Rooster7

OGE and sctmom, However, have you considered viewing these events in context to their population sizes? I.e.- Homosexuals make up about 2% of the population vice a general population of men equaling about 50%. sctmom - even if you have a strong case for the condemnation of most men, do you feel that somehow excuses the behavior of other subgroups? Have you tried comparing these events to other events in dissimilar groups? I.e. - Can you relate a story similar to this one whereas a public facility is taken over by the local heterosexual population to perform lewd acts in public without regard to others, with no other relation outside of their sexuality? As an aside regarding sctmom's statistics - I don't place much value in them - especially if a source is not quoted. Too many groups with causes manipulate statistics to make them say what they want them to say. I have no doubt that there are plenty of abusive men. I'm just not convinced that there's as many as some would have us believe. Not to be argumentative, but let me ask some questions. Every 15 seconds a woman is beaten. Is this per reported cases? What is the criteria for beatenNot that a slap in the face is to be applauded, but does that qualify as a "beaten". Every 3 minutes a woman is raped. Is this per reported cases? Only 1 out of every 10 victims of domestic violence report the incident. How do we know this to be true? If it's not reported, then how does one make this determination? How reliable is it? Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44. So, within this age range, it's more likely that a woman will suffer an injury from an assault by her partner than twist an ankle, pull a muscle, or suffer any other kind of common injury? I really can't believe that to be true. Domestic violence is the number one cause of emergency room visits by women. Between one and four million women are abused by current or former husbands or boyfriends each year. More than 3 million children witness acts of domestic violence every year. Interestingly, I read that children are much more likely to be abused by mom than dad. Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate Is this a testimony against men or human nature? If women were stronger than men, would we be seeing the same statistics? Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey. What do you know about the Commonwealth Fund? Do they have an agenda? What are their criteria for being physically or sexually abused? I once read that a certain feminist (can't remember who at the moment) felt a woman was raped every time she had sex with her husband. Mark Twain once commented: "There are liars, damn liars and statistics." sctmom, don't take this the wrong way...I'm not accusing you of anything. I just don't trust the facts that you've presented.

The sad saga continues - http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20021125-96575506.htm These men have no self-control. And some folks wonder out loud, "Why does BSA consider homosexuals to be improper role models?" While it is never right to judge a group by a few, it is stupid to ignore patterns - This is an all too common pattern found in the homosexual community.

eisely, You do seem to derive some sort of sick pleasure in initiating these threads...Kinda like the kid who throws the banana peal out on a busy sidewalk or a firecracker in the girls bathroom.

CubsRgr8, I agree with your assessment. We are human. Our sexuality, while it may be subtle, is a part of us and is on display for the boys to see and potentially emulate. We need to be aware of that as a role model and mentor. Has anyone researched Baden-Powell's view on this subject? As I recall, while he agreed that it was the parents' job to teach boys about sex, he was not entirely opposed to the SM playing a role if the parents willingly yielded their responsibility. I'm pretty sure that's an accurate portrayal.

NJ, Given your responses, I have no argument with you. However, I must assume that you do not believe in the Bible. Or, if you do, it is a tenuous belief at best. If man has corrupted God's Word, how does one determine which parts are true and which are not? Here's an alternative way to look at the Bible (and some of its harsh teachings) - Perhaps God is not the God that you have created in your mind. Think for a moment - How much of God's character as you believe or "know" Him to be, is based on what you think He ought to be (and want Him to be), and how much is based on God's Word? About 20 years ago, I came to the conclusion that most of what I envisioned to be true about God - was based more on my wishful thinking (and/or based on portrayals of Him by television, movies, and other books) than any known reality that I could claim. The more I read the Bible, the more I became convinced that it was God's Word. The more I read God's Word, the more I became convinced of God's righteousness. This is an aspect of God's character that many folks like to ignore. He is holy and righteous. It is right that He should judge us. Folks don't like to hear that...at least not without qualification. Guess what- even if we never hear His Word, He is still our judge and we are still sinners. If we accept this (and many do not), then it is easier to understand the harsher words of the Bible. The problem with accepting such teachings - it forces folks onto their faces, to pray the prayer of a repentant sinner and to beseech God to come into their lives. It makes one realize that salvation for oneself and one's loved ones, depends on God touching each individual - igniting a love for Him. It's a scary proposition. Regardless, I'm convinced it's the only way to find Him.

