Rooster7

Merlyn, For the most part, you seem to be fairly intelligent. I never claimed to know anything about you beyond what you've stated about yourself. Now, it's possible that you never actually claimed to be an atheist...perhaps I assumed it...and after making this assumption for so long, I've somehow internalized it as fact. If so, I apologize...my bad. If you have proclaimed yourself to be an atheist (i.e., it's not just an assumptionIve seen it in a post), then I fail to follow your complaint. If Im guilty of anything, its a bad memory. I did not claim to know your heart just your opinion. As for Rich Tillman's knowledge of his brother's beliefs, that's not an easy answer. I'm 45 years old and I'm not certain what my brothers believe (for various reasons that I need not go into). And even if I felt I did know what their stated beliefs were, I could never know what's in their heart. Do you do not understand the difference between knowing someones stated opinion (which is very obtainable for most of us) and knowing someones heart (not an opinion but ones true alliance and affection for good or evil)? Of course, I define good as being God and His will. Adrianvs, Your response to Merlyn was perfect Merlyn: His brother's outburst was in response to the disrespect shown to his late brother by all the religious blather for someone who wasn't religious. Adrianvs: If the deceased is merely a corpse at this point, then why does it matter if they are disrespected? If it is just a corpse sitting there, then why does it matter what the family or friends do with it or say about it? You seem to care a lot. If Pat gone, then why do his wishes matter? Is it not an object in the custody of the living? Take your dogma to its logical conclusions. All of his previous posts strongly suggest that he aligns himself with the belief or rather non-belief of atheists. Yet, when these questions arise - Merlyn starts to babble about other thingslike How do you know what I believe? He will derail the conversationdirect it down another road, BUT he will not - NO, he cannot answer those questions logically.

Merlyn, It is quite obvious that you are not religious. Because if you were religiousor more appropriately, if you had a belief in God, youd realize that no man can claim he knows what is in another mans heart or how that person stands before God. Rich Tillman has an opinion about Pats beliefs, but only God knows Pats heart. Similarly, I am repulsed by your rejection of God, but when you die regardless of what comes out of your mouth today or even moments prior to your death, only God knows what is truly in your heart. This is one small reason among many, which explains why God is the only one fit to judge. BTW, what is a bromide? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, Im late to join this discussion, but what the hey Just as an example, if it costs one dollar to acquire and refine and deliver a gallon of gas, I can see the oil companies charging $1.15, effectively making 15 percent on their investment. So if factors change and it now takes two dollars to refine and acquire and deliver gas, is it practical to charge $2.30 a gallon to keep the same 15 percent return on investment? Im sure the turnaround on the sale is fairly quick (raw oil to petroleum to the sale at the pump), so this may not be as simple as it sounds. But, I think youve answered your own question. A business needs to have a profit margin greater than what they can knowingly get elsewhere otherwise it makes no sense for them to stay in that business. So, if my return on investment in terms of dollars remains constant, but as a percentage of my invested capital decreases from say 15% to 7.5% (i.e., from 15 cents on every dollar to 15 cents on every two dollars) why wouldnt I (as a good businessman) put my money in an investment like a good mutual fund that earns say 8 or 9 or 10%. Of course, knowing the market can bare the increase (i.e., supply and demand will permit me to maintain the same profit margin), instead of folding my business and going elsewhere, doesnt it make better business sense to raise the price of my product so I can maintain the same profit margin that existed before my costs went up. Those who criticize businesses for doing this do not understand a free market. There needs to be an incentive for maintaining a business. If I have the option of making the same profit or greater without the risk of running an enterprise - by investing in something safe like a mutual fund - why should I stay in that particular business? I know its popular to accuse the oil companies as being money grabbing opportunists and in many cases it may be true but I dont think reports of increased profits confirms that suspicion. As for OPECs motives, who knows? I believe theres plenty of oil available in America (i.e., Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and other areas), but there are many who do not trust our governments willingness or ability to monitor its extraction in a safe and prudent manner. Personally, I believe we have the right people in government to make it happen without sacrificing our environment, but I know thats a futile argument to pursue with many folks on this board. If Im right and we make use of that oil in our own backyard, I believe the price of gasoline will go down dramatically.

Hunt, If you reread my post, youll note that my statements refer specifically to leaders of that political ilk, not just liberals in general. If it makes you feel better, I will grant you that these so-called leaders have morals; theyre just not the kind that I would teach a God loving, God fearing person. And that, my friend, is the true issue. To you, this may be a polite debate about civil rights. I acclimatize to that idea like cold water to hot grease. This discussion has nothing to do with civil rights. Accepting homosexuality as normal and acceptable is about redefining our society. Thats not the kind of society that I want to embrace or have my children enter. Similarly, while an atheist may live a perfectly normal life (i.e., live by standards that do not harm others), they have adapted a mindset that denies the existence of our creator. That is a mindset that I will not accept as normal. Nor do I want my children around those folks who think in this way. So, yes, my reaction may be a bit stronger and more personal than you feel is warranted. However, were not fighting for the same things. As for John Kerrys willingness to criticize the BSA, I believe firmly that he would criticize his grandmother if he thought that it would get him elected.

