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 th

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 certai

"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

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 thre

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 thr

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 wh

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 ev

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

(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 sayi

"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 Ministr

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 ap

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 com

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. S

"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

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

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 som

"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 fr

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 ra

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.

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.