kwc57, One of the main differences being the process and the "who" that caused it. Which was the gist of my point. What's more believable - God created the living from the non-living or it just spontaneously happened? Scientific methods show it to be billions of years old. The "best" that science can offer - although that's debatable because there are dissenting opinions - estimates the earth to be billions of years old. That does not make it true. By the way, after Hubble took one of its images, the universe got about 4 billion years younger (down to 8 billion from 12 billion). Maybe after a few more pictures, it will be in the millions. Maybe after the James Webb Space Telescope takes a few images, it'll be in the thousands. Maybe after Christ comes, no one will doubt that the earth was created in days. Science is not a constant. It changes everyday. Some claim - "This is why we should trust it to be reliable and true" - How ironic? Science isn't about facts. Science is about people making claims based on their interpretation of the "facts". "Accepted" theory is merely what the majority of these people subscribe to - but none of this means we know or understand the truth. If you believe in God, than you know that nothing is more deceitful than one's own heart. Man's interpretation of the facts, is as "reliable and true" as man himself - nothing more. I believe you questioned my beliefs as a Christian earlier and I described them in pretty good detail. No one knows your heart but you and God. It was not my intent to offend as so much to get you to think about what you were saying. Your comments seemed to indicate that the creation story (taken literally) was not possible. I make no apologies for my faith. I am very secure in my beliefs and my faith and my relationship with God. I am willing to die for my faith before I would deny it. I know what I believe and why I believe it (not just because it is the way my Mom and Dad taught me). I have been a student of the Bible for most of my life. I believe that God is God. He is the only God and he is limitless. I believe that he is the creator of everything. I believe that the Bible is his revelation to man. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died as a sacrifice for my sins and rose to life 3 days after dying. I believe that he will return again. Deep in my heart, I know these things to be true by my simple faith. I can prove none of these things. I can only accept them by faith. The above statements could be mine. As much as any man can testify to the faith of another, your statements seem to be those of a believer. However, I believe one can be a believer and be imperfect theologically. Because I believe what I believe and know why I believe it, I fear no contrary teaching or feel threatened by it. My faith is not determined by whether there is prayer in public schools, whether evolution as a scientific theory is taught in schools, whether "Under God" is in the pledge or whether "In God We Trust" is on out money. Those things do not make Godly people or determine their faith. My faith is something internal between myself and God and is manifested in the way I conduct my life. Those beliefs were taught to me at the hands of daily life with my parents and my extended church family. I am not fearful of my faith being undermined. Yet, it's not my faith that's being threatened. This battle is over the hearts and minds of our children. There is also the little matter of our heritage. The government does not have a right to indoctrinate our children. They do not have the right to force feed their beliefs to our children (scientific, religious, historical, or otherwise). This is a violation of our freedoms. Every parent has the constitutional right to raise their children as God guides them. If that means, they want their child to refrain from participation in a classroom discussion or even an entire subject that is their right - a right that many state governments have trampled. The government should be providing basic protections and building roads. Today, it appears that a vast number of Americans want the government to be their "big daddy". Educate me, give me a job, guarantee my comfort in my old age, tell me what risks I can take and which ones I cannot take, etc. The government has taken advantage of these people and their fears. In the last 60 to 70 years, they (local, state, and federal governments) have invaded every aspect of our lives. Prayer in school, while it does not determine my faith, is a right that I do not want to give up. I am a Christian 24x7. I do not stop praying because I have entered a public building. I do not expect my children to stop praying when they go to school. Our founding fathers recognized the importance of faith in people's lives. They took this right very seriously. If local governments (or even the state or federal government) deemed it appropriate to allow for a moment of silence in public schools whereas a child could pray to God, or recite the atheist's creed to himself, it does not violate any one's rights. In fact, it celebrates our heritage as people of God and allows others (non-believers) to do as they please. The problem with atheists - they don't care if they have all the rights in the world; they won't be happy until all signs of faith are removed from the public arena. It pains me to see Christians who fear the way of the world and feel they must demand equal time or who want to legislate morality and values on people who may not believe the