SR540Beaver

ASM7, There are some people who find public displays of affection even between heterosexual couples as disgusting, rude and tasteless. There are also some people who are willing to beat gay people sensless or even kill them....even if they don't show a public display of affection. I'd say it has more to do with self preservation than shame.

"Michael Stempo, who has two sons who are Eagle Scouts, became suspicious when his wife said the boy's neckerchief was knotted not held together with a Scout slide. Stempo also said Boy Scouts do not solicit for money door-to-door, though they sometimes sell popcorn or other items." I hope he doesn't come around our den!!! We had a boy lose his slide on a campout in October and he still knots his neckerchief. At least he wears it, unlike some of our other boys. It unnerves me everytime I go to den and pack meetings to see how the boys "wear" the uniform. I hope these people get the book thrown at them and I feel sorry for this poor innocent kid. It amazes me that some people are too proud to ask for help from organizations that exist for just that purpose and instead will stoop to stealing.

Quixote, This has all already been covered in previous posts. TJ does put himself at risk by confiding in friends who are fellow scouters. He also puts his friends (as souters) in a difficult position. Now it is up to his friends who are scouters to decide whether they keep the confidnece their friend entrusted to them or reports it higher up the line. TJ has said that the scouters he has confided this to are people that he already knew disagreed with the ban on gays. Again, to avow is to make something publically known to everyone. To confide is to entrust information to certain individual(s). The fact that the person confided in is a friend/scouter does not necessarily make it avowed. It just puts you at risk and puts the other person in a difficult position.

"Remove it from a global perspective. If Saddam were the guy next door and the Iraqi people his wife and children, and he was abusing them, would it be your buisness? Is it only the job of the battered wife and children to revolt and overthrow him? He's not seeking to beat you or your children. Lots of people are quick to unleash child protective services on abusive fathers, why not on "nation beaters"? What's the difference? Does the principle change because of the scale? And we do know he'll beat the neighbor's children. Look what he tried to do to Kuwait." Robk, If I saw my neighbor beating his wife and kids, I'd most likely try and stop him. If I were "suspicious" that he was beating his wife and kids, I'd most likely call the police or social services. After the Gulf War, Saddam started killing the Kurds. We stepped in and have been there ever since protecting them. We kicked him out of Kuwait. He has in effect been under house arrest for the last 11+ years. How many mass gassings has he done since then or how many countries has he invaded? This coming war is not about him killing his own people. It is built on the suspicion that he is amassing weapons of mass destruction. We called the cops (UN) and they have yet to find any evidence of our suspicions. Hopefully in time they will. In answer to your question, if I have a gut feeling that my neighbor is beating his wife, am I justified in busting down the door of his home and beating the daylights out of him? What will the rest of my neighbors think of me if I jump to that kind of conclusion and action?

Rooster, Are there not other countries that have nut case dictators? North Korea comes to mind. Are there not other countries that have been killing their own citizens? North Korea comes to mind. Are there not other countries accused of harboring terrorists? North Korea comes to mind. Are there not other countries actively developing nuclear weapons? North Korea comes to mind. Are there not other countries that make up the "Axis of Evil"? North Korea comes to mind. Are there not other countries with allies that pose an actual physical threat to the US and her allies? North Korea comes to mind. Why are we amassing men and material on the Iraqi borders when they have been effectivley contained for over 11 years and unable to wage war, but North Korea isn't a worry to us at all? Saddam might be able to scrounge up enough scud missle part to lob one or two towards Israel. Kim Jong Il has thousands of missles aimed at South Korea and has missles able to easily reach Japan. He admittedly has one or two nuclear warheads he can deliver to either of these countries. Why is the impotent Saddam a threat and the powerful Jong Il not a threat worthy of sending troops? Here we have a guy with nukes and an itchy trigger finger admitting to what he has and another guy that no one seems to be able or willing to shed any light on just how he is a viable threat to the US. As I said, I won't shed a single tear if either of these guys are gone tomorrow. The world will be a better place without them. I have no problem with the US being the country that knocks them off of their pedestal. I just want some hard, cold evidence to justify our aggression and I'm on board 100%. There are even respected conservative Republicans and decorated Generals asking the same questions.

