Dedicated Dad

Not that this topic has much of ANYTHING to do with scouting issues. I think public opinion v. religion v. BSA has a connection. The ACLU is not pro Scouts either. Its close enough for government work.

Now that this thread has run its course, I think its very interesting that there is an extremely high percentage of Scouters that dont public school.

The case wasn't about a public forum where anyone could put up signs; if it was, atheists would be able to erect a sign that says "gods are myths". Theres precedent that there is, Tiernans counter-monument in Colorado. What was the result of that action? This was about the government deciding to put up a sign that starts with "thou shalt have no other gods before me". The government has no business telling its citizens which gods to believe in, if any. Given your attitude, the local government would have to power to promote whatever religions they felt like promoting, which is why ACLU lawsuits like this are needed in the first place. The state does not endorse a religion when it enacts neutral policies that happen to benefit a religion, the neutrality lies in the Ten Commandments history in establishing our law. The test of an endorsement of religion is determined by looking at the act through the eyes of a reasonable person, if the Ten Commandments were used for the basis of our law how would you find this as an endorsement? Our laws came from the Ten Commandments not the nine commandments. Cert. denied does not set precedent nor does one Circuit precedent make a universal mandate for all Circuits. In the near future, this will certainly be brought again when the SCOUTS retires half its bench.

Eagle ranks awarded

Erik Lindman, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Lindman, and Brian Newton, the son of Mr. and Mrs. David Newton, both of Kenmore, recently received the Boy Scouts' highest rank at an Eagle Court of Honor held at the United Methodist Church of Bothell. They advanced from Tiger Cubs on to Boy Scouts to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout.

Lindman chose to construct and install bird habitats at Locust Creek Park in Brier to encourage more birds to become residents.

Newton led a project for the city of Bothell at Blyth Park. He outlined the history of events that have taken place in the city, using the growth rings of an old tree and a narrative plaque.

Lindman and Newton will continue with Troop 420 as volunteers.

http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/83856

Hammurabi Code??? Im not familiar with this OGE, do you have a link? What is the basis for suit?

NJ gays choose to be gay, so they get no protection. From my other posts, it is obvious that I do not agree with that, but that is not the point. So you don't have to say it. We know. Just wondering what you base that on? Anything in particular? Gut feeling, anecdotal evidence, scientific evidence, what? It would appear that your position is based on consensus, if so, how did everyone else in that consensus arrive at his or her position? The trouble is that many gays admittedly agree that it is behavior and simply choose it because they want to for a variety of reasons, some too offensive to post here. The question is, how can there exist hundreds of thousands of people who have left the practice, how can that not be proof of choice? Youre welcome to hold your own personal beliefs just as those in the flat earth society are welcome to their beliefs, Im just sure you can justify your position better than just ignoring the truth.

Sorry in advance OGE and I dont mean to break protocol, but for what reason are you holding your poll?

To me, this forum is THE MOST IMPORTANT thread on the Scouter Forum site. It's these issues that are fundamental to the program. If we truly believe that BSA is more about building character than campfires, Roo, I agree with you 100%, and it would seem that we are in agreement on nearly everything else. I hope you enjoy your sabbatical and look forward to your return. Your style of debate is considered, by some, much more scoutlike than mine as some have eluded too, and Im glad youve been able to express your views with the kind of passion you feel comfortable in conveying your message. For me, on those subjects the others may as well be advocating pedophilia, its the same to me and worthy of my highest condemnation, your tolerance is different than mine. Anyway, hurry back! B RGDS

It is the religions of Judaism and Christianity Thanks mom for pointing out my incomplete thought. My point was that religious ideology does not make a religion or establish such. The name of the religion is not the Ten Commandment religion and the monument is not its place of worship. Nor is In God We Trust an establishment of religion and the coin its manual. is there a religion wanting to post a similar type of important creed, that is being denied the right to put it on a monument. That is irrelevant because its up to the local legislature to make the decision of what it wants on its public grounds.