same way as them. Are they good values? Yes! Would they be good for everyone? Yes! Does God want people to come to Him freely or be forced to come to Him thru laws? I believe He wants men to choose Him freely. First - Let me relieve you of your pain. It is not my intention, nor do I suspect it is the intention of most others, to force their religious views on anyone. People are free to believe as they please. However, Americans as part of a free government - a representative democracy, have the ability to influence their government. Christians would be foolish if they did not take advantage of that fact. We should voice our opinions. Second - You are mischaracterizing this particular issue. Is there a movement to force Christianity on non-Christians? No? Then why are you talking as if there is one? The issue at hand is - What expressions of faith should be allowed in public and/or during a government sponsored event? And, can the government force your children to hear teachings that you find disagreeable (i.e., evolution, sex education, etc.)? Bottom line for me, evolution is a theory and a scientific field of study just like gravity is. One major difference (from a Christian perspective) - the law or theory of gravity does not refute anyone's religious beliefs. And if it does, I still say those parents have a right to prevent the government from imposing that teaching on their children. As a field of scientific study, it is proper for study in science classes. Creationism is a matter of religious belief and faith and as a matter of faith, cannot be proven, but must be simply accepted by those who choose to believe it. It should not be taught in school. It is religion and not science. kwc57 - These are the kinds of statements that leave me scratching my head. You are a self-professed Christian. Yet, you speak about your faith as if it is something other than the truth? Science seeks to discover and explain the truth (about our universe). These fields are NOT mutually exclusive. So, while I agree that the public schools should not be allowed to force feed religion (faith) - schools should not contradict the truth as taught by people's faith. My faith is strong enough to believe what I want regardless of what scientific theory attempts to answer. As is mine, but we're not talking about mature adults - we're talking about our children. And no matter how strong in the faith your child might be, you can only speak for yourself - your family. If my son's science teacher stood before the class and tried to tell them that the Bible, God and religion are lies and should not be believed, he'd have a fight on his hands. Glad to hear it. Be honest, how many stories have you heard of where a school science teacher ridicules religious beliefs and tries to evangelize children to accept a science theory as a form of religion? I never have and I know what a school system would do to the teacher who did it! Public school teachers do not have to personally criticize the faith of others to indoctrinate their children into the "faith" of science. Science teachers are presenting the theory of evolution as the truth about "God's creation". The theory of evolution ridicules the bible (if not per the perspective of all Christians, then by some). Do you honestly believe that children are not detecting a contradiction - between evolution and what they are taught at home concerning their faith? We (Americans) have Constitutional protections against the government teaching these kinds of things. When the government chooses to teach evolution, they are violating my personal freedom by establishing a faith which conflicts with my own. The Constitution doesn't talk about "most people" or "most Christians" - It guarantees the rights of all - as individuals. Here's the crux of this argument - a profound point of contention that many seem to be ignoring: Science = Truth Faith = Truth Therefore when science and faith disagree, only one can be right. There can only be one truth. Consequently, the theory of evolution (when taught in the public schools) is tantamount to the government declaring the faiths of some to be false. You and some others, sometimes refer to religion and science as if they have nothing to do with one another. How can that be if both address truth? This is why I have questioned exactly what you believe. If God is real, then why are you are not offended by Godless theories. Even if you accept evolution as not being a contradiction to your own faith, you should understand why others might be offended and fight for their right. Whether or not, you think your child can be impacted by this - Whether or not, you think this can impact other people's children - does not sway the constitutionality of this argument. The Constitution clearly protects the people from this kind of government intrusion. Add to this, the fact that the government should not be in the business of instructing your children in the first place - It is plain to see that our government has become something that it should not be - "daddy". My faith is strong enough to believe that we can survive without big government - big brother - "daddy" - or whatever else you'd like to call our current government. My faith is strong enough to believe that we can educate our own children and do just fine. My faith is strong enough to believe that neither my government nor I have the right to tell others how they should raise their children (short of providing basic protections against physical and/or mental abuse).

