Rooster7

kwc57, Okay, you go home and find a man who doesn't belong there. Do you approach that man any differently if he's holding a gun verses no weapon at all? Now you know the difference between Iraq and North Korea. North Korea is holding that gun, it's called a nuclear . I'm sure there's a lot more to it (and perhaps Korea Scouter might give us more insight). Regardless, I think my point is valid.

kwc57, Go to the link below, I think you'll find that it answers your questions. Or, give me a specific verse and address your concern about it, and I'll do the research for you. Regardless, the Bible clearly teaches that people should not be treated as if they were property. http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/feeasm1851.htm#p30-alif sctmom, Why do you quote the Old Testament as if you have no faith in its credibility or any understanding of the history it details? Have you studied the Old Testament? Do you understand Gods Laws, His Righteousness, and why there was a need for the Messianic Priesthood? Do you understand that prior to Christ that there was a spiritual wall between us and God?

The case for Iraq is not so clear-cut. Certainly they have been aggressive. Certainly they have murdered their own citizens. Given the last sentence, I'm surprised you do not see a "clear cut" case. Are you willing to turn a blind eye so long as it doesn't directly affect Americans today? Among other things that's pretty short sighted. It is interesting to say the least that most of the examples people trot out occurred when they were our ally. Gee, I guess the United States was somehow responsible. Isn't that the implication? If so, don't hide behind an implication, try to build a case - if you truly have one? Once you do (if you can), explain to me why does that mean we should ignore the situation today. Speaking of allies, why the go it alone mentality? Because, apparently, the rest of the world doesn't have the b*lls to confront evil. Or worse, they hate the United States for being successful and are happy that Iraq might present a threat to us. Are we taking our eye off of the ball to gratify a family grudge. You've got to be kidding. Yeah, I'm still ticked at the Germans because my Dad was a WWII vet. Are we forgetting about our borderless enemy - terrorists. No, we're not. From I've heard, there's plenty of them hiding in Iraq. Furthermore, Hussein thinks they're great guys and is more than willing to stoop to their level. Isn't that obvious? Do you want to pretend that Iraq has been our friend? Do you honestly believe that one day they will embrace the United States as an ally? Do you believe that Hussein want use a nuke if he gets one? Beyond that, it is clear that we have a lot of fence mending to do in the middle east. I am not sure how starting a war that is dubiously connected with terrorism helps that situation. Especially when no one in the world with the exception of Tony Blair supports us. Yeah those British, don't you just hate them? They've only been our most loyal ally for the last 100 years. This all coming from an administration that came in saying it was not going to be actively involved in the peace process and was not concerned about nuclear non-proliferation. So I guess you expect them to ignore whatever their intelligence reports say (a strategy that Clinton apparently embraced), pretend 9-11 never happened, pretend that Hussein will be our friend, and stick their collective heads in the ground and join the rest of the liberals. If Clinton had half the brains hat Bush possesses, Bin Laden would have been apprehended years ago and 9-11 might well have never happened. But hey, he stood for a peaceunfortunately, while he managed to craft an image of himself, his efforts didn't help anyone in the WTC.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

