to trust both adults. If you suspect that one of the two has an unhealthy interest in your daughter - while the second adult provides some level of protection, it doesnt exactly make you feel good about the situation. And if the second adult meets the description of the first, it will make the situation even worse, by a factor of ten. Put any two men together that are tempted by the same sin and what do you think the result will be? Boleta, Hunt- as always, the VOICE of reason. But the voice of reason is lost on the unreasonable. In other words, those who dont agree are fools? I dont begrudge you for having that opinion. When it comes to this issue and many others like it there are two very distinct sides. And there is absolutely a side to all of these arguments which one might label as unreasonable or foolish. It comes down to what truth has penetrated your heart. So, while you may view me as someone who blindly follows religious teachings (if it makes you feel better call them false teachings). I see myself as convicted by God to follow His will and you as someone who cannot see or denies His truths. I cannot be angry with you if you fail to see what I see. And even if youre just being stubborn, my anger is not righteous. I dont make my posts as pretence to express my anger...or at least I hope not. They simply represent my beliefs. This thread demonstrates why many choose to read but not actively participate in the Forum. Boleta, I have more respect for you (although I dont agree with your thoughts) than I would with anyone that would refrain from an issues and politics forum simply because the debate is heavily divided and heated. Passion is near the root of all things worth fighting for and it was the catalyst for the BSA. If youre empathetic about God, Country and Family, you have no business being an adult leader in the BSA. So, while I am more than happy to reach out with a firm hand and a warm smile to anyone who likes to discuss issues and politics, I will not apologize for defending my beliefs passionately. With 55% voter turn out being a high water mark for presidential elections over the last 36 years or so, I would suggest that passion is what this country has been sorely lacking for quite some time. I am convinced - if more people engaged in debate, particularly heated debate, theyd eventually discover a common link to their beliefs. They would better understand why they embrace certain beliefs. And once youve done that its hard not to be passionate about even the smallest issues.

Believe it or not, I do recognize homosexuals as having other traits. I'm certain that I've had associations with many more homosexuals than I probably realize. Still, not every relationship I've had with a homosexual was unknown to me. I know men who struggle with homosexuality. They know what I'm about, and I know them pretty well too. They're believers. No doubt in my mind, that they have sought Christ and are continuing to seek His mercy and love. I respect these men and I understand their struggle with sin is not unlike mine. My comparisons with bestiality was for a purpose. It was not meant to cause revulsion, but to show a parallel between two sexual perversities that are "victimless". Just because the parties are consenting, that doesn't make the activity moral. I have sins that I view as being just as dark. I am not judging those who fall prey to sexual temptations, even those that are considered to be perverse. I am calling sin - sin. As to how folks will be judged, that is God's purview. Yet, I am confident in the salvation of all those who earnestly seek Christ as Lord and Savior.