NJ, It seems to me that when you believe that God's nature and acts can be described in a book, you are the one who is "limiting" God. The book is not mine, it's God's. And there is nothing in the Bible that limits Him - except His own character. If you read your Bible, God condemns many folks in the harshest language.

kwc57, Are you truly a believer in God the Almighty? I believe in the implausible with God being the author and initiator - creationism. You believe in the implausible without the need of God - evolution. Do I need to define who God is, and explain His limitless capabilities (as if that were possible by mere man)? Your comments suggest that you doubt God has the means - or at least, you seem to be suggesting that evolution has more credibility because of some perceived weakness in God's power to accomplish life without the aid of something else (i.e., evolution). Am I totally misconstruing your comments, or do you truly believe these things? If I am misinterpreting your words, why do you pose the question that you do - As if you find it difficult to accept the possibility that "God create man from the dust of the earth." In creationism - God is the catalyst - the power that enables the dust to become life. In evolution - what is the catalyst - the power that enables the non-living to become the living? At the risk of over emphasizing a point, the difference between these two suppositions is GOD! That's in CAPS, BOLD, and extra large font, not for the purpose of shouting, but to stress the point that God is not limited. Perhaps, from your perspective, the existence of God and/or His purpose for us is something to ponder and debate, like the theory of evolution. To me, He is a reality. His powers are endless. Your question and its inference are silly.

Without challenging anyone's faith, I have to ask, BESIDES your faith, what TANGIBLE, demonstrable proof is there of any religious theory of origin? All the same evidence that you see around you today. We exist don't we? Are you asking me to prove the Bible or creation? If God is truly omnipotent, how many countless realities can there be - can He not make all seemingly conflictive beliefs be true, if He chooses? If He chooses to do so - I believe the above to be true. What are miracles but the impossible made to happen? This seems almost simpler to believe than what some would have... If you choose to see to it that way, but I don't think you have to. It's pretty tough sitting in the middle - a religious evolutionist. The fundamentalists think you're a heretic for not taking Genesis literally, while a non-religious evolutionist thinks you're an idiot for taking it at all! I'd rather be called a fool by man than by God. Despite what others thinkthis is not out of superstition, but from the knowledge I feel God has given all of us.

I'll make a deal with you all. I'll admit to being so arrogant as to believe in the possibility, per the literal translation of the inspired Word of God that God created the world exactly as he said he did. I'll freely admit to this, if you admit to being so arrogant as to believe in a man-concocted theory about how life evolved on earth from the non-living to the living, including the "scientific" observation that the origins of man is rooted in some swamp water, whereas fish-like beings decided it was time to come out and explore the rest of the world. Gee, now that I have written these ideas out on paper, I can understand why some evolutionists view creationists as superstitious and ignorant. (Imagine Bill Cosby's voice from the Noah bit) RIGHT!!!! (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

littlebille, firstpusk, sctmom - What you seem to be ignoring - IS - evolution is a theory. This makes all the difference in the world. It is not fact. It's a conclusion based on fact, but those facts do not prove evolution conclusively. No matter what you think of creationists or any other religious faith, the government has an obligation to remain neutral until your theory becomes fact (beyond doubt). As for evolution not having any holes, there are many men (and women) who are very knowledgeable in the sciences that disagree. As to who supports "quality education" and who does not, that's not really worth debating since it's all a matter of opinion. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

The corollary for your statement must needs be "Reasonable, unbiased [LITERAL] Creationists need to either prove beyond a doubt that all English texts have been properly translated and that the seeming contradictions, impossible animals and other puzzling issues in Genesis have been resolved - or acquiesce that Evolution has the same the right to claim validity as a theory." Bottom Line - From the world's perspective, both are just theories. The Creationists' claim of validity depends no more on these answers (seeming contradictions, impossible animals [?], other puzzling issues) than evolutionist' claim of validity depends on finding the "missing link." Actually, I disagree that these issues exist - concerning creationism, but I'm not going to debate the Bible with you. The point isn't whose interpretation is correct. The point is Creationists has the same claim to validity. Consequently, if evolution is taught in public schools (even though it contains much conjecture) and creationism is not, a double standard is being employed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see - one theory is favored over the other because one recognizes God (a supernatural being) and the other does not. Evolutionists cry, "God is religion" and therefore it should be excluded from public teaching. This is extremely hypercritical. Especially when one considers the fact, evolutionists have no irrefutable proof to make the theory anything other than just a theory. Both require an element of faith. The only difference is - one requires a belief in God and the other doesn't. While you may be able to argue against creationism being taught in the public schools - from a constitutional perspective, to argue against it from a purely scientific standpoint is hypercritical. You might as well post a sign in every school - 'Godless Theories Only'. That being said, to allow evolutional theory to be taught is just as unconstitutional. Theories that contradict God should not be introduced in the public school. They are anti-religion. If you permit them to be taught, than reason and fairness dictates that the religious perspective should be introduced as well. The solution is simple. The origins of man - until irrefutable evidence can be claimed - should not be taught in the public schools. The government has a constitutional obligation to remain neutral.