But no, some folks would rather have every gay kid grow up thinking he's slime, an abomination, and not worthy of associating with decent God-fearing folk - here's where some of the suicides come from. Nice. So now we're responsible for the suicides of confused boys. Since you've opened this can worms, allow me to state it the way it is - No. The BSA and other like-minded, God-fearing (and God-loving) folks do not want every "gay kid" to "grow up thinking he's slime" What we want is for confused kids to realize that homosexuality is not something they have to embrace. While heterosexuality is a natural attraction, no boy or man is compelled, beyond his ability to abstain, to have sex with a woman. If this was not so, every boy and man would be a rapist. If a boy or man can abstain from sexual urges that are natural, certainly abstaining from unnatural urges is within the realm of possibility. And even if some fail, while we should respect God's righteousness and fear His wrath; He is also a loving and forgiving God. We should be encouraging these confused boys to seek the counsel of their families and churches. If there is a conflict with the value systems of these families and their churches, the parents of these boys are to blame, not the BSA. The BSA has never hide the fact that they are a traditional values based organization. If "enlightened parents" and "contemporary churches" want to preach a guiltless value system that's their business. They are free to do so. But to blame the BSA and its supporters, because their children become suicidal, is ludicrous. The BSA's traditional values system is filled with "round holes". It's the parents and unconscionable ideologues that are trying to pound "square pegs", which they created, into those round holes. The conflict, and any subsequent suicides, is the result of those stubborn people that have embarked on this Godless crusade. I just wish that some folks would wake up and realize that their political crusades are causing young men to stumble and God will hold those folks accountable. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! Matthew 18:5-7 kwc57, In regard to the slavery issue, there is a link on another thread within this forum that outlines the anti-slavery position of the Bible. I'll try to find it. Regardless, here are three significant points that jump out at me: 1) Not every story in the Bible necessarily represents God's view or teaching on a moral issue. That is to say, just because there are stories of murder in the Bible, that does not mean God condones murder. Of course, we know, He does not condone murder because of the Ten Commandments and other teachings. 2) The fact that the Bible may appear to be silent on an issue does not mean - God does not care or that He does not view it as sin. To my knowledge, the Bible does not speak to pedophilia, but we should have no doubt that it is sin. 3) Lastly, there is a big difference between a bondservant and a slave. Some translations do not make that distinction. It's important because a bondservant is fulfilling an obligation. This arrangement could have come about a number of different ways, but it's not a unilateral arrangement (i.e., forced slave labor with no benefit for anyone but the "owner"). Even so, it cannot be said that God endorsed this arrangement either, just because its not addressed as a moral issue in the Bible.

Rosa Parks took responsibility for her actions. She didn't try to hide from anyone. She did practice civil disobedience, but she did so nobly - out in the light, not in the dark. I'm not sure the Boston Tea Party wasn't an act of war. I think it went a little beyond civil disobedience. Some liberals today probably would call it an act of terrorism, but I won't go that far. Ignoring BSA policy while pretending that you are not, is something other than civil disobedience. It's cowardly and dishonest. If you say the Scout Oath, add hypercritical to that list.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

"The bell tolls again." Please. Soon you'll be comparing the BSA to NAZI Germany and their persecution of Jews. Ooops, sorry...that comparison has already been made. Norman Rockwell and Baden-Powell are probably rolling in their graves.

First, let me say, I understand your point as presented in your last post. I just want you to know that I'm not trying to be contrary, just for the sake of being so. We do agree on some things here. In particularly, when you said - While I, too would welcome TJ at my campfire, as a unit leader I have to recognize that it ain't necessarily "my" campfire. BING! That one scored big. In fact, it's not even exclusively your troop's or your chartering organization's campfire either. It's jointly owned by all of those people and the BSA. I could sit around a campfire with TJ and talk about thingsjust not around a BSA campfire.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I can't answer your question definitively, but I suspect she is wrong.

Wanna make a bet?

Twocubdad, Okay, perhaps I overstated my case. I do agree that members of a private organization should be able to challenge the status quo. However, I also believe it should be done through proper channels and without undermining the headship of that organization. I have a difficult time with Scouters who are basically saying, I don't care what National says, I (or my troop) are going to allow gays to be members or leaders. When forum posters tell TJ, he's welcome to sit at their campfire - when he has just declared himself to be a gay man - they are circumventing the BSA policy. I refuse to believe that this is not plain for everyone to see and understand. I'm stand convinced that those who argue otherwise are merely doing so because it serves their purposes.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

NJ, I agree. It doesn't sound as if a "religious reason" was being offered as an excuse. That being said, I agree that this particular boy and/or his dad probably needs to be confronted. However, to be fair to others, including myself, I think many times these threads present some intriguing nuances, which are worth exploring. I don't think anyone is trying to change or twist the topic. We're just exploring some interesting cracks and crevasses. Unfortunately, I guess we have taken our eyes off the mountaintop a few too many times and have gone too far in a different direction.