Planoscout, I have to ask. Do you analyze your own words before you speak them? In reference to American government, do you fully understand words like discrimination and equality? Doesn't the very idea of discrimination go against, what the BSA stands for. America has always been a promoter of equality, and doesn't the BSA try to folow that model. By telling homosexuals that they cannot participate we are are easily discriminationg against them. America, through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, demands that its citizens have equal opportunity to pursue their own interest, unhindered by government. However, nowhere in those documents did our founding fathers ever appoint and direct the federal government to be the guardian and protector of all interests and standards of morality. Our government does not compel us to universally accept one another without regard to interest or morality. That is to say, we (the citizens of this country) are free to pursue our own interests, to embrace our own standards of morality, and to seek affiliations that serve and promote the same. In America, so long as our interests and the morality that we practice are legal, we can demand that our government not obstruct our efforts. This is - or at least once was - the freedom and equality that our forefathers promoted. Quite contrary to your idea of equality, America does not demand that its citizens or the organizations that they create, to accept one another regardless of their interests and standards of morality. As of this writing, public accommodations are protected from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and national origin. Some judges have taken the text in Title 7 and have twisted it to include sexual preference vice gender. Regardless, even with this bastardization of the law, the government only compels those public accommodations, not its citizens and/or private organizations, to refrain from this kind of discrimination. Lets talk about discrimination. Are you guilty of discrimination if/when you decide to help a young lady with a flat tire, yet refuse to give a ride to a middle-aged man just five miles down the same road? By dictionary definition Yes, you chose to trust one person vice another. Yet, most people (though many would not admit this) would do exactly the same without hesitation or guilt. Now, I know that there are many high-minded liberal thinkers, who are chomping at the bit to chastise me. How dare I assume that a young lady is trustworthy and a non-threat? Or just as bad, how can I be so narrow-minded as to deem a middle-aged man as untrustworthy and a potential threat? Nevertheless, my interests (self-preservation) and my standards of morality (helping those in needed) are my own. Furthermore, audacious as it may be to you, I say that the aforementioned example illustrates that not all discrimination is inherently bad. Personally, Im happy that there is one public restroom for men and another for ladies (at least in America). I prefer to see women modeling bikinis. And I would be very upset if the next pastor of my church turned out to be an atheist. In short, there is good discrimination and there is bad discrimination. Bad discrimination is born from hate. But lets not label all discrimination as bad. Too many people embrace opinionated emotion (i.e., political correctness) over the objective meanings of words. This is a sure fire way to guarantee continual miscommunication and mistrust. The government does not compel individuals and private organizations to do certain things, just because certain people demand that they be treated exactly like someone else. No America, or rather our government, recognizes our freedom to associate with whom we like. So, by legal definition, the BSA does not discriminate. That is to say, they are not in violation of Title 7 or any other law. Morally, they are simply upholding a standard that they have long embraced and publicly acknowledged. Also, if people use the Bible to back up why homosexuality is wrong, aren't they FORCING their religion on others. Again that seems to not be following the scout teachings. Christianity is not the only religion recognized by BSA, as you can see by the many religous awards. If that is the case, then why do we enforce a Christian mentality on others. What is the origin of your morals? For the sake of argument, assume that you claim some unnamed non-religious source as being the root of your moral foundation, while I claim mine to be the God of the Bible. Does that make your standards more valid? Because of your non-religious foundation, are you free to discuss your values and to seek their incorporation in an organization such as the BSA? Because of my religious foundation, should I be prohibited from discussing my morals and restrained from seeking their incorporation in such an organization as the BSA? By default, should the BSA discard my moral beliefs? For the sake of argument, lets say the BSA should accept only non-religious values. What are non-religious values? Do you take a poll? Whose to say which non-religious values are to be accepted? Or, are you suggesting the only values that an organization such as the BSA should accept are those that are supported by US law? If so, would that be federal law, state law, county law, or all of the above? And if no specific law addresses a particular behavior, would I (as a BSA member) be