What is science? Is it not a search, and the processes utilized to accomplish the same, to find ultimate truth? People make observations about reality, and from studying these observations they draw conclusions about what is true. Some scientists (or most, it doesnt really matter how many), based on some observations (or many, again it doesnt really matter how many) have drawn the conclusion that the theory of evolution is likely to be true. Yet, even they acknowledge that it is just a theory because there are some missing pieces to the puzzle. Creationists have an account of history (the Bible), which has been handed down for thousands of years. They believe the story to be true. Some folks automatically discount the story as being false - because it is rooted in a religious faith. These folks can hardly call themselves scientists because they are making assumptions not observations. Faith does not necessarily equate to fiction. Granted, not all religious faiths can be true, because many contradict one another. Regardless, it is poor logic to assume all religious beliefs to be false. Whether those beliefs deal with the spiritual or the physical world, it matters not. In order for one to declare a scientific theory to be false, there must be indisputable evidence to verify that conclusion. Creationists can point to facts to support their belief just like evolutionists. But, just like the evolutionists, they have not found all the pieces to the puzzle. So, one has to ask what separates these two theories? They are both theories. One has a religious orientation. The other does not. One is labeled religious hogwash, while the other is upheld as science. Where is the irrefutable evidence that enables folks to make these assertions? That evidence does not exist. Consequently, I have to agree with ScoutParent. Perhaps, not all evolutionists are so narrow-minded. However, those that suggest that evolution is truth (scientifically proven) and literal creation is merely the babble of religious fanatics have no business calling themselves scientists. Reasonable, unbiased scientists need to either prove beyond a doubt that evolution is valid (to the exclusion of creationism) - or acquiesce that creationism has the same the right to claim its validity as a theory. You cant have your cake and eat it too Although, Im sure Ill be told otherwise. In short, folks that use the theory of evolution to deny creationism - have distorted the claims of science and consequently have created an anti-religion. ScoutParents remarks were right on the mark!

littlebille, Where I am coming from is that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to give us a working living foundation that could accommodate changing times. Yes. I think I do understand where you are coming from. I dont agree. The Constitution should not be reinterpreted by each new generation so to accommodate the political whims of the day. Many of the Supreme Court rulings over the last 50 years fall into this category. The wisdom of our forefathers has been cast aside. The courts have decided to rewrite our laws. Ironically, many Christians seem to view the Bible in much the same way as you describe the Constitution. Life is much simpler when you can merely rewrite the rules as opposed to living by them. Our government has checks and balances (as Im sure youre well aware of). The courts have a role to play. However, Congress is supposed to write laws, not the courts. firstpusk, I have had this experience with Christians from every continent. You only need to go to Canada. Denominations that are Biblical literalist are much more common in the US. Talk with people in other parts of the world about creationism and they think you are kidding. I have had this experience with Christians from every continent. You only need to go to Canada. There it is viewed as joke. Aah shucks. Once again we stupid Americans have gotten it wrong. Why cant we be as smart as the Europeans (or in this case, the Canadians) and the rest of world? This line of reasoning never ceases to amaze me. We have one of the most successful forms of government in the world. We are the most powerful nation - perhaps of all time. Theres more room for freedom of thought and expression in this country than anywhere else. When countries are not mocking us (out of jealously), theyre trying to figure out a way to keep their best and brightest from running into our arms. YET, for some strange reason, this country seems to be populated with the dumbest of the dumb. These other nations always seem to possess so much more wisdom. Incredible! So just to clarify am I to assume that you are now speaking for all Christians around the world, and not just the U.S.? As I already noted, your claim about what "most Christians" believe, doesn't seem to be very scientific. Sctmom, From the "Laws and Ordinances for New Netherland 1638 - 1674" So what exactly does this mean in regards to the founding fathers who established the U.S. government some 100 to 150 years later. Did you know of a specific Declaration of Independence signer who wanted to put similar laws in the Constitution? My point is Your history may be correct (there were some laws that discriminated against people of various faiths), but your conclusion is wrong (the signers at least collectively did not want this kind of discrimination perpetuated in the new government). In short, I think your comment is an unfair and damning generalization that defames the character of some our greatest and most moral leaders. Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."(This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Firstpusk, Most Christians have no problem with evolution. When did you become an official spokesman for most Christians? And how were you able to determine their beliefs? Its possible you may even be correct, but unless you can point to a scientific survey, I think youve let your emotions drive you to an unfounded conclusion. Gee, now Im starting to sound like you guys LittleBillie, So now that we are talking about the slave-owning founding fathers and their "avowed" positions, I am not allowed to tie this back to the origin of this thread? First, try to keep up. I think if you do a little rereading, youll discover that there was a progression to this thread and the conversation did make a distinct turn. Second - slaving-owning founding fathers - its becoming clearer to me as to what your perspective is here. While I acknowledge that some of our founding fathers owned slaves, I am in no position to judge them. Apparently, given the same upbringing, history, and circumstances as our founding fathers, youre quite certain that your character would have stood out as the example. Until I am that confident, I reserve judgment. To be sure, slavery was and is wrong (lest you're tempted to infer I said otherwise). Oh, and by the way, "Clinton's lie" was a specific example relating to Rooster7's generality. Apparently we are not supposed to test general remarks against specific incidents, either. I assumed that you were trying to make some sort of a connection. Please refer back to my post. Draw the dotted line for mePerhaps, I am as dull as some think I am. How does Clintons lie relate to the fact that what people say in private or public somehow changes what we should believe about them and what they believed to be true?

