vol_scouter

jblake47, Eleven of the original thirteen colonies had state sponsored religions when the constitution was ratified. The religious freedom clauses in the First Amendment was written to assure the states that the states could choose which state sponsored religion that they wished. The federal government was prohibited from establishing a federal government sponsored religion. The states had state sponsored religions for many years following the ratification of the constitution. Following the civil war, many laws were essentially federalized by the 14th (I believe) amendment. The bill of rights was written to ensure our freedoms, among those are the free exercise of religion - which the ACLU is against in public. They do not defend Christians wishing to freely express their religion in public venues though they may do that for other religions. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press was lumped into one amendment but the second amendment only discusses the right to keep and bear arms. It was clearly written as an individual right by the writings of the founding fathers and early cases and laws as discussed in the Heller case. The individual right to keep and bear arms is the most important of our rights. The ACLU knows these things as well and chooses to ignore the truth in favor of a left wing agenda. It is one thing for someone on this list to make an analogy between a catering business and the BSA. It is another for attorneys sworn to uphold state or federal laws to say that the BSA in a public accommodation (not an analogy but that it IS a public accommodation). The ACLU has a left wing agenda and does NOT defend all civil rights.

Calico, There are many more references than 3. As to interpretation because of politics, the politics are coming from those who do not like hundreds of years of scholars.

If the knife is closed, definitely not for either. Every once in a while, my knife falls out of my pocket as I am getting something else out. For younger boys, dropping items out of a pocket is far from rare. As to leaving it on a table, merely warn him to care for his knife.

So when did the ACLU ever defend the Second Amendment? When did it ever come to the defense of people expressing their religious rights in public? The case above is about whether the zoning laws allow a house to be a place of worship. Most would have no problem with a few people meeting at a house once a week for bible study or a similar exercise of religious freedom. he question is whether your neighbor can take a residential zoned house and turn it into a church - do you really support the idea that your next door neighbor can have an actual church? Obviously a difficult question without a simple answer. I applaud the ACLU for defending Rush who was persecuted for his political beliefs. I said that not all suits were leftist. At the same time, it is the ACLU that has persecuted the BSA over homosexuality. They are the ones to say that the BSA was a public accommodation like a bus! They do not defend all of our liberties - only the ones that liberals like.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin who was a communist and hoped that the ACLU would move the USA toward communism. They only defend the establishment clause of the First Amendment not the free exercise clause. When have they defended a citizen from a government illegally forcing them to give up their arms? They are a liberal rights organization not a civil rights organization. They only take the left's side of issues. That might be the right side in some cases but not in all by any means.

To clarify: In the Dale case, it was contended that the Boy Scouts were a public accommodation - i.e. like a bus as was argued in the case. This tortured logic was overturned by the Supreme Court. As to scouts being denied access to public facilities, boy scout groups were being routinely denied access to schools fro recruiting even though other youth groups had access. The congress passed a law that President Bush signed outlawing that practice but it still occurs. So boy scouts have been denied equal access. Once again, read a scholarly book by Gagnon on the biblical stance on homosexuality. He goes back to original sources in the original languages and examines the passages in the context of the time the passage was written. There is no biblical acceptance of homosexuality. He is very clear. It may be that those who feel that it is unclear are actually saying that they do not agree with the bible and wish to interpret in their own way. That is dangerous because then the bible stands for nothing because anyone can reject those things that they do not like.

Calico, I am conservative and I have always felt that was a silly excuse to surrender our rights over. So I am with you on this. On the other hand, Obama wants a 'homeland' police force with capabilities equal to that of the US military. DHS is watching groups that disagree with Obama's policies even though their views are not extreme. Does that not give people pause to consider what might be happening. For those of you on the left, if the reasons to watch you were liberal causes and a conservative were to be in office, you would be suspicious and alarmed - with good reason. Intelligent, reasoned, well educated, and well read people have conservative views. To target then for those views while starting a homeland security service equal to the US military which is being dramatically defunded is certainly alarming.