free to interpret and act upon this void according to my own choosing? Why cant the BSA pick and choose? Why cant they do both - endorse Judeo-Christian values and embrace an open armed policy towards other faiths that recognize the existence of God? Why cant they refuse to accept faiths that they feel are contrary to their moral values? The organization was founded by people, and is currently being shepherd by other people who have been entrusted by the previous leadership. Why shouldnt they be able to impose their values? Are they not supposed to be leading the organization? What moral precept do you perceive as being broken here? Cannot a person or an organization fully embrace the values of a faith (if not the faith itself) and still be open-minded towards others (i.e., welcome and accept their company)? I realize that I just presented a litany of questions. But your previous post implies many things. Im just wandering if you intended to imply them all. If so, I am greatly interested in seeing your response. Just one more thing, what does homosexuality have anything to do with how scouting is run? It doesn't, espcially since BSA stays away from all topics regaring sex in the first place. Would you be opposed to a policy that said that bestiality is not acceptable and those that practice it cannot join the BSA? Im going to presume that if such a policy existed, you would not feel compelled to fight it. And even if you objected to such a stated policy, I have to assume that if you became aware that someone was practicing such a deviate behavior, youd make the leadership within your troop aware and seek his/her removal. Or, are you open-minded that youd defend their right as well? If not, lets examine the differences between these two policies (current ban on homosexuals vice my hypothetical ban against those who practice bestiality). 1) They both deal will sexual behavior. 2) By definition, no boy would be directly threatened. Although, some would argue [myself included] that one perversity could well lead to another but lets forget for the moment. 3) In both cases, one could argue if it does not become a topic of discussion with the boys, then its a private matter and no cause for alarm. So whats the problem? You and I both know that bestiality is a perversity. And hopefully, you and I both understand and agree that anyone that is willing to break these laws of nature is apt to do even more sick and vile things. Because the aforementioned are givens, you do not demand that I refrain from imposing my Christian values on the BSA. Yet, we do not have this same understand or agreement when discussing homosexuality. And when you get done to brass tacks, this is the only difference between the two stated policies. Which brings me to this question If its okay for me (a BSA member) to seek the disenfranchising of those practicing bestiality, what makes homosexuality any different? And whatever criterion you use to separate the two, please explain how it applies to one but not the other. Okay, here is all of the above in two sentences: Values (such as those promoted by the BSA) derived from a faith in God are valid; In fact, they are the only ones that we should trust. Everything else is just popular opinion, if that. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

To hear various forum members tell it, I enjoy the idea of Gods judgment and its implications for others. I dont. I understand and embrace the truth of Gods love. Yet, Gods Word clearly instructs us to warn others of His forthcoming judgment for those who embrace sin. Alas, many reject Christ because they refuse to see their need for a savior. If you want to be led to a more important truth, look up John 3:16-21.

E PLURIBUS UNUM What else would you expect from me?

Acco40, Rooster, please try and think for once. When I stated that sin is in the eye of the beholder, I was not trying to make a case for what is "right and wrong" but that not everyone (I'm speaking of humans now, not deities), agrees exactly what is sinful. True enoughor rather, not everyone is willing to recognize what is sinful. The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20 John, And, without too much trouble, it's possible to find Verses that could be used to argue either side of just about any point --- Thanks, for that reminder, Acco. Not to mention, that we don't all use the same Bible. Those that interpret the Bible as specifically endorsing homosexuality - truly, they have taken Scripture twisting to a new art form. Without a doubt, the Bible clearly condemns the sin of homosexuality. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Packsaddle, No - my comment to Acco40 was not meant to be sarcasm. While, I may have been a little less than direct, I meant it to be taken literally. Here was my intended message for Acco40: ONE - A God fearing man cannot honestly expect to escape judgment if his attitude is: "Sin is in the eye of the beholder." I especially would not want to stand before God and make that proclamation. TWO - If he seriously embraces that attitude for life, I truly expect that he will discover it to be his undoing - Yet, I still hope the best for him. If in my attempt to be creative in my writing, I did not communicate that message - then I apologize.

Packsaddle, You know what's great about sarcasm? It's a quick way of discounting somebody else's thoughts without using much of your own.