Unless the government (at any level) conflicts with the constitution, it has the authority to do anything it wants! Well, perhaps that is Robks point. Many of the types of things that the government has chosen to take upon itself has no constitutional basis. Rooster, saying what someone says in private or public doesn't matter is comical. "I did not have sex with that woman!" Does that ring a bell? You lost me. What does Clintons lie have to do with anything? Especially for politicians, which the founding fathers were, what is said in public is for public consumption and I would put much more emphasis on private communication. Regardless, how does any of that nullify my point? Explain to me how this changes anything they said or what they were as people? By the way, many of the quotes I provided, were made in public. In fact, many of these words were spoken to provide support for a government action (i.e., prayer in Congress, proclamation concerning Thanksgiving, and so on). public versus private seems to be at the heart of avowal, and Lambert, had he kept things private, would not have come to our public attention. I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. Yes, the original discussion dealt with Lambert and his status in BSA. However, since then, we moved on to a discussion about who the founding fathers were, and what they believed about our government. Your comment does not address the latter at all. As to the former, Im not an expert on BSA policy in regards to the homosexual and atheist ban (avowed or not, etc.). However, I do know that Lambert as a young man (say 14, 15, 16), whatever his age was when he applied for Eagle, had to realize that BSA required a belief in God. To suggest that by remaining silent for the Duty to God part of the oath exonerates him from wrongdoing is ridiculous. Its tantamount to a ten-year-olds claim that he was crossing his fingers. By omission, Lambert basically lied to BSA, and probably many others associated with the program. He knows it. And anybody else with half a brain knows it. The fact that his Eagle BOR decided to ignore this fact is not an endorsement of Lambert, but a self-indictment that they too have little respect for BSA polices and truth itself. Many of the colonies had laws about who could teach religion in their home. Sctmom, Rather than condemning the founding fathers with one broad brush - Why dont you give us a name (i.e., a signer of the Declaration of Independence)? Please tell us exactly what the law said and who created it. Youre making a pretty vague claim. It makes it very difficult to dispute. If you provide the complete and accurate specifics, perhaps I will acquiesce to your assertion. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Littlebillie, You initially introduced quotes in this thread to infer a point about our founding fathers. It is rather obvious by the selection of your quotes that you feel the founding fathers were something other than Christian. One can further conclude that you feel Christian principles should not govern our laws. I offered the quotes that I did to show how you truly misrepresented our founding fathers. They were, overwhelmingly, strong and outspoken Christians. Our government had decidedly Christian origins. Whether or not any of these quotes were made publicly or privately is a meritless point. If George Washington said in private - "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" - What difference does it make? He was a Christian. He held the aforementioned belief in his heart. Do you think he risked his life and all his worldly possessions to hide his most passionately held beliefs? I don't. In fact, I'm confident that he felt that this new country and its government reflected the very same beliefs. Unfortunately, a lot of water and revisionists have since passed under that bridge. OGE, I hope I did not come off as obtuse. I realized what you meant. I merely wanted to clarify something for my own satisfaction. Too many people take advantage of and/or abuse the English language for their own politic gain (not that you were). I didn't want it to be lost on some folks that zealot doesn't have to be a "bad thing". In fact, the Bible calls us to be zealots. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Romans 12:11