I have to admit that I do not watch Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, etc., so I have no opinion on whether they present the news in a biased manner. I am somewhat suspicious about the fact that the claims of "liberal bias" in these shows are always made by conservatives. If conservatives don't call people's attention to it, then who will? That's like saying I only hear blacks complain about police brutality. But I don't think it matters. The range of news sources is now so broad and diverse that the claims of "liberal bias," if they were ever correct, have become irrelevant. I get most of my news from the Internet, basically its the Associated Press and Reuters wires, and I think most people would agree that those services are fairly accurate and unbiased. You miss the point. Yes, there are plenty of different news sources. The concern for me and many other conservatives is that many folks don't realize that they are being fed more opinion than fact. Many folks blindly accept what they are fed. I also sometimes watch Fox News Channel, where, by the way, I do NOT agree that a strict line is drawn between "news" and "opinion" on the conservative side. Fox News has news shows anchored by Tony Snow, who clearly skews things toward the right, and the same is true to a lesser extent of Brit Hume. I think your accusation here can be argued. However, I will concede that there areor at least there must be some news media organizations that are guilty of hiding conservative politics. As for O'Reilly, he does not acknowledge taking a conservative point of view, which is clearly what he does. He claims to be "fair and balanced" and that his show is a "no spin zone," which are ridiculous claims to make for a show that has an obvious ideological point of view. I will acknowledge that he does claim to be un-bias. However, he also delineates what is fact and what is his opinion. Furthermore, it's apparent that he is a talk show host. He's not sitting in a news anchors chair reading a teleprompter as if this IS "tonight's news". I could go on. Anybody who thinks that the New York Times has a liberal bias, read the real leftist press (like the Village Voice) and you will see what leftists think of the New York Times. To them it is the voice of what used to be called the "Establishment," which is not a liberal institution, and of "big business." That's like saying anyone who thinks Sadam Hussein is a bad man intent on serving his own evil desires should read about Stalin and Hitler. There's no question that the New York Times has a liberal bias. And then there is the Washington Times. It claims to be a real newspaper, but it is a conservative mouthpiece -- and not just on the editorial pages. I'm from the Washington area. I disagree with your assessment of the Times. It reports the news fairly. Its editorials are definitely conservative though. More people read the Washington Post, but I hear the Washington Times quoted every day, as if it were a real newspaper, on my friendly local talk radio station.. Yeah, and "Big Brother II" was a huge hit last year. It's still all garbage. The Washington Post is living off its past reputation. They haven't approached the news honestly since Watergate. Almost every story hints that the world is on the verge of destruction, if it were not for the protective hand of liberals who restrain the "evil and foolish urges" of conservatives. They take the race card, which the democrats play at the drop of a hat, and run with it at every opportunity. They are probably worse than the infamous New York Times. If it weren't for their Sports section and the TV guide, I wouldn't insult dead fish by wrapping them in it, and I'd have to pause before laying it out in a birdcage. Which is yet another example of "conservative media." The leading New York City talk radio station, WABC (which claims to be the most listened-to talk radio station in the U.S., which is probably true) has a lineup that is heavily tilted to the right. It is the station where both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's shows originate from (notwithstanding Rush's lofty references to the "EIB Building."). These shows are labeled as "opinion," but it is still all part of the "media." But that's the whole point - for the most part, conservative media organizations are honesty about their slant or bias. Opinion is labeled and advertised as opinion. There is a line drawn between Fox News and the Hannity & Colmes Show. They don't present the news laced with suggestive ideas about the principals or their motives. Liberals doAll the time.

Uh huh. "Perverse politics." Rooster, don't you think it's possible that some of us simply do not believe that homosexuality, in and of itself, is immoral? Why would we support a policy of excluding people whose conduct is not immoral? NJ, That's an interesting question. I have to answer it with another question. Why do you join an organization that stands for one thing, and then fight to make it stand for another? This is why I used the phrase - "perverse politics". We're in a free society, which includes millions of private organizations. Each of these organizations has different values and goals, giving the American public a plethora of choices. Given these freedoms and such a multitude of choices, I think people who join private organizations should support their cause or find a different organization. Here's an analogy - Don't move to Alaska and then complain about the cold. It gets annoying after a while - not the cold, just the complaining.

kwc57, You may see some "spinning", but I think it's you who's sitting on the Merry-Go-Round. Random House simply defines avowed as acknowledged or declared. My dictionary does not add things to the definition such as "it cannot be done in secret", "it must be in public", or "it must be in front of a BSA representative". It seems to me, you and others are trying to make the word mean much more than what your average dictionary would tell you.

kwc57, While I understand your point, I strongly disagree. Many folks look to Sunday not just as a day they go to church, but also as the day that belongs to the Lord. Furthermore, if the BSA is not just giving lip service to "duty to God, Country, and Family", the troop itself should realize that this Scout is setting a good example. They should not only support him in this decision, but they should encourage other Scouts to follow their hearts as well. Even if it meant more Scouts left early. Having said all of the above, there are few other circumstances for which I think the troop should make the exception. Additionally, I would query the parents to ensure that the "religious reason given" was not a bogus excuse created by the Scout. If you can't trust the parents, then you've got bigger problems. There's not much one can do if the parents are not cooperating in the effort. But remember, they encouraged their son to join for a reason. If it's the right reasons, then they'll want to work with you. If it's the wrong reasons, then you're pretty much at their mercy unless you're going to fight for custody of their children.