There is no question that Saddam is a bad bad guy. There is no question that he needs to be replaced. The question I struggle with is what business is it of ours? People compare him to Hitler. There are similarites and there are differences. He is not seeking worldwide domination and he isn't trying to exterminate an entire race from the face of the Earth. Is he ruthless and willing to kill his own people for his own reasons? Yes. Is it the Iraqi people's job to revolt and overthrow him or ours? I don't know. Hitler was a threat to every nation on the planet. Saddam is a direct threat to his neighbors. He is a possible indirect threat to other nations. Control of the vast oil reserves in his country make him more of a threat to the world than his weapons do. Would I shed a tear if he were killed 5 minutes from now? No! My fear is that we need to have irrefutable evidence that he is a threat to the US before we go charging in and overthrow him. If we do it because we are suspicious of him or just don't like him, we are sending a message to every other nation that this kind of aggression is acceptable. The Genie will be out of the bottle. Look at nuclear weapons. We built one and we used one. Under the circumstances, it was the right thing to do. It shortened the length of WWII and thereby saved countless lives. But the end result is that we are now trying to prevent other countries from having what we have because we fear they can't use it in a responsible manner. I share that fear. But again, the genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back in. I do find it interesting that the US is so hep on taking out Saddam and his neighbors....including Israel seem to not be very concerned with him at all. I'll support our troops no matter what. But I'm somewhat with the folks who question the reasoning (or lack thereof) for going to war. This sentiment is shared by liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans alike. Show me a good, hard, valid reason and I'll back it 100%. If the President can't do that, then I have my reservations. Our actions in Afganistan against the Taliban and Al Queda were justified and I support 100%. We had 2 smouldering buildings for all the convincing you needed. I want the same for Iraq.

slont, Yes, Paul ASKS the slaveholder to free his slave because the slave had been sent to attend to Paul during imprisonment. The slave became a Christian and a friend of Paul's, so Paul makes an impassioned plea for the man to be given his freedom. Paul did not tell his benefactor that it was wrong, immoral or a sin to own a slave and therefore as a follower of Christ he must free his slave. Hebasically said, this guy did right by me and I think you should set him free. If you want to charge me for anything he owes you, do it. This scripture passage really has nothing to do with whether slavery is wrong in the eyes of God. In my study, the Bible acknowledges slavery and gives laws for how slaves should be treated, but never says it is wrong. It presents slavery as undesirable for the peron being enslaved and says that God's people should not enslave one another, but that they can enslave people of other lands. Is the world wrong in finding slavery immoral when God recognizes it and lays down specific laws for the treatment of slaves? The Bible does not say, "this is wrong, but since you are going to do it anyway, here is how it should be done". God gave man some laws (divorce as an example) because of the hardness of mens hearts. Right or wrong, he knew they were going to do it anyway, so he gave rules of how it should be handled. This isn't the case with slavery. What say ye, Brothers?

Quixote, Logs....perspective, you're free to think what you want. I'll respectfully disagree. I don't have an axe to grind here. I'm on record in these threads (multiple times) as being in favor of the ban on gays. I'm pulling a Bill O'Reilly (ugh) here. I'm presenting the facts aside from the passionate arguments of both sides of the issue. It isn't unlike the issue of people burning the US flag. There are those citizens that are angry with the US and will burn an American flag in protest. There are those individuals who get blood in their eye when they see it happen. When it eventually ends up before a judge, he has to put aside all of the rhetoric from both sides and look at what the law says. The law says you have freedom of speech and are within your right to do it......regardless of how tasreless it is. I'm NOT arguing in favor of allowing gays in scouting. All I'm saying is that as long as the BSA choses to use the verbiage they have in their policy, they have created a "loophole" that would legally allow an unavowed gay person to remain in scouting. BSA is perfectly within their right to close the loophole if they see fit to do so and probably should. I strongly dislike legalism, but some issues have to boil down to that to get past all of the passion that blinds the debate. As I said earlier, I'm just trying to play fair. We are free to interpret the spirit of the law, but at the end of the day, the letter of the law will come out on top. One other note, I agree that a gay person confiding his sexual orientation to another scouter puts the scouter in a difficult position. If I remember correctly, the scouters that TJ confided in were people he already knew disagreed with the gay ban. I don't think they would necessarily feel they are in a tight spot. But that is a seperate issue from making a avowal of being gay. Another note, "assume" has a definition too. As I pointed out, the UMC policy didn't say anything about a church official being REQUIRED to report a confidence. It provided a warning to the person who is confiding that what they said can not be assumed to be confidential. It might be kept in confidence, it might not. It is up to the person holding the information to decide what to do with it. Like it or not, agree with it or not, those are facts, not opinions. My opinion is that gays should not be in scouting and that the BSA has a right to exclude them.