Littlebillie, I don't know what encyclopedia you like to reference. But I have been around long enough to know, that our forefathers were not only Christians, but Christian zealots. You may have found a few quotes (I have to presume that they are accurate, and in context), but I guarantee you that I can find more quotes that support my claim than you'll ever find that support yours. John Adams: On March 6, 1799, President John Adams called for a National Fast Day. "As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, nor any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgement of the growing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness of individuals and to the well-being of communities.... "I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34) Abigail Adams: "A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society?....The Scriptures tell us "righteousness exalteth a Nation." In a letter dated November 4, 1816, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion..." John Quincy Adams: "I have myself, for many years, made it a practice to read through the Bible once ever year.... My custom is, to read four to five chapters every morning immediately after rising from my bed. I employs about an hour of my time...." July 4, 1821 "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." "From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." Sam Adams: As the Declaration of Independence was being signed, 1776, Samuel Adams declared: "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." Samuel Adams wrote in his Will: "Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins." Ben Franklin Congressional Congress, 1787 "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest." "I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." Alexander Hamilton: "I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." John Jay: (America's first Supreme Court Chief Justice and Co-Author of the Federalist Papers) October 12, 1816 "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Thomas Jefferson: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..." George Washington: "The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian." From his prayer book - "Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day and forever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." PLEASE! - NEED I GO ON

No religion is free of zealots or those who pervert its tenets to serve an unholy purpose. I am presuming of course - when you say "zealots", you are inferring that these people are bigoted, irrational, and violent. By that definition, sadly, I agree that every religion appears to have some of these folks among their ranks. However, using the original definition of this word (meaning one who possesses zeal or a fanatical enthusiasm for a particular belief) - without the negative connotations, I see this as no insult. Few self-proclaimed Christians are worthy of the title - zealot. In my mind, a Christian zealot or fanatic, is someone who fervently and unapologetically loves Christ, follows his teachings, and spreads His Word. He walks the walk - all the time.

I think that some persons choose evil and then use religion as a justification. I agree with this statement. Yet, I feel compelled to say - The fact that some use, twist, and abuse the truth for selfish means does not negate the fact that the TRUTH exists - or rather, God exists and its in our interest to know who He is, to seek His face. I also feel it is important to note - some very special Christians founded this country. These men risked much - first to get here, and second, to establish independence from the British. There have been horror stories associated with Christianity, and certainly as individuals we all have sin - that cannot be denied. Our national history is not prefect. One can point to injustices. However, overall I feel America stands on solid ground. Over the course of time, we have conquered many evils - some external, some internal. In short, I am proud of our roots - speaking as an American and as a Christian.

Obviously, you guys cannot separate religion from a standard that has religious roots. No one is suggesting that non-Christians be forced to convert. I'm merely said a standard needed to be (and was) established. History tells us that our forefathers had no problem embracing Christianity - not only as a personal faith, but as a building block for our Constitution and all our laws. Posters on this board are suggesting that these laws are unconstitutional because they have roots in religion. This argument is not rational. If a bunch of intellectuals got together and simply wrote up a code of ethics, you'd probably have little problem endorsing its teaching in public school. Yet, what makes these guys any more empowered to determine right and wrong than the next guy? No one has yet to answer my question. Who gets to decide - right and wrong? For that matter, how can we write laws? I guarantee that I can find religions that endorse all kinds of depravity...Why aren't you guys fighting for their rights? Who are you to judge their morality? And if I can't find a religion repulsive enough for you, why can't I simply create my own? Who's to say that such a "faith" is invalid? Why couldn't I simply invent my faith, and mock every law this country ever created? I know this is extreme - but your attack on moral teachings by public schools is extreme. There must be a standard! HISTORY - tells that the standard of our forefathers was rooted in the Judeo-Christian faith. It's that simple.