You really think that nobody has an honest view, based on their own ideas of morality, that BSA is wrong to discriminate against gays and atheists? I dont have a problem with anyone taking the view that the BSA is wrong for having such policies. I just dont agree with them. You really think that nobody has an honest view, based on their own ideas of morality, that opponents of the BSAs policies against gays and atheists are wrong? You can disagree with that view as long as you want, but it's just insulting and wrong to suggest that nobody can really think differently from you. I never said people cannot think differently than I do. Some peoples opinions reflect a view on life that I disagree with, and I will voice that disagreement as I am prompted to do so. Perhaps your real point of contention with me, are my thoughts on liberal leaders (i.e., those currently leading the Democratic Party). If so, I stand by my comments.

Acco40, Here's an analogy... If the federal government gives funds to the Catholic Church for its "feed the hungry" program (I assume they have such a program), the Catholic Church is not going to lose its status as a church or a non-profit organization. An argument can be made as to whether or not a government agency should be providing monies to a church, but the outcome of that debate should not affect the status of the church in question. At worst, depending on one's perspective, an organization or individual within the government will get their hand slapped for breaking the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Of course, this doctrine, in and of itself is debatable in regard to its legal impetus, interpretation, and application. So, those who chose to do so can criticize Congress and/or the President for publicly endorsing the BSA. Without doubt, some will present legal challenges as to whether or not the BSA and the government ought to help out one another. Yet, in the end, the BSA will be and always has been a private organization, without any of the hindrances that the government imposes on publicly owed and controlled organizations.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

acco40, Unlike beauty, private enterprises are not in the eye of the beholder. What any President thinks or says about the BSA does not alter the organizations legal status. It is a private organization inspired and founded by American citizens and funded with private money. As a non-profit organization that serves the youth of this country, the federal government via Congress and the Office of the Presidency, has sung its praises. In some cases, the BSA has entered some mutually beneficial agreements with local, state, and federal agencies- the lease of the Fiesta Island aquatics center being an example. Regardless, even if Congress was to give the BSA grants unconditionally, the federal government could not legally declare the BSA a public entity. If that were to be the case, they could convert any privately owed property or organization to a publicly owed enterprise simply by giving the true owners some token amount of money. The BSA has been a huge success and serves the youth of the entire nation in a significant way. However, this reality does not alter its legal status either. In fact, if the federal government were to ever use this pretence to claim eminent domain, it should scare the hell out of every major corporation. Because if the government can take ownership of a privately owed non-profit organization due to its broad success, then theres no reason they couldnt take control of privately owed for-profit businesses too using the same ridiculous argument. We should dread the day Congress or the courts say otherwise Not because of any loss the BSA will suffer But because it will be a clear sign that we are no longer the free nation we thought ourselves to be. Many folks probably dont care much as to whether or not the federal government gets involved and starts dictating to the BSA and others. Thats truly sad, because these folks have no idea what our country is about- or rather what it once was about. It seems to me, the peoples of southern Europe and the Baltic states know and understand a bit more about freedom than a great many of Americans today. At least, they seem to treasure it more. Perhaps because they struggled and waited for so long to taste freedom, they know how easily it can be trampled and taken away.

I think Merlyns point is: One dayshould the BSA continue to discriminate against homosexuals and atheists, they will incur the wrath of progressive (i.e., liberal) moral leaders (such as Eleanor Roosevelt) and their supporters. Of course his hopeful prediction is froth with folly. Heres why: 1) Liberal moral leader is an oxy-moron. Liberals dont lead, nor do they embrace morals. They pick and chose their stances based on the political climate of the day. In other words, the tail (i.e., the collective power of on-the-fringe political interest groups who are willing to sell their souls to achieve their narrow-minded ends) is wagging this unconscionable dog. 2) Merlyn assumes that a significant number of folks will eventually agree with his twisted views and empower someone or group at a national level to implement this revolution. Its possible, but Im betting it wont be in the near future. 3) Eleanor Roosevelt was a great woman, and a progressive. However, if she was alive today, given the current leadership and platform of the Democratic Party, Im convinced that she would abandon that ship and swim for the GOP looking for some sense of sanity and goodness. JMHO -