Good question OGE, the monument was originally donated by a private organization and then removed because of vandalization in 1991. I would see replacement as maintenance to the original monument. If monuments are donated and then approved by the local legislature I would think its the states/city responsibility to maintain it.

the government would still be using part of its land for this arguably religious purpose. NC, how is this an establishment, that is my question. What religion is it, the religion of the Ten Commandants? Is the monument in effect the Church? Does this monument meet the standards used to recognize an organized religion?

It is also against the United Nations Human

Rights to descriminate on sexual orientation.

What is happening here??? Ummm what are you talking about?

If the U.N. subcommittee granted NGO status to the Family Research Council and not the International Gay and Lesbian Association (IGLA), how can you say the U.N. supports homosexuality? Further, can you please specifically point out where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exists a clause for the behavior of homosexuality?

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Your system cannot prove any behavior to be moral or immoral. Proof by congruence. Unbelievable! Just where do you think these churches stood in 1910? Do you think for one second that they would have made these proclamations back then? The answer is obvious. Just like it is obvious where the founders of BSA stood in 1910. Proof by preponderance. Bump!

Its a sad day for America, our right to freedom of speech has just been ignored by our SCOTUS. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Public property use cannot prohibit free speech, period. Signs, monuments and symbols are free speech and protected under the freedom of speech clause. Religious speech cannot be restricted from public property, as it would violate the free exercise clause. Someone please explain how this is establishment of religion, what would be the name of the States religion if the Ten Commandments were posted?

Supreme Court won't test constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument on statehouse grounds

ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer Monday, February 25, 2002

Breaking News Sections

(02-25) 08:05 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into the explosive church-state debate over whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on government grounds.

The court did not comment in refusing to hear an appeal from Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon, who wanted to erect a 7-foot stone monument on the statehouse grounds in Indianapolis. O'Bannon said the Ten Commandments represent tenets of American law as much as religious teachings, and he asked the court to overturn rulings that prevented the monument from going up.

The court's action leaves in place a hodgepodge of conflicting court rulings across the country that allow the Ten Commandments' display in some instances but not in others.

It was the second time in less than a year that the court had sidestepped the Ten Commandments issue.

The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar proscriptions on stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses.

The Constitution bars any state "establishment" of religion. That means the government cannot promote religion in general, or favor one faith over another. The Constitution also protects the freedom to worship.

Last May, the court divided bitterly over whether to hear another case testing whether a different Ten Commandments monument could be displayed outside a civic building. The court opted not to hear the case, but the three most conservative justices took the rare step of announcing that they would have agreed to hear it.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas then did something even more unusual. They staked a position on a case that was not even pending, by saying they found nothing wrong with the monument's display.

The monument "simply reflects the Ten Commandments' role in the development of our legal system," Rehnquist wrote for the three.

The monument then at issue had a secular as well as a religious purpose, Rehnquist wrote. By displaying the monument outside the building housing local courts and prosecutors, city leaders in Elkhart, Ind., sought to reflect the cultural, historical and legal significance of the commandments, Rehnquist wrote.

"Indeed, a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, surrounded by representations of other historical legal figures, adorns the frieze on the south wall of our courtroom," he added. The carving "signals respect not for great proselytizers but for great lawgivers."

Justice John Paul Stevens, on the opposite ideological end of the court, laid his own cards on the table with a scolding reply. The words "I am the Lord thy God," in the first line of the monument's inscription are "rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference," Stevens wrote then.

It takes the votes of at least four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case. Rehnquist's dissent had the effect of revealing the ordinarily secret vote -- 6-3 against hearing the earlier case.

In the current case, lawyers for Indiana echoed Rehnquist's dissent in arguing that the proposed statehouse monument is meant to memorialize the role the commandments have played in the American legal system.

The state posed a broad question for the court that could have set the court up for a ruling on all government display of the commandments -- whether as an outdoor monument or inside buildings such as courthouses.

O'Bannon wanted the donated monument to replace one that was defaced by a vandal. The Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued, and lower federal courts blocked the installation on grounds that it promoted a religious purpose.