Um - are you saying, you don't have to believe in my religion, but you have to act as tho' you do? and - are you saying no equal time for all religions, it's just gonna be that Old and New T stuff? No. You're really misrepresenting the point. Our country was been founded on these moral principles. It matters not that they were derived from the Judeo-Christian faiths. The bottom line is, our country was and is unified (as much as a nation can be) by these values. So - We have a standard. Muslims may not be happy because it doesn't necessarily capture everything they believe. Buddhist and Hindus may have the same complaint. No matter, it is the standard that this country chose as a foundation. All values are rooted in beliefs. The fact that our nation embraced the Judeo-Christian standard does not mean it is forcing religion on anyone. It's simply an agreed upon standard.

So - are you saying that the schools should keep that Judeo-Christian thing happening, regardless of the faiths of the children in attendance, and their families, and their teachers? At the risk of offendingI say - YES. The Judeo-Christian standard does not mean others must worship the same God. It doesn't even mean they must believe in the same morals. It does mean - all peoples are expected to behave in a way that complies with that standard. This requires us to tolerate different views and to prevent everyone's actions from causing harm to each other. Depends on your definition of tolerate. If a Satanist believes he'll find happiness by pursuing evil, I can't stop him. He has his own mind and it's not my job or my right to force him to change. On the other hand, I firmly believe it is our right to require his behavior to conform to the Judeo-Christian standard, and to teach that standard in public classrooms. Everyone, Remind me now, what good came from excluding Lambert? It was to enforce a standardyou remember standards, don't you? Rooster7, I know you understand these things and that you asked rhetorically. Actually, not all of my questions were rhetorical. If you're going to dispute the Judeo-Christian standard as being an acceptable teaching in the public schools, then you need to explain what standards are the schools suppose to use? None? If none, then how can they possibly promote ethical behavior without a standard? If it's man-made, then what men are entitled to define the standard? Who appointed them? Please don't refer to some imaginary and unaccountable pluralistic group in society. Ironically, they only exist in the minds of atheists. What faith they must have!

yet sectarian is exactly what it is when it requires members to follow a precept of one group of religions over another group of religions. Hmmm. Exactly, what precepts are you referencing? Truth be told, by the above standard or guide, BSA cannot in good conscience ask it members to subscribe to any precept. By some peoples interpretation of their faith, even murder can be viewed as acceptable - given the right circumstances. Is it truly wrong to steal if its your only means to feed your family? Is lying wrong if it prevents others from having hurt feelings? Almost every point of the Scout Law can be circumvented if BSA accepts all professed faiths without question. We NEED to share certain moral bonds (values). If we dont share those bonds, then BSA cant claim itself to be a character building, faith based (or if you prefer values based) organization. Otherwise, whats the yardstick or standard? How do we know that a boys character is being developed properly? What values are we to instill? BSAs values cannot be relative to each Scout or Scouters faith. Aberrant beliefs (religiously based or not) should not be dictators of BSA values and/or policies. If someones faith believes lying is acceptable, then BSA has the right to, and should, still teach its unacceptability. So, under these circumstances, I agree with Weekender. If someone doesn't like the value - trustworthy - and prefers to view lying as acceptable behavior, they are free to leave BSA. In summary, while I realize some folks may want to take this too far, some folks on this board dont want to go far enough.

Competition is great! We have a troop of about 60 boys. We regularly conduct competitions between patrols. This is how we work it. We assign a patrol a skill to teach for that week's meeting (i.e., how to set up your troop tent properly). After the skill, we have a competition (i.e., which patrol can set up his tent the fastest - AND properly...OR, which patrol can set up his tent the fastest in the dark - AND properly). The winning patrol gets to split a bag of candies (i.e., small chocolate bars, etc.). After the skill and competition, we using have a game of some kind. There's more to the meeting, but the aforementioned activities consume the bulk of the time. I have some criticisms concerning our troop meetings, but for the most part - they're not boring.