Rooster, are you suggesting that not only homosexuals but those who disagree with you about whether it's a sin or not are bound for Perdition? No. Im suggesting - one should not champion the philosophy that sin is in the eye of the beholder, and expect redemption from a Holy and Righteous God. As to what God tolerates from those who refuse to yield to His Will and/or who are blinded to the truth, I cannot say. While I can fall victim to a contentious debate, I have no malice against those who disagree with me. I am merely relaying the truths, which I believe the God of Bible has given us through His Word. Its not my teachings that they are refuting. Let me ask a more pointed question--if you were in charge of BSA, would you allow divorced people who have remarried others to be leaders in Scouting? A literal reading of the Bible will teach that those people are all living in a constant state of adultery. First, the Bible teaches that divorce is allowable under certain circumstances. If ones spouse commits adultery, then one may divorce. Also, if you are a believer and your non-believing spouse leaves you, then you are free to remarry. Furthermore, while the Bible has many teachings, all believers are free from the laws judgment through Christs grace. So, not all divorcees are viewed as living in a constant state of adultery. I would not impose such a ban unless certain facts came to light. That is to say, if the person in question was commonly known to be a womanizer or worse, I might consider it. Yet, I would not make a concerted effort to obtain this kind of information. I dont believe its practical or wise for COs to conduct fact finding searches like this for obvious reasons. They become witch-hunts and/or subject to gossip and innuendo. But if I stumbled upon the information I wouldnt ignore blatant cases of unfit character either. If you wouldn't impose such a rule, would you allow individual COs to impose such a rule? If you would, how would you justify allowing them to do so? I believe, COs are allowed to impose such rules. That is, a chartering organization can subtract individuals from their list of candidates based on their own criteria, but they cannot add people to their list of candidates by ignoring or subtracting from the BSA's requirements. For example, they cannot add convicted child molesters and homosexuals to their list of candidates because the BSA rejects those individuals. But they can subtract women from their list of candidates as in the case of the Latter Day Saints. So, if a CO felt that they should reject divorcees, they are within their legal right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Morally, I may or may not agree with the decision to do so depending on the specifics. Regardless, I dont think there is an effective way to determine the necessary facts, across the board for all current leaders and future candidates, in a practical and/or polite manner. This would be like rejecting ALL liars as candidates. My point being - most everyone has lied at some point in time in their lives, but what are they like today? What were the circumstances? Is it habitual? How can a CO determine whether or not someone is truly trustworthy? As a practical manner, I would rather assume that these individuals have the proper character until it could be revealed otherwise, without conducting an investigation beforehand. Now, the next step in this circular argument is (allow me to save you the time and effort) Why not do the same for homosexuals? Assume they have good character until its proven otherwise. That assumption would be wrong and put the boys at risk. One cannot embrace sexually perverse behavior, and posses a high moral character, simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive. I think the more general point here is that the leaders of BSA have the legal right to impose their values on units if they want to, but they sometimes do this and sometimes don't. I guess I just don't understand how they make these decisions. It appears that they sometimes respond to changing views of society (i.e., allowing female leaders, prohibiting race discrimination), and other times they don't. In regard to race, way before the 60s, the BSA adopted a new policy in response to an intrinsically obvious, moral wrong. While some may criticize them for not standing up even sooner, the BSA should be recognized as being one of the first organizations to cease an immoral practice that was being perpetrated throughout society. Point of fact, the BSA was not responding to a changing society, but was proactively seeking to create a change, based on principle not popularity. The popular thing to do would have been to continue the discrimination. Blacks suffered greatly due to this kind of discrimination merely because of the color of their skin. It should come as no surprise that a character building organization such as the BSA was convicted to change its policy. In regard to women, it is my belief that the BSA did not yield to the politics of the day, but to the realities of the day. That is to say, they were more concerned about filling a numbers void in the adult leadership than they were about deflecting criticism as being chauvinistic. In short, they inadvertently killed two birds with one stone. Personally, in an organization that espouses to make boys into men, I think it makes more sense to have male adult leaders. But I understand the realities confronted by the organization at that time and still today. Furthermore, I appreciate the women who have stepped forward to lead, and especially those whove tried to remain true to the spirit of the program (building good character in boys). Still, given the choice between two equally qualified candidates of the opposite gender - to achieve the goals sent