Who said All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Pat Tillman was a good man who chose to do something. He is the kind of man that I want to know and have as a friend. It is my prayer that my sons will get to know such men and be mentored by them. About a month ago, my pastor noted a young serviceman in attendance at our Sunday worship service that had just returned from Iraq. The congregation applauded. I wanted to stand up and turn around to face him, so he could understand just how much his bravery was appreciated. However, I did not want to risk the embarrassment. That is to say, I did want to be the only one standing. So I submitted to my sense of pride and remained seated. Today, reading about Pat Tillmans life, I am ashamed. The next time I have an opportunity to thank a young man who risked it allI wont let it slip away. Even if I were the only one standing and applauding in admiration the cost or rather, my embarrassment would be an extremely small price to pay to let these boys know that theyre loved and that we honor them.

Pat Tillman, the Arizona Cardinals safety who left a million dollar NFL career to become a U.S. Army Ranger, has been killed in Afghanistan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36390-2004Apr23.html Truly, in today's world, it's rare to witness the bravery and selflessness that this young man displayed.

GOOD GRIEF! When will all this end? I think this thread is just another example of how we've allowed Scouting to twist our minds. Perhaps we should spend more time at home with spouses?

Heres the sad thing about this whole dilemma: If I were to somehow obtain the energy and drive to start my own version of Scouting say Roosters Rangers, and cultivate it into a national organization with conservative values - in an effort to distance myself and those like-minded families from the controversy that gays and atheists are attempting to brew in the BSA it would not end there. If Roosters Rangers became a successful reality, some liberal GOOF and his lawyer would try to torpedo it not because it would be unconstitutional, but because it would be a venue where God fearing people could share their values with others. They cant allow such an organization to exist unhinderedthey cannot allow their values their lifestyle to be rejected by anyone. So, they invent inane legal premises that dont exist in the Constitution but only in the heads of liberal judges. These ideologues, or should I say demigods, justify their foolishness because they are intent on changing the world for the better. And in order to make the world better, they feel compelled to stifle any expression of traditional values outside of a church. If that means that they have to twist the Constitution and make jurists do hand stands to make sense of it all, theyll do it! The above being true and Im confident that it is, I say bravo to the BSA for standing firm and not wavering under the pressure of conmen. They should never forget that they are a private organization, which has the right to embrace the values that they have chosen. I hope and pray that they continue the good fight. As long as they do, they will have my respect and admiration for being a first-class, values based organization, which refuses to yield to the feel good politics of the day. God Bless the BSA (if that offends you Merlyn, consider posting elsewhere).(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Zahnada, I knew that one was coming. Turnabout is fair play- eh? But just to be clear, I'd rather be a member of the GRAND OLD PARTY than a party to a bunch of GOOFY liberals. ;-)

You forgot... GOOFY Liberals

Pdunbar, Its interesting that you would accuse Ed Mori and me of using Scouting to further our agenda. I would like to point out two pertinent facts: 1 - It was you who said - in regard to homosexuality and Scouting (in a previous post on this thread): But the fight for equality must come from within. Our time will come! 2 This is not ScoutingIts a Scouting forum that deals with Issues & Politics. So get over it. In so far as what your Gay friends would say or do in Scouting I hope youre right. Packsaddle, It doesn't always have to be about sex. Did you really miss my point or are you merely yanking my chain? The topic was homoSEXuals. By definition, sex is a crucial part of their relationship. My point, which was apparently missed or ignored, is I have no problem with two men who love one another. I admit to loving several men myself. However, two men engaged in sex with one another is NOT love its perverted lust.

Pdunbar, Again, don't confuse God with our societys norms!! What is so wrong with love between any 2 people?? ANY two people? Like an old man and a boyor a mother and her sonwhat about two children? Be careful how you word your counter arguments. First, we are talking about sex, not love. Second, as you just inadvertently pointed out, it matters what two people are involved, especially if the relationship is sexual. I don't follow any organized religions but if I chose one I might want to follow Jesus' lead and be Jewish!! Hmmm. You express this fact as if its something that has escaped the attention of serious Christians. Yes, Jesus was a Jew. You get a gold star. Exactly how does that change anything? Read the Bible. Christians are called to love everyone. The Apostle Paul anguished over the idea that his people were missing the Messiah. To this day, numerous Christians have made it their mission to get the message to the Jewish people so they too can be reconciled to God. Furthermore, the Bible clearly foretells of a day when the Jews, God chosen people, will return to Him. And just to be clear, Jesus was born a Jew. He didnt teach folks to become a Jew. So, if you want to follow His lead, then spread the Word Jesus is the son of God.

pdunbar, Yes, homosexuality is simple Its simply wrong. Love is great. I love many people, including several men. However, I dont seek to have sex with them. Its unnatural and depraved. I dont need a lot of words to back up that contention. Every thinking being can deduce it with little effort. In regard to judgment day, Im merely suggesting that before you stand before God and defend the indefensible, you should take advantage of the time you have now and sincerely pray about it. Im convinced that God will not allow those who seek Him to be led astray. The God of the Bible is a loving God. But He is also a righteous God. His son, Jesus, was a gift to the world. His sacrifice on the cross enables those who accept the gift to be reconciled to God the Father. Those who chose to ignore that truth are responsible for their own path. Its not a threat that I make, but a warning that God gives us through His Word.