"To deem the Ten Commandments inappropriate for a government historical display simply because it has both religious and historical import is to insist on inaccurate and incomplete public displays of history," the state appeal said.

The original, vandalized Ten Commandments monument was one of scores donated nationwide by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles in the 1950s. Many of the recent court fights over the commandments have concerned these monuments.

The Supreme Court also declined a 1996 invitation to hear a case involving an Eagles monument near the Colorado state Capitol, meaning that monument could stay.

Federal appeals courts have reached opposite conclusions about whether the monuments are constitutional.

The case is O'Bannon v. Indiana Civil Liberties Union, 01-966.

There is no burden on me to prove gays are moral. The BSA and you are making a claim, I'm simply challenging whether you can prove that claim. tj, that doesnt make any sense and youve got it backwards. The BSA has not made a claim or needs to; they have simply taken a position to which you disagree. The burden is on you to make a claim, or a declaration to challenge their position. I would think your best way to challenge is through proof of morality. No one has proven that gays are immoral. Thats not true, Ive demonstrated three ways that BSAs position is valid.By definition. By congruence. By preponderance of the founders state of mind when the policy was written. We have asked on many, many occasions for a source that defines it as such. This source that you require, it would seem you have become obsessed in finding it. Its like(this is an analogy not a reference to religion) you need for someone to prove the existence of God through some kind of objective or tangible evidence. What specifically is an acceptable source for you to consider as proof? Where does it exist? Does it exist? How must it be conveyed to you? There is no possible way for the BSA to maintain a universal position if they (or you) can't back up their definition. I reiterate, there is no need for the BSA to have a universal position, the burden is on you to demonstrate their err. (DedDad, in case you are wondering, I think that is the question that everyone means you still have not answered; explain your leap that gay = perverted and perverted = immoral.) Are we back to this again? I wrote out a rather simple flow chart on page 6, and should you have anything specific to question Ill be happy to explain. Otherwise repeating the word leap over and over without any particular reference is rather ludicrous and unworthy of response.

DedDad asks: tj, are you homosexual?

tjhmmer complains:I really shouldn't dignify your question with any response, but...

Why do you ask? Hoping to "discredit" me by further identifying my "agenda" or attaching a stereotype?

What right do you have to ask me or anyone else that question? Even the BSA does not claim that right.

Do you "suspect" everyone that fails to believe gays are immoral or has gay friends are really gay themselves?

Simplicity, ala McCarthy Commission. Wow, playing the McCarthyism card over a question about something you consider to be moral? That doesnt make any sense unless you hold homosexuality in relation to communism. My reason for asking was based on your comment about knowing multiple unavowed homosexuals in Scouting. If they are unavowed they have not openly declared their status, it would only follow that if you were homosexual you would know, dont they call that gay radar or gaydar? And yes, Ill be honest, I do think if you were gay that would explain a certain agenda right or wrong. You really shouldnt be ashamed or embarrassed to declare your sexuality either way if you truly believe in your cause, logically thats non sequitur. So anyway, inquiring minds still want to know, are you gay?

Sorry OGE, I thought it necessary to reply. Ill take it to page 8.BTW none

when they get to the Gate of Judgment and learn to their dismay that God made 2 to 5 percent of his children gays and lesbians as a test for the rest of us, Gees, I hope Im not wrong about the 2-5% of His incestual and bestial children who test us as well. Like tjhmmmer said, theirs no proof for them either. Go figure?

never intended to give up the moral principles on which they were founded in order to accommodate Big bump to that Roo!