To my understanding, avowed means acknowledged or declared. A person could declare himself to be a homosexual to an audience of one, in secrecynevertheless, to the one; he's an avowed homosexual. The policy does not mention whether or not it needed to be in public or private, whether or not it was intended to be a secret, how many people needed to be present, or even if a BSA representative needed to be present. Regardless, I believe - those who are not looking for loopholes understand the intent of the policy very well. Homosexuals are not welcomed as members of the BSA. The language (avowed) used by the BSA in an effort on their part to avoid witch-hunts. Does anyone really believe otherwise? I guess that's a silly question given the responses by some. Still, it seems very clear to me.

le Voyageur, If you're a "free thinker", why are you held captive by your politics? The fact that you would post a link to such an article demonstrates that your thoughts are very well contained and bound by preconceived notions that conservatives and their supporters are intent on evil. BTW, what exactly did I call you - "Mud slinger"? - If that's it, I guess I'm guilty.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Here's the problem with the liberal defense of media bias as it is being claimed by some of you in this thread. 1) Guys like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, don't claim to be anchormen or even news journalists. They are political editorialists and/or talk show hosts. I offer my apologies to those folks who already made this point. 2) Guys like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, don't hide their bias. They announce to their audience that they support the conservative viewpoint. 3) Guys like Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw, do claim to be news journalists. 4) Guys like Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw, claim they have no bias - despite evidence to the contrary. In short, YES - there are some conservatives in the media, particularly in radio. However, unlike the liberals, they don't try to blur the line between fact and opinion, by masquerading their beliefs as news. And while talk radio has risen in popularity (probably because until recently, you couldn't find a rational conservative personality on TV), it's influence pales to that of television. And since we're talking about the media (which includes more than just the news), how about the movie industry? Or, TV sitcoms and dramas? If you don't see any influence towards the left, you're too far gone to even reach. To All: Here's a challenge - for every show that you name that has a conservative slant, I bet that I can name at least four that have a liberal slant. Frankly, I'll be impressed if you can name four sitcoms and dramas that have a conservative slant. The issue concerning media bias is not about whether or not liberals or conservatives are represented. It's about hidden agendas that the media powers are imposing on the public at large. What messages are being sent subtly and not so subtly? What is the ultimate goal of those folks in control of major media outlets? To some of us, it seems pretty obvious. Was M.A.S.H. simply a comedy about a medical unit in the Korean War? Or, were its producers trying to tell us that the leaders of the military and those who like to serve are hypocrites and fools. Was "All in the Family" about one misguided but "loveable" character, who kept making a fool of himself? Or, were its producers trying to indict white conservatives as stupid and hateful? What messages do you get from shows like Boston Public, West Wing, The Practice, Law & Order, and a hundred others like them? I suggest that you watch them one day with a critical eye. If you like those shows and don't believe that they are trying to influence you in any way - then you're watching them with your eyes closed (and your hands over your ears).(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I agree with Stan and Ed. If he wants to leave early so he can worship at his church, I wouldn't say anything. However, if it's for non-religious reasons, then he is taking unfair advantage of his troop. I would definitely put a stop to it.