I have my own beliefs about how God wants me to regard and treat other people, if indeed God has an opinion. How one treats another person and whether or not one approves of that person's behavior, are two different issues. I can treat someone very well and not like what they say or do. And trust me, God has more than just an opinion...It may be easier to pretend that he doesn't care, but that would be foolish.

NJ, I can't love someone that I don't know. So, if you don't feel the love, there's a reason for that. In regard to my so-called hatred...Did you ever consider the possibility that one can be disgusted by someone's behavior and still not hate that person? I get angry with my children when they behave badly, but I still love them. BTW, when you climb into bed tonight, before you go to sleep - I dare you to pray and listen for God's voice. One can only deny the truth of His righteousness for so long.

Trail Pounder, Amen. I have come to the conclusion that the liberals who defend the acts of homosexuals are as sick, if not sicker, than the homosexuals themselves. They seek to legitimize sexual perversity (and please use your common sense and evoke some images here dont intellectualize this debate with words only bring some reality into this discussion and consider what you are actually saying - we are talking about sexual acts that revile against nature and scream depravity) all the while, these protectors of freedom these speakers of truth, thump their collective chest and proclaim their rebelliousness as righteousness, done in the name of love and justice. They are telling the blind to walk off a cliff! How sick is that? Sorry, but I have no more patience for this debate. In the end, we will all stand before God. While I have many sins, I seek to change my waysand when I stand before God, it will be with a repentant heart. I pity those who ignore His calls, intent on standing before Him with an arrogant heart. To those folks, I beseech you - You will not be able to hide your rebellious spirit with scholarly words or the rationality of godless ramblings. I suggest that you voluntarily fall on your knees today and not wait for that hour. So long as we breathe, I believe God is allowing us to come to Him. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Here is the key text in the article mentioned at the start of this thread: The trial in Bothell, Wash., was only a prelude to the big bonfire planned for next month in Pittsburgh, Pa. That's where the United Methodists, America's third-largest church denomination, will hold its annual General Conference and make decisions about its policies on various issues of homosexuality. The jury that voted on this matter represents a very tiny minority of the churchs leadership. They are not the church. They do represent a pocket of liberals within the church (i.e., the Northwest corner of these United States). Before you have a discussion about whether or not Methodists will remain consistent with its teachings and condemn the BSA, wait and see how the General Assembly reacts to this bogus decision. I strongly suspect that the conclusion made by those 13 Methodist pastors (We searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that 'the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings) will be condemned in the strongest of language. I dont doubt the authors passion or sincerity in this article. However, I think he formulated an opinion about the UMC without having a good understanding of its structure and processes. As I said, lets wait see how the church responds when its entire leadership is participating in the process.

I wasn't trying to quote the policy verbatim - so don't read too much into the phrase (military-style). Actually, I can't even say for a fact that the policy exists. I do know that this topic has been discussed several times before at length within this forum. Apparently my memory is failing because I thought that you and others had made reference to such a policy. About four or five years ago, I called National to ask about it. We had a committee member for our Pack who was adamant that the boys should not much in the local parade - because it imitated the military. As memory serves (which it doesnt always do), they seemed to indicate that a policy existed that prohibited military-style discipline, but not marching or anything else. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I'm happy to hear that there is no policy against it. Thanks for the response. I understand the policy against military-style disciplinary actions (i.e., push-ups, running laps, drilling, etc.). For what the BSA is trying to accomplish, I see no reason for that kind of stuff. Furthermore, I understand the danger that it could present in the wrong hands. However, I'd hate to see this policy be extended to all things that might be construed as military-like. The military is a noble profession. Some folks think otherwise.

I was a scout in the early sixties and we hiked in parades. Our Scoutmaster a retired Navy man said soldiers march, Scouts hike. So if you think not marching is some new affectation you are incorrect. Sorry to join this late... Is there a BSA policy against Scouts marching in a parade? If so, why?

I was a scout in the early sixties and we hiked in parades. Our Scoutmaster a retired Navy man said soldiers march, Scouts hike. So if you think not marching is some new affectation you are incorrect. Sorry to join this late... Is there a BSA policy against Scouts marching in a parade? If so, why?