MK, You mentioned in one of your responses to slavery once being considered moral and over time not being considered moral anymore. Paraphrasing, you also said that morality never changes, just the way we perceive it. Here is a question that I've struggled with in my Christian life for many years and I would like to have my fellow Christians perspective on it. The Bible never declares slavery to be immoral or sinful. The Bible speaks out on a multitude of sins such as murder, stealing, adultry, etc., but not about slavery. It appears to be an accepted practice in both the Old and New Testaments. The only restrictitons God put on slavery were laws for the ethical treatment of slaves. God even told his people that they could take slaves from their surrounding countries. Is the abolishment of slavery a man-made moral or a God made moral? We see no slavery as extremely moral and right. Does God? In His Word, He does not seem to have a problem with it. This isn't a trick question and I'm not trying to hijack the thread off topic. The issue of civil disobedience and what was once considered right being changed and now considered wrong is what brought this to my mind.

(Rant turned on) Oh good grief!!! Is no one reading these posts? Everyone is entitled to their personal opinions, but to try to interpret the meaning of words differently than their definition is just purely dishonest. People are taking TJ to task and saying he is dishonest by being gay and participating in scouting. Yet, to defend their position, they are reading meanings into words that simply do not apply. If you can't defend your argument honestly, don't argue. The word "avow" DOES NOT mean entrusting personal infomation to a friend in confidence. It simply does not. Quit saying it does. Find a better argument. Sheesh!!! Everyone keeps saying that they KNOW what the BSA "really" meant by what they said. That won't stand up in a court of law. Facts, not opinions. As I've pointed out two other times, the BSA used lawyers to determine the language and words they used. They surely knew the meaning of the word as that is what they are paid for. The BSA is within their right to change the wording anyime they want. So far, they have not decided to do that and seem happy with the wording. Darrel Lambert may have had friends who knew he was an atheiest for years and chose not to inform anyone. He made Eagle and was accepted as an adult leader. It was not until he publically declared his atheism that he was taken to task. He became an "avowed" atheist at THAT point. What is it some of you don't understand about the definition of the word avowed. Many many educated, Godly Methodist clergymen and lay people struggled with the same question and came to the same logical conclusion of what avowed means. BSA needs to do the same thing. I agree with the ban on gays and believe that the BSA has every right to exclude gays from scouting. But by their own stated policy, the person must be avowed. (Rant turned off) I don't mean to offend anyone, I just want us to play fair, use facts and not spin issues to our liking.

"cannot be assumed to be private and confidential" Quixote, you conveniently passed over this part in trying to bolster your view. The ruling did not say "wouldn't", it said "cannot be assumed". It did not say that a church official is required to report if told in confidence. It said you cannot assume it will be held in confidence. It is left as a judgement call of the confidant.

Twocub, Since some want to interpret the words "avowed" and "confide" on their own opinion, I started digging a little on Google. It seems that the United Methodists have been wrestling with the meaning of the term "avowed" as well. They do not allow avowed homosexuals to be in the ministry, but they had to determine what avowed meant. Here is what I found in the UMC judicial rulings: http://www.umc.org/judicial/700/764.html On June 17, 1995, the California-Pacific Conference of The United Methodist Church received from a task force created by the Board of Ordained Ministry the following proposed definition of the phrase, "self-avowed practicing homosexual:" A self-avowed practicing homosexual is one who makes it known by affirming publicly that she/he engages in genital sexual behavior with a person of the same gender. "Self-avowed" means a self-initiated, voluntary statement in normal public discourse. "Self-avowed" does not mean a statement in private conversation or in confidence, or a statement under duress or in response to a direct question. Conversations, correspondence, and statements with or to the Bishop, District Superintendents, Board of Ordained Ministry (and its committees and officers), and district Committees on Ordained Ministry (and their committees and officers) cannot be assumed to be private and confidential. "... an adequate definition of "self-avowed" must address the question of to whom the avowal shall be made so that identification is not dependent on the testimony of others." The one "danger" here is if a person tells an official. They then can not ASSUME that it WILL be kept confidential. It is a judgement call by the official whether he makes it public. It does not say the official is required to report it.