Hal, You are doing the same thing. Try reading the book before dismissing it. Maybe he has published more because he has been attacked. Maybe he is right and others do not like the conclusions. Just maybe the attacks have been vicious. Maybe others are wrong and don't want to face it. Maybe they react angrily when others disagree with them. If homosexuality is deemed by a religious group to not be wrong, then why should adultery be wrong? A lot of people engage in adultery. These views are old fashioned. We are more enlightened now. Also, men with additional Y chromosomes are more prone to murder. A clear genetic relationship. So for these people, we should not tell them that murder is wrong because they possess a genetic proclivity that they feel that they should act upon. If some of the Bible is tossed aside, what is to be kept? Who decides? So we are wiser than G_d? As much as I disagree with Merlyn, his belief system makes more sense than picking and choosing what is to be taken seriously in the Bible and what is to be ignored. That elevates man to G_d which is clearly wrong. Just because Gagnon has not changed his position to agree with yours does not make him wrong. If he believes that this is important and wishes to make others aware, does not make his work suspicious. To say something like that would be to say that you disagree with an Egyptologist because they publish primarily about Egyptology and some others do not agree with the conclusions. Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford, and many others were not considered right by others but were ultimately found to be so. You have not provided an argument but merely said that you reject the argument because you do not like the conclusion.

There is no doubt about the Bible's stance on homosexuality. See the scholarly work: "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" by Robert A. J. Gagnon. Gagnon reviews all references to homosexuality in the Bible and analyzes the verses. He also reviews the historical setting for the passage to put the issue in the proper context. He is an academic and the book is difficult but the conclusions are clear - homosexuality is wrong throughout the Bible. Sects who interpret the meaning differently are simply not right. Don't take my word, read Gagnon's book.

I just saw the cover of Newsweek - the culture wars are likely to become more contentious rather than cool down. Judges using tortured logic to require homosexual marriage and legislatures defying the will of the majority of the citizens cannot continue without a backlash. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is interpreted only along the lines of the non-establishment clause while the free exercise clause is trampled. These are issues that will not change easily and there will be much gnashing of teeth as minorities continue to dictate what the values of the majority will be.

Hal, You might be turning in your membership card. Many see the BSA as one of the few institutions standing up for its values in the culture war. There are many who participate in FOS because of the perceived leading role that the BSA is playing. It is not fair to equate these people with the KKK. Segregation has no true Biblical basis though some made tortured arguments to attempt to justify. Most people realized that the arguments were false. Homosexuality is a different issue. The Bible is clear on the issue. So for a Jew or Christian who believe in the teachings of the Torah or Bible, homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, they cannot support acceptance of homosexuality. Tolerance could be considered required at the same time for Christians which is clearly the state of the majority. It is unfortunate for the BSA that it has been placed in the center of the culture war. The result has been that homosexual groups are determined to force the BSA to change or be destroyed which has made others who are the largest supporters of the BSA more determined that there will be no changes. My region is clearly on the conservative side of the culture war. If the BSA were to make a change in their stance, the result would be devastating. If a change to local control was seen to be bowing to those pressures, the result would likely be devastating. Many scouters would leave as well as charter organizations terminating the charters.

It was not just the south that had different camps or a separate week for 'colored' scouts. Segregation was codified in the south but practiced in much of the country. I was a youth in scouting in the south during the sixties. I heard comments about not wanting to have to 'mingle' with black scouts but I do not recall many saying that they will leave over integration. I started in boy scouts in 1964 and I saw black scouts throughout my career. So some of the issue could have already been worked out by that time. The black scouts that I saw were in largely black troops. As to whether acceptance of homosexuality will parallel that of integration, I think not. People in the south had a difficult time justifying segregation with Christian ethics. Homosexuality is a different situation. There is no Biblical support for the acceptance of homosexuality. If you doubt that assertion, I refer you to the scholarly text "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" by Robert A. J. Gagnon who is a scholar. The book is difficult reading but the last chapter is a nice summary. So people have a fundamental reason to reject homosexuality. As I said, I have many donors in my FOS list that give to the BSA only because it does not allow homosexual scouts or scouters. Many of the churches who sponsor troops would dump scouting overnight. My guess is if the governments and the courts continue to push homosexual issues despite the lack of public support, the people will revolt by electing much different officials or more likely there will be gnashing of teeth but no real change. I predict that the BSA will try to avoid the issue as long as possible. Gradually change to some sort of local control and too finally succumb when there is little risk.