forth by the BSA, including mentorship - Id rather see a man in the position. In regard to homosexuality just as the BSA was a leading light when, in spite of popular opinion and the social pressures of the day, they boldly adopted a new policy and made their organization inclusive to all races I am convinced they are continuing that tradition by not relenting to the fashionable sentiment that accepts homosexuality as normal. In essence, while many on the left are screaming, whatever the freedom of the law permits should be viewed as morally neutral, the BSA is standing steadfast and rejecting this idea. Throughout society, more and more special interests groups are popping up and demanding their rights. In the midst of it, the BSA is once again being a moral leader by refusing to cave into this kind of pressure - even at the risk of losing membership. I applaud them for their perseverance and dedication. To me, they have been quite consistent since their inception. They are driven by morals, not by the changing views of society. If they happen to coincide, so be it, but morality is not a function of popular opinion. Fortunately, the BSA recognizes this. If you want someone to put up a finger and see which way the wind is blowing, then dont join the BSA. Their leadership is committed to something greater moral principles. However, I would recommend that you vote for Kerry hes the perfect leader if you want someone willing to shift directions based upon current trends.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

NJ, I don't know why I continue to make attempts to get through to you, but alas, I do. I only referenced murder and rape in my first post to make the point that while the Scout Oath and Law do not specifically condemn those behaviors, one can reason by implication that they do (your subsequent post restated and reinforced this idea). Similarly, one can reasonably deduce that homosexuality contradicts the Scout Oath and Law (again, by all appearances, you comprehended this line of reasoning). Yet, in the very same post, you implied that I correlated the nature of homosexuality with the violent nature of rape and murder. Obviously, by your clear understanding and restatement of my position, you must have known that was not my intent. Thus, in my response to you, I asked, "Why muddy the waters..." I hope that makes sense to you. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. And by the way, numbers will not drive the decisions of an organization such as the BSA that embraces and promotes true values. But if you believe they should, I suggest that you vote for Kerry. He seems to espouse your idea of majority rule when it comes to making tough choices about right and wrong. Acco40, I'm afraid I don't appreciate your humor. I'll just leave it at that. However, can't you see NJ and others point that sin, just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or as in my college days beer holder). Interesting concept. Let me know how that one flies in 40 to 50 years. I hope we're in close proximity and enjoying the same comfortable surroundings.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Rooster, I understand that you cannot see a moral distinction between committing a violent crime (like murder or rape) and being gay, but a lot of people can. These sins are different. Yet, all sin separates us from God. And the ability to recognize and refrain from sin separates us from animals. Now, Rooster, I know you think that "clean" and "reverent" and "morally straight" prohibit homosexuality just as clearly as "He treats others as he wants to be treated" and "He obeys the laws..." prohibit murder and rape and armed robbery (and for that matter, shoplifting and securities fraud and assault.) Clearly. So why muddy the waters by falsely accusing me of not being able to make distinctions between acts of violence and acts of sexual perversion and/or lust. I write, in part, so that other people willing to consider both sides of the issues can see them presented, and make up their own minds. As do I.

Its the insidious nature of any sexual sin that I loathe. And as one human being speaking to another, I have to assume that you understand this. Sexual temptation is the only sin, which the Bible exhorts us to fleeto run away. Why? For most men, almost every man, this sin has power that is uncommon and pervasive. Men risk losing their wives whom they love; because they are drawn like a moth to flame to fulfill their lustful desires to be with another woman. Other men, become so twisted in their lust, they are consumed by their own selfish impulses and force themselves on women. And still others, due to their lack of discipline to ignore or to resist sexually perverted thoughts, relent and become enveloped by even sicker desires to satisfy their flesh. And in the case of homosexuality, men have convinced themselves that one man pressing his flesh with another man is simply an expression of love. Insidious is almost too subtletoo kind of a word to describe the vile and unrelenting nature of sexual sin. So yes, I loathe homosexuality, like I loathe all sexual sin. Not because the men who embrace this sin are lesser beings than other sinners, but because so many have fallen prey to its lure, and they have become so enamored by its ability to gratify the flesh that they fail to see how wicked they have become. In regard to the BSA, it is a primary topic of discussion because as you no doubt know, homosexual activist groups have been targeting the organization. It isnt because homosexuality is worse than adultery or alcoholism. However, if/when a bunch of adulterers get together to attack the BSAs bigoted polices, they too will be singled out and loathed for their efforts to normalize (if not celebrate) their vile conduct.