Rooster, Are you getting dizzy from all that spinning? You need to have a visit from Bill O'Reilly. Go back and reread the posts and dictionary definitions. The word avow has a definition. The word confide has a definition. You can define it however YOU wish, but that does not make it so. To redefine the word to your purpose or way of thinking is to engage in Clinton's, "it depends on what you understand the meaning if "is" is". As I said before, I'm sure the BSA didn't make their "avowed" statement off the top of their head. I'm willing to bet the farm that a gaggle of lawyers approved the wording of the text and carefully chose the word "avowed" knowing full well what the definition is.

Before I get beat over the head for my response, let me state that I was raised being at church everytime the doors were open. I'm not quite as strict about that as my parents were, but still try to be there 95% of the time. One Sunday a month away from church is not going to kill the kid. Chances are he will be at his church that night and is at church every other Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night as well as at all youth functions. I know for some people that it comes down to priorities and that their religious duty superceeds all else. But the boy needs to realize his commitment to Scouts and other things outside of church as well. He made a commitment when he joined Scouts and needs to follow thru. Perhaps a good way to solve this is to have the Dad take responsibility for providing a church service in camp. It would be a win-win for everyone.

Pack, Funny, your definition of a true conservative just described a lot of "left-wing liberals". You know, the folks who don't want to give the government the right to read your e-mails, peek thru the bedroom door or log all of your credit card receipts. Hey, there are even a few Republicans who feel the same way.

Quixote, And you are trying to make avow mean something the word does not mean. TJ did not avow based on the definition of the word, he confided to friends....some of who happen to be scouters. confide (kn-fd) v. confided, confiding, confides v. tr. 1. To tell (something) in confidence: confided a secret to his friend. 2. To give as a responsibility or put into another's care; entrust: confided the task of drafting the report to her assistant. v. intr. To disclose private matters in confidence: He knew he could confide in his parents. See Synonyms at commit. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Let's ask TJ. TJ, did you avow your homosexuality openly and publically or did you confide in trusted friends?

"I would submit that a truly conservative viewpoint is close to neutral." Pack, have you read any Ann Coulter lately??? She is a conservative sweetheart and her views are anything but neutral. She would have you believe that EVERY liberal or Democrat HATES the US and wants to destroy it. Wouldn't that be kind of like burning your own house down? Where are you going to sleep? There are a heck of a lot of liberals out there who wore a uniform and defended this country in war. Some gave their lives for this country. How can that be hating your country and wanting to destroy it? I think that both the conservative and liberal biased media is fairly neutral. It is the hardcore that nitpicks over perceived slights in the stories. Journalism 101 atill expects you to answer who, what, where, when and how. Most reputable media outlets still expect that standard from their reporters. Without it, people won't buy their papers or watch their show and they'll go out of business. Op-ed on TV is a little different, but usually follows the standard. They don't want to have to come on the next night and retract their statements when they are proven wrong. Some of the talking heads will just try to spin it in their favor instead of admit being wrong.

Twocub, I doubt it would be the end of the conversation. The SE would claim that his personal sexuality had nothing to do with scouting while the gay person's did because of the ban. But personal is personal, especially when it involves sex. What my wife and I do or don't do in the privacy of our bedroom is our own business and no one else's. That should be the standard for everyone. If some one wants to provide the gory details, that is their business. But I'd be more inclined to exclude a scouter that wants to tell everyone about what he did last night......homo or hetero, male or female.