The sad thing is that the BSA will pay a terrible price no matter what it does. As more Americans are accepting of homosexual marriage, BSA will be marginalized by those who disagree with its' stance. If the BSA changes its' stance, there will be a mass exodus in some regions. The major reason that most on my FOS list give is because of the current BSA stance. After the Dale decision, I lost one FOS but gained 2 and most increased their giving. If the BSA changes its' stance, those donors will cease to give.

Gern, I think that it more a reflection of the times rather than what is good or bad to some group. When most (though not all) state constitutions were written, it was unthinkable for two homosexuals admit it publicly. The thought of homosexual marriage was essentially inconceivable so the constitutions were not written with that in mind. I agree that the laws ought to be interpreted as the writers intended to the best of the court's ability. Such issues as these should be decided by the voters.

I think that everyone on this board support the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. That right was delineated to be certain that the people have a guarunteed right to criticize their government. That is the purpose. We tend to want to extend the concept to other situations which is a good thing. However, as the scout himself points out, this is a private board that can control what is posted. I am against censorship in the public realm but at the same time support the controls placed on the users of this board. Just as the BSA would nopt support maintaining a scout or scouter who used profuse profanity, consistently insulted others, and/or made threatening remarks. We should fight to keep our freedom of speech but we should also fight to keep the right of free association which implies the ability of organizations to have standards. I do not know what this poster said but others were obviously quite disturbed. Even though curious as to the details, that is enough for me. There is considerable latitude in the issues and politics section as to views expressed as long as the postings keep to the Scout Oath and Law. That is appropriate as well. Arguments do not have to be foul to be effective. In general, the more name calling and insults from a poster correlate with weaker arguments that are losing the debate. So keep these forums clean and reasonably respectful to others.

The problem with threads such as this is that those of us who did not encounter the poster under discussion are curious as to what happened. It is similar to joining a conversation where someone is being discussed but when you inquire as to whom they are referring, you are told that the discussion is over. So I just need to not miss a day reading the forum!! Good scouting to all.

horizon, I do not know about the other denominations but I am a Methodist and I can say that the church is not likely to change its' position. The Methodist church has a conference every few years where the liberal older more powerful ministers push the issue. The younger ministers are afraid of retribution and remain silent. However, unlike many churches, the governing conference for Methodists has a vote of the clergy and a vote of the laity. The lay members, despite ministers trying to pick the delegates, have always been overwhelmingly opposed to defying the bible and making homosexuality 'OK'. So I doubt that the Methodist church will change anytime soon. My other point is that even if churches change their stance, it does not make it right. If one is Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, the Bible and Koran are very clear in condemning homosexuality. So that makes churches that accept homosexual behavior apostate. The Episcopal church did that with the result that it has lost a large number of members and the Anglican church is growing rapidly. Too often it is a vocal minority who want such changes not the majority. As to the original thread, I share some of your feelings though in a different direction. I believe that we should better enforce the other points in the law. The BSA has interpreted the requirements as they wish and have the right to do so. However, I have a problem with seeing and obviously unfit boy obtaining Eagle or a boy who brags at meetings about smoking, drinking, and sex. It is sometimes difficult in the second case in our legalistic society to deny advancement but none the less, I think that it should be better enforced. As to the BSA enforcing the openly homosexual ban because the largest member groups have that belief, that is just a form of democracy. I live in the south which has a lot of scouts. If the BSA were to change its stance, many churches would drop their charter almost immediately and many board members would resign. Homosexuality does occur in all cultures and in that in could be considered part of the diversity of people. However, it is not natural in the since that it does not lead to procreation. Also, it is for male homosexuals an unhealthy lifestyle. There are many health problems related to homosexual lifestyles that predate AIDS.

