tjhammer

mk9750 -- I appreciate the genuineness in your words. I certainly do not challenge your right to define morality as you choose, nor do I wish to impose myself or my beliefs upon you or your family. Please do not ever hesitate to state your beliefs, or challenge me. I dont want to see the debate squelched at all simply because theres now one of them in the room. And I truly have learned (and hope to continue to learn) about genuine perspectives through open and honest discussion here. Dont stop, and dont be afraid that your words may be insulting to me. I can handle some genuine descent amongst

I recognize that references to my "lifestyle" are well meaning. And I know it can be confusing to find the right term (whatever is PC these days). Personally, I must admit, I don't really know what "lifestyle" you are referring to (you hardly could guess that I have a nice apartment, work far too long and hard at the office and am affixed to the couch for Sunday afternoon football, I cant imagine that you know anything else about my "lifestyle" except likely incorrect assumptions).

Careful acco40, it might be contagious. (btw, sorry for the series of quick posts above, I thought it better to break up the points into smaller posts than just write a long one.)

mk9750 says>>one cannot actively participate in homosexual activity and justify those actions as in alignment with the Scout Oath and LawCan someone elaborate on how I violate the Scout Oath and Law simply by "being an active homosexual" (I am specifically asking for the rationale that explains how my sexuality violates the Oath and Law... oh, and one last request, perhaps you can qualify any explanation without basing it solely on your personal opinion or what your specific religion has taught you?)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

>> tj and others break at least the spirit of the rules by being homosexual It is my opinion, based on a rather thorough understanding of the evolution of the policy, that the "spirit" of the rule is, in fact, inconsistent with both the Movement and the Organization of Scouting. The rule represents a very definite aggression by one BSA sponsor (the Mormon Church, supported to a lesser degree by various other sponsors) to legislate their morality, and their interpretation of God's will, onto me and the BSA. It is very much the goal of those behind this policy to homogenize (no pun in

>your choices in your sexual life and the consequences >thereof are between you and God Thank you ScoutParent, for being kind enough to leave this issue between me and my God... if you would only practice what you preach, we wouldn't have any disagreement.

>I applaud your honesty & courage in your post I would say my anonymous post is not so courageous, and I did not share this information to be honest. Had I made a similar announcement before posting for the past year, my arguments would have been skewed by perceptions. Otherwise, I don't really seek validation of any kind, however, I do accept your remark as well meaning.

I have often criticized the policy as "vague, unevenly enforced and disingenuous". Now you get to see a personal example of that. The policy does not define to whom or how I must "avow" my sexuality. The only definition that has ever been offered can be found in the text of the Supreme Court Case, which essentially stated the position as "don't advocate against the BSA opinion in front of Scouts". I can assure you, I am not "avowed" by that definition. Who exactly am I allowed to "avow" to (is that a verb?), without risking banishment? Can I avow my sexuality to the person I have b

I'm eager to more fully explain myself and answer your questions, but first a question back... Would you care to explain how I (or most of the dozen or so others that I mentioned) violate a BSA policy?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

We're coming up on the one year anniversary of my joining the discussion on this forum ("cake for everyone!"). It's been inspiring to watch the "family" of Scouters (regular contributors) share so much insight and information with each other. It's been particularly interesting for me to view the debates on so many different issues (and many of the same issues over and again). My entire life (well, at least since I was 7) has been centered on Scouting, and my experience and contribution has spanned every level of the program (from local to regional and national, even to international). Sco

Relevant case: On October 17, 2000, Leonard Lanzi, Council Scout Executive of Santa Barbara Council, stood before the County Board of Commissioners. He was called there to to defend why the BSA should continue to receive "preferential" treatment from the county, despite it's gay ban, which was contrary to the County's stated positions. Council Scout Executive Leo Lanzi stated that he deeply believed in the BSA, and would not work for them if he was "not certain that they save lives". He also added that while he was a private person, he himself was a gay man. He stated this he said "because he

Actually, Barney Frank is not the only gay member of Congress. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) are both openly gay, and as someone who has had many close friends inside the Hill, I can tell you that these three are hardly the only gays serving in Congress, they are just the only ones doing so in the public.