Twocub, What if TJ's response back to the SE was, "I understand that your wife likes this sexual position over this other sexual position....is that right?" What do you think the SE would say? Probably that it was none of his business.......and it wouldn't be, even if it were true.(This message has been edited by kwc57)

Quixote, Were you a Clinton lawyer? The definition is the definition. Reread the definition of avowed. Now, think about when you may have confided a secret to a friend in your life. Were you confiding personal information or publically avowing a stance to the general public? You are changing the definition of avowed for YOUR own purposes. I'm sticking with the black and white clear as a bell definition from the dictionary. For the record (once again), I agree with the ban on homosexuality in scouting. But I play fair. Facts are facts and words have meanings. Avowed means something. The definition can be found in the dictionary. The definition is not determined by what I want it to be. If it doesn't support my argument, then so be it. If the BSA didn't mean avowed, then they need to reword their statement. Fair enough? BTW, "is" means "is". (This message has been edited by kwc57)

"It's nice to see that the same crowd of people who practice moral relativism also subscribe to the Clintonesque practice of redefining words in the english language to suit their arguments. The relevant question is whether tj is an "avowed" homosexual using THE definition of avow, not "A" definition." Quixote, I'm betting that when the BSA put the word "avowed" in their statement, it was done with the advice of a number of attorneys. They knew the definition of avowed and chose to use it instead of another word. No one is redefining the word here. I pulled the definition from the dictionary. Black and white, no interpretation. The definition is the definition. I don't know about your church, but in mine you make a profession of faith publically before the congragation that you have chosen to follow Jesus as your Lord and Savior and then there is a public baptism as a symbol of your death to an old sinful life and rebirth in a new spiritual life. That is an "avowed "Christian. They have taken a public stand openly. An "avowed" homosexual would be a person who publically displays and makes known that they are gay. They would bring their partner to scout meetings as any heterosexual leader might. They would openly discuss their sexuality and make no bones about it. A person who has confided personal information to trusted friends would not be considered an "avowed" anything. What is your definition of "avowed" if you don't like the one in the dictionary?

I think we are comparing apples and oranges here! Let's not confuse op-ed and "news". They both are contained in newpapers and TV news, and both can be informative, but they are two different animals. Even newspapers and TV news are two different animals. TV news is competing not just with other news channels, but with all sports and entertainment channels as well. O'Reilly came along with his confrontational style and people started watching because they enjoy a good fight. That upped the ante and Crossfire (which used to be a pretty good show) had to do something to get audience ratings back. They "updated" the show with alternating hosts, do the show in front of a live audience and have what appears to be contrived arguments at times. They dumbed the show down to compete. But op-ed in newspapers and O'Reilly, Crosfire, Hardball, Hannity and colmes, etc. are all basically political op-ed shows....they are news related, but not really news reporting. I think many people are beginning to think that news has a particular bias based on these opinion shows, rather than actual news reporting like a Walter Cronkite or Chet Huntley did.

mk9750, avow To acknowledge openly, boldly, and unashamedly; confess: avow guilt. To state positively. A criminal and/or a homosexual may very well know their own character, but to be "avowed" means the above definition. The BSA ban is on avowed homosexuals. Yes, you can argue that by them knowing themselves, they should do the right thing and remove themselves because they are not being true to the Oath, but strictly speaking they are in compliance with the BSA policy if they are not avowed.

Ed, I can't answer that question beyond this....a good editorial page will present op-ed pieces from the various viewpoints shared by the public. A paper that only carries liberal or conservative editorials or opinion pieces is doing a dis-service to their community. They need to carry a broad range of views for their readers to be totally informed. Keep in mind that the last presidential election was virtually 50/50 in votes and Congress is virtually 50/50 in membership as well. That speaks volumes about who is in the majority in the US.....no one! We are pretty evenly split politically. It is silly for either side to claim that they speak for the majority.

Eisley, O'Reilly is the king followed closely by Hannity. Begala and Carville are equal to Novak and Carlson in hypocrisy and shrillness. As O'Reilly says, "we report, you decide". I'll decide when I get information, not opinion. I have a mind of my own and I don't need someone else telling me what to think. I watch MSNBC, FOX and CNN everynight.....mostly for entertainment. I long for the good old days when CNN just reported the news instead of all of the fist fight counterpoint shows.