So homosexuality has nothing to do with being clean or reverent, or even being morally straight. Hmmm. That being the case, I suppose you feel the act of murder belongs in the second category as wellsomething that should or could be examined at the local level. After all, does the Scout Law say anything about murder? How about rape? Perhaps we should have the local option for rapists or those who engage in bestiality? Just because your religion (whatever it may be) enables you to view vile acts as something other than what they actually are, that doesnt mean the rest of should. Furthermore, The BSA does not have to embrace the views of the majority or seek universal acceptance. Neither should affect the criteria for the BSAs moral positions. The BSA (or rather those that who oversee the organization) determines the moral tone of their choosing and the policies that reflect the same. Its their right.

Sure, why not. Personally, I think there should be a local option on Brave. There's some French exchange students in the area and I'm afraid that this bigoted view - "A Scout MUST be Brave", is preventing some of those boys from joining.

Phillip, It's hard to believe that my gay friend loves his lover any less than I love my significant other. Loves his lover I love these euphemisms. I have many male friends that I love. Love is not the issue. You can couch this debate very easily, and make it appear to be a crusade that pits open-minded people of love against closed-minded people of hate, who cannot tolerate those different from themselves. If thats what you really believeif youre determined to view this discussion from that perspective, then I doubt that youll ever understand my point of view or my faith. But Im stubborn, so Im going to try to explain this from the foundation of my beliefs on up. Bear with me; this may take a few paragraphs. Love Im glad you acknowledge the existence of this abstract idea. There are some folks who would argue that love is just a chemical reaction in our heads. I assume that since you acknowledge love that you are also familiar with, and accept, the concept of hate. Perhaps Im being presumptuous (no sarcasm intended), but I going to take it as givens that we both agree that love and hate are realities in and of themselves, and not simply a biological effect caused by some external stimuli. Can we agree, although not tangible, their existence is undeniable just like the PC screen that sits in front of you? Now, when I was your age (college student), I gave this a lot of thought. In fact, so much thought, it led me to some scary revelations. That is to say, my philosophical daydreaming brought me to two other intangible concepts good and evil. Do you believe in good and evil? If you believe in love and hate outside of a biology or psychology class, I have to believe that you also recognize the realities of good and evil. I know from my walk in life that there were many times, especially as a child, when I truly felt the presence of good. What does that mean? This concept is a little difficult to describe just like love, but no less real. Similarly, as I grew older, there were times when I recognized and felt the presence of evil. Rather than try to recreate the intimate details of my life that led me to acknowledge these truths, examine the world around you. Ponder whether the existence (or non-existence) of good and evil has had any influence in this world. Furthermore, examine your own personal life, from your childhood up to the present. Ask yourself these questions: Was your mothers love good? Why do some men and women sacrifice their own lives for another? Was Adolph Hitler merely confused? Are child rapists simply the product of mental illness or some horrible childhood abuse? Was the Columbine massacre the result of psychological neglect (by others or self-inflicted)? I dont know if you believe in good and evil. But to me, the evidence of both is overwhelming. I stand convinced that good and evil not only plays a part in everyday life, but they are the major players in our world. So if one acknowledges the realities of love and hate and/or good and evil, then the next logical question is Where do they come from? If you dismiss love and hate as mere physical emotion and with no spiritual basisIf youre convinced that good and evil are just man-created concepts (myth, fable, or whatever), then I cannot advance this discussion to the next step. My arguments will make no sense to you. If like me, you know in your heart of hearts from your life experiences that the aforementioned are spiritual realities, then we have much to discuss. My exploration for truth, at about your age, led me to the God of the Bible. There is nothing that I can say, no special words from the Bible that I can share, that will convince you of its truth. Only God can bring that revelation to you. Only His Holy Spirit can convict you, show your need for a Savior, and bring you to Christ. Im not going to attempt to share the Gospel with you. I suspect that youve heard it before. What I do want to say is this My thoughts on homosexuality and a host of other issues stem from my faith, which is rooted in the Bible. Of course, there are some on this board who wait with baited