TJ, I have a difficult time staying angry at a man who uses logic and honestly appears to be seeking common ground.I'll accept that as a compliment, since I do make an effort to always use logic and reason in my posts, and as little emotion or opinion as I can muster.However, I also feel that you don't portray Christianity fairly.Certainly more fairly than you portray gays. My posts are about fundamentalist Christians, and specifically even about some very well known and celebrated fundamentalist Christian leaders. I can clearly see the distinction between this radical group (which I feel is a

Falwell to Robertson's agreement: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Falwell said he believes the ACLU and other organizations "which have attempted to secularize America, have removed our nation from its relationship with Christ on which it was founded." Sound familiar?Falwell continues: "I therefore

(And lest this debate be dismissed as irrelevant, keep in mind one of my most consistent observations on this board is a fear that the BSA is evolving under the control of far right-wing Christianity, and increasingly self-identifying as a "faith-based organization"... my point in this thread stays true to form and is just intended as a case for all of us to question whether this is who we want our organization to become.)

The article doesn't seem to be suggesting a moral equivalency (nor am I) between the actions of any fanatics. There is none. Let's not take this debate in the direction of "yeah, but look how bad the radical terrorist are".... of course they are nut jobs, and it would be far too easy to dismiss the point of this article by shifting the focus of the debate in that direction. Most (all?) of us would obviously agree that fundamentalist Islam is more threatening in the world than fundamentalist Christianity (at least today)... but isn't it utterly ridiculous that ANY case can be made for that

Below is an interesting article I read in Newsweek International Edition (Dec 9 edition, by Carla Power) while flying overseas last week. I post it here as a spinoff of the "Rev" Fred Phelps thread... I think the article makes a more articulate statement than I have done: The Age of Fundamentalism Fundamentalists of all religions have a lot in common The holy warrior speaks simply and directly, cleaving the world neatly in two. "This is a religious struggle, a clash of cultures," he intones. Luckily, God is on the right side, having "put a hedge of protection around us."

ScoutParent -- for the record, I'm actually in full support of "Rev" Phelps (or Falwell or Robertson or anyone) freedom of speech... in fact, I wish they got more media coverage and exposure. The more that these guys "speak up", the more that most Christians realize how little they relate to this point of view and attitudes change. Frankly, I've seen this in a microcosm on this discussion board... over the months I have increasingly found it more difficult to relate to the positions taken by the "ultra religions" (forgive me for the label) members of our little group, and they have done more t

OGE, I agree... these acts are not representative of much more than a miniscule sampling of Christians... and while most would find "Rev" Phelps actions to be an aberration, how different are his beliefs from much more mainstream Christian leaders like Falwell and Robertson... true enough, for the most part Falwell and Robertson and others are a bit more savvy and controlled, and only rarely do they slip up and allow their true opinions to be "known" as they did after Sept 11 (only later to quickly back away from the remarks). I suppose that I'm more concerned with the mass of silent followers

Of course... we've discussed "Rev" Fred Phelps and his family church on this board before (literally, most of the members of his following are related to him)... you can count on him to show up and protest at the funeral of any gay person (the signs mentioned in this article are very mild by comparison). I think the last time we discussed him on this board was in the days of DedDad... Phelps uses the bible to justify his radical commentary... frankly, it's not at all a different position from many others on this board, just more distastefully presented. Lest you consider him too far out of the

We went to the moon? ;-)

Cubs --- that's not just LittleBillie's position, that's the official position of the BSA... for example, they don't ban homosexual Scouts and leaders if they are "closeted", and in the Lambert case, it seems the BSA was perfectly fine with him being an atheist, just as long as he lied to Scouting and said he wasn't. The BSA's official policy on homosexuals is that they must either be "avowed" (or they also have a policy which bans heterosexuals who "avow" that homosexuality is not immoral... the litmus test that BSA established for the term "avowed" is quite simple (and it's everywhere

BobWhite -- actually, I think you and I may be closer to an agreement than you think. 1) Note that in my post I consistently said the "purpose of Scouting", not the "purpose of the BSA", as you have done. This is an important point to me, because my only criticisms of the BSA are when it deviates from Scouting. (I'm much more in love with the "movement" of Scouting, the glorious game created by B-P, than I am the organization of BSA Inc. that operates the Scouting program here in the USA. I think you already recognize the distinction between BSA and Scouting, because I note you are often

Very astute observation, NJ... it is peculiar that the BSA believes you can become "unAtheist" but can't become "unGay"... of course, you and I recognize that being gay has more to do with the way God made you than any choice you make, and apparently BSA's logic, in a twisted sort of way, acknowledges this.

If the purpose of the program were to be a swimmer, and you absolutely refused to get in the water, then there is no point in you being in the program.BobWhite, I do understand your point. I also commend you on a very lucid explanation of it. Here's where we disagree: the "purpose of the [scouting] program" is not to be a faith-based organization. Scouting's purpose is to build citizens of good character and leadership. Among the many methods we utilize to accomplish that purpose is teaching a Scout his Duty to God. This comes back to my previous question about when the BSA became a