Gern and OGE make some good points. For most of us the world is rather clear cut as young people but becomes more grey with each passing year. We have passionate arguments over conservative versus liberal approaches and unfettered capitalism versus socialism or communism. I have been fortunate to see some of the world and will probably see more of it in the future with my position. I am well educated with a BS, MS, MD, and PhD. Yet, the world seems to be less clear as I age. I am a conservative with many liberal friends. We disagree greatly on the way to solve our countries' problems but we agree on fundamental things: We wish to be able to be free to raise our children and provide a reasonable life for our children. We want peace and security. All wish that their children will have a 'better' life and will be able to find peace and happiness. We wish that our fellow man also can find peace and happiness as well as some prosperity. As we argue about the direction of our country, I feel certain that sitting around a campfire late at night watching the embers die talking in person to our fellow arguers here, that we would have more in common than in difference. May our country and us do well.

Whoooops! I mis-stated the last sentence of my post which should read: Sexual abuse of children who have gone through puberty is NOT pedophilia. Sorry for any confusion.

Please all, do not confuse pedophiles with homosexuals. The homosexual movement in this country has done a good job in confusing the public. Pedophiles are only interested in pre-pubertal children and the abuse is typically heterosexual in nature. So a male pedophile will prey upon a pre-pubertal child most likely female. Homosexuals are the ones who abuse children of the same sex unless the crime is one of control (power or authority). Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between a crime of homosexual lust versus one of heterosexual control. From my reading, homosexuals are much more likely to abuse children of their same sex just as heterosexuals are much more likely to abuse children of the opposite sex. It amazes me how reasonable adults will agree that it is not wise for 2 heterosexual males to take a group of older girls camping but so no problem in letting 2 homosexual males take a group of older boys camping. Sexual abuse of children who have not gone through puberty is NOT pedophilia.

Please all, do not confuse pedophiles with homosexuals. The homosexual movement in this country has done a good job in confusing the public. Pedophiles are only interested in pre-pubertal children and the abuse is typically heterosexual in nature. So a male pedophile will prey upon a pre-pubertal child most likely female. Homosexuals are the ones who abuse children of the same sex unless the crime is one of control (power or authority). Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between a crime of homosexual lust versus one of heterosexual control. From my reading, homosexuals are much more likely to abuse children of their same sex just as heterosexuals are much more likely to abuse children of the opposite sex. It amazes me how reasonable adults will agree that it is not wise for 2 heterosexual males to take a group of older girls camping but so no problem in letting 2 homosexual males take a group of older boys camping. Sexual abuse of children who have gone through puberty is NOT pedophilia.

We seem to be in the apathy to dependence state. It is great to be optimistic and despite some of my concerns, I have an unfounded optimism. My optimism is that having history at our fingertips and with forums such as this, the country will wake up to its' decline and change direction before we take that final step. It seems to me that liberals and conservatives in this country at this juncture have fundamentally different visions that are not really reconcilable. Liberals see government as the answer to problems whereas conservatives see government as the largest cause of those problems. Those are diametrically opposed views. On top of that set of problems, the country is reeling from the baby-boom generation, of which I am a part, that has proven to be the most ego-centric, selfish, cruel, and foolish generation in the history of this country. The baby-boomers may almost single-handedly destroy this country. We will leave a legacy that I wish I was not a part.

Liberals claim to be for freedom of speech but I have often seen comments like the title of this thread where they want to suppress speech. After Bush beat Gore, liberals were vocal about not liking him or his policies. They called him names and made cruel jokes. Now with Obama, conservatives are supposed to be nice and not be critical. Criticizing Bush was patriotic but criticizing Obama is not OK. Liberals do not support freedom of speech unless it reflects their values. Bush was definitely not a conservative. Had the democrats offered even a half way decent candidate, many of us would have considered voting for the democrat. Defending Bush by criticizing Clinton is bogus as is defending Obama by criticizing Bush.

Obama is spending our money for us. The democrat party always feels that they know how to spend our money better than we do.

I have left the medical profession before it is destroyed. I am now writing my representatives on a regular basis which I have never done before. We are considering closing all 401k plans before they are taken over by the socialist regime. As to whining, conservatives are reacting to a socialist takeover. Whining is what liberals did when Bush won.