breath, to attack and discredit statements like this. They are quick to share that my interpretation of the Bible is just that, one of many. They will tell you about how they have a much different interpretation and how their beliefs are much more tolerant. Or, in Merlyns case, Im sure hell tell you that youre a fool if you believe in any of it. To all of that, let me say this My understanding of Gods Wordmy convictions of its truths, are not what I would personally chose for myself. I love the idea of Heaven, but my delight for such a place is not why I believe in its existence. I hate the idea of Hell, but my fear for such a place will not allow me to purge it from my mind. I know Gods love and grace to be true, because I have enjoyed the peace that they bring on many occasions. I loathe that I am tempted by and often fall prey to sin, but alas I cannot ignore this weakness for Gods Spirit is quick to convict me. I am greatly disturbed that I have no direct control over the salvation of others, but Ive come to accept what God has put on my heart. I dont choose to point out the sin of homosexuals because its my desire to judge them, nor is it my intent to have them appear as lesser beings. I point out their sin because God calls me to do so. My faith wont allow me to sit silently while others deny Gods existence and His Will for us. Gods Word tells me that it is the responsibility of believers to make others aware of His judgment and the gift of redemption through Christ Jesus, His Son. If your assessment of my faith is that I have deluded myselfthat I have fallen victim to some false God, or some other kind of deception while I wont be dissuaded in my beliefs, I can accept that as your opinion. However, I cannot accept the claim that my thoughts reflect a faith that encourages intolerance. This is a horrible distortion, which allows people to close their eyes to the reality of Gods righteousness and the true reasons for my convictions. It's an easy out...a quick way of dismissing doctrinal teaching or an interpretation of Scripture without thought or prayer. In my early 20s, I came to realize that I needed God in my life in a real and tangible way. Unfortunately, it wasnt until my early 30s that I discovered what many other believers already knew. God cannot be made into our image. God is who He is Or as God said to Moses, I am. Eventually, I discarded a very powerful paradigm of God, which in its simplest form claims something like this - God loves me. No matter what. Why do we assume that God loves us no matter what? If its true that God forgives all sin, then theres no reason for alarm right? If youre a believer, read your Bible closely. God forgives His children. Who are Gods children? Gods children love and believe in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior. How do we accept Christ as Savior? We accept His gift. We acknowledge before God that we are sinners, we sorrowfully repent, and we gratefully accept Jesus sacrifice on the Cross to cover our sins and make us holy before God the Father. How do we accept Him as Lord? We follow His Word and pray for His Will in our lives. The New Testament did not erase the Old Testament or announce a change in Gods nature. God is a constant. He is both righteousness and love. One does not negate the other. So while I sympathize with those who struggle with sin (and I am no exception), and I am aware of Gods forgiving love, I also know that we need to be on our knees, completely willing to acknowledge our sins, and seeking His forgiveness. I believe that those who refuse to recognize Gods righteousness...who are only willing to accept His love - and deny our need to be pure before a Holy God, these folks are not worshipping and bowing before the same God as I. Or rather, at the very least, they are not acknowledging the sin in their lives and/or the need for Christs sacrifice. I realize that the above is not something that one can easily and casually accept as truth. One cannot simply will himself to be a believer. I prayed for many hours to come to the faith that I now posses in Christ Jesus. My prayers were not an attempt to re-enforce or disprove anything that I thought to be true. My prayers were for God to reveal himself to me. If you feel that God may be speaking to you, and you havent done so already, Id like to suggest that you pray to Him continually. Im confident that He will answer. Heres the Readers Digest version: My beliefs stem from my faith in God and who I believe Him to be. They are not the product of my politics or an attempt to justify values taught to me as a child. The fact is - I am not practicing the faith of my upbringing. Furthermore, there are teachings in the Bible that I accept as truth yet cause me concern. I could alleviate those concerns by dismissing portions of Gods Word. I could distort Scripture by narrowly focusing on certain verses and ignoring others. There are a number of ways that one can choose to avoid the truth, but I see this as a fools way to gain rest. Tomorrow will come and we will eventually have to answer to God for our choices. If you want to discuss this more, send me a PM. Otherwise, I will assume that you're uninterested. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)