I appreciate TJ's honesty too. Furthermore, I don't fault him for not leaving an organization he presumably loves. I view him as an intelligent man. Furthermore, per his postings, he gives the appearance of a caring person. I will pray for him. We all have sins, which we must try to conquer. In this respect, I know he is no different than the rest of us. Unfortunately, this is where TJ and I part ways. He is adamant that his sexual desire for other men and its associated behaviors are not unnatural. He is unwilling to change his behavior and/or to repress these sinful desires. Having said the above, I would seek his removal if I knew his name. As someone who embraces homosexuality and promotes its acceptability, I feel he is unqualified to be a member of the BSA. I would not want him on a camping trip with my son for this reason alone. And while I don't believe every homosexual is a pedophile, I am convinced that the probability of him being one is much higher as compared to that of the typical heterosexual. There are studies that back this view. Per capita, more homosexuals molest children then heterosexuals. In short, TJ is a man like me with his own set of problemsjust like me. I hope and pray that one day he will see the wrongness of his sexual desires and the hopelessness of such a lifestyle. Should he ever, I would gladly be his friend and welcome him in my church. What's truly disheartening is not TJ's confession, but the responses of his supporters - fellow Scouters who are not plagued by unnatural desires, just perverse politics. Stay the course In my beliefs, being homosexual alone is not immoral. I, too am questioning how much longer I can continue supporting an organization that is moving more and more to the extreme right and is apparently being ruled by the fundamentalist zealots. TJ is trying to hang on to a part of his life that he enjoys very much. He knows that he's not what the BSA wants as a leader, but because he values the Scouting experience, he's willing to live a lie. I really don't think this is a tremendously horrible thing. I think if I were in his place, I'd probably be behaving very similarly if not exactly as he is right now. Not because it is right, but because it is part of my sinful nature to do what I want. On the other hand, I will never appreciate or understand the numerous others who are not being pressured by these desires or temptations, yet endorse immorality as if they are pursuing a righteous cause. Your open-mindedness apparently knows no bounds. As to the BSA "avow" policy, this is my theory. It was written as such simply to avoid witch-hunts. They didn't want Scouters pointing at stereotypic gay mannerisms and accusing folks of being homosexual. They didn't want to be in the business of investigating every flippant allegation born out of malice. On the other hand, if someone self-proclaimed their homosexuality, they knew that person's expulsion would not result in some ugly battle over the validity of the charge. They are not endorsing - "Don't ask. Don't tell". Being self-avowed is not the determining characteristic, which makes the behavior of a homosexual - immoral. The BSA clearly believes that homosexuality itself is immoral. Thus, homosexuals are improper role models. The BSA was just trying to avoid witch-hunts. SagerScout, You hetero men that think homosexuality is a "choice" - do you think you could CHOOSE to, umm, get hot over men? I think - without God as a foundation, given enough time, any man, woman, or child, could stoop to any perversity. For some, maybe it would take thousands of years. For others, it would only take a few hours. Regardless, left to ourselves, I think we are all capable of unnatural and/or perverse behavior. It's only a matter of time. In fact, I will go so far as to say - without God, we all would embrace perversity of some kind.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Bob, As much as I "enjoy" debating you on the interpretation of certain BSA policies, I must say - I enjoy agreeing with you much more. I believe you are stating BSA's position well.

ASM1, I'm sorry...I'm still very much unconvinced. These stories are the exceptions, not the norm.

le Voyageur, Is there no boundary that you are unwilling to cross in order to garner support for your liberal views? Is there no accusation too outlandish? Is there no mud that you are not willing to sling? Just because Bush was wise enough to take action to ensure a centralize government would survive ists attacks, does not make him Mussolini. You do go too far

BSA simply kow tows to the majority... Even IF it were true, the BSA has a right as a private organization to "kow-tow" to whomever they wish. Having said this, I believe your perception of the BSA and Constitutional protections is incorrect. The BSA tries to be as inclusive as possible without sacrificing the values that they have embraced. You may argue that many, most, or even all of their values align with Judeo-Christian values. Regardless, this is not illegal or even unethical. The BSA, while it tries to include as many as possible, is not the United States government. They have no obligation to write policies which give the appearance that they do not endorse one value system over another. In fact, I would argue that the United States government doesnt even have that Constitutional obligation. The United States federal government must monitor itself and the states so that they do not establish a national religion. They have an obligation to protect the rights of private organizations, most especially religions, so that they may serve and associate with whomever they please. In short, if anyone is being anti-American and/or anti-freedom, its those folks and their supporters who would force their will on private organizations such as the BSA. Once the BSA is compromised, the next stop will be your local church.

Lest my silence be misinterpreted, I feel compelled to say - I too have thought about Mr. Lahoff's circumstances, and have prayed for a miracle on his and his family's behalf. Although I understand and appreciate the purpose of this thread, not everyone wants to take credit for prayers. Suffice it to say, I'm sure each post on this thread represents hundreds, if not thousands of other prayers offered. From the National Capital Area Council - I pray for grace, peace, and mercy for Mike Lahoff and his family. Amen.