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 bi

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 withou

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

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 reas

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

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 Tor

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 wheth

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 prof

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 h

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 bu

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, homo

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, homo

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 proble

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 woul

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.