I quoted you fully, so that I won't be accused of taking your statement out of context, etc. Thank you so much, thats more than some have the integrity to do. leads me to conclude that the examples given by ScouterPaul do not involve "physical usually leading to by your definitive definition, must be perverse. No, I disagree. 1. Condom use does not change the act, if you think so please explain in detail. 2. Coitus Interruptus cannot occur without the coitus first, if you disagree please explain how the usually clause is not involved. Now would you answer my question? How are any of Pauls practices habitual and preferred over coitus when coitus is involved? Regardless of how any may twist and turn these definitions, Ill take that as being directed to me, would you mind citing my twists? maybe you can explain to us by what policy BSA has turned over to Merriam-Webster Online the setting of scout policy. Bob, as a lawyer surely you should know that words have real definitions and meanings that cant depend on what my personal definition of what the word is is. Without any way to define words, no policy can exist, the BSAs, yours, who ever, or mine. You tell me if your Blacks dictionary doesnt give you the definitions you can rely on to make your case and Ill contend youre making up your own law, in mean local option. I will say that at least I can find Merriam-Webster Online, which is more than I can say for the BSA policy regarding homosexuality. Still waiting for some guidance there. Asked and Answered Bob, its in the Oath and Law.

I have a question for you. Don't worry, it is not about whether you know any gays or whether you had any disturbing childhood experiences. Oh, is this the question mom was worried that Id not addressed. I actually have in other posts and since tj had claimed to have read all my posts I didnt see the need. I have three family members who are practicing homosexuals, not all in the immediate family, and I love them regardless of their perversion. My uncle broke up his family with four children after 16 years of marriage, my wifes father broke up her family of two after 8 years of marriage***hes now dead from AIDS and one of the very first to die from that totally preventable disease, and a sister in law. Additionally two close friends growing up, several associates at my former work and one who is repaired from his perversion. All Ive treated with respect and compassion, including prayer, though never respecting their evil choice of behavior. Has anybody ever received a termination letter from national or a council, banning them from all units (as James Dale received) for being too friendly with animals or adult relatives? I do not know. Is there, anywhere, any suggestion that these behaviors will automatically result in exclusion from BSA leadership? No, nor is there any written policy for each and every act legal/illegal or immoral. Unless the answers to either of these questions is yes, I have to conclude that the policy (I guess it's more a "practice" than a "policy") toward these things is local option. Can you prove otherwise? I disagree, the oath and law are our policy. If someone avowed not to be cheerful I guess there would be recourse from national if it was brought to their attention. While we're at it, let's add in unmarried heterosexual cohabitation to this discussion. I raised that as an issue at one point, but I have not seen you add that to your list of things you morally equate with homosexuality. Man/woman relationships are not repugnant as is homosexual relationships, but living together is, IMHO. But again, where is the proof that an unmarried heterosexual cohabitant will automatically receive a termination letter from national or council? Isn't that also a matter of local option? I have none other than if said cohabitant made it clear to national or someone complained to national I see no reason it wouldnt be interpreted as immoral just as adultery would be in similar circumstances. I suppose if the local option didnt act on that knowledge and it wasnt brought to the attention of national it would go under the radar. So unless you can prove that the BSA has an automatic nationwide policy excluding bestial or incestuous leaders, or unmarried persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters, as it does for gays, then logically you have no valid argument against local option on the issue of gay leadership. Nor does the BSA have any valid argument against it, for that matter. No because the policy is in the oath and law, its pretty simple. Just because there may not have been a case where said acts werent found doesnt mean an automatic policy is absent.

Quickly Ive got to go, this is from the BSA v Dale transcripts, Ill comment later.

Bye/ regards

MR. DAVIDSON: Well, there's certainly adulterers or other people that have engaged in heterosexual behavior which Boy Scouts has not regarded as morally straight who have been excluded.

QUESTION: I don't mean -- just, the incidence of living together before marriage is not so uncommon these days. I didn't refer to an adulterer.

MR. DAVIDSON: Right.

QUESTION: Two people who live together but they're not married.

MR. DAVIDSON: I know of no particular instances of application of the policy in that connection. I was just trying to give a more general answer that heterosexual conduct which is not regarded as morally straight has resulted in the termination of leadership positions, or not welcoming someone into leadership in the first place.

No one says "morally straight means sex only within the confines of a heterosexual marriage and no tolerance for homosexuals." No one says "morally straight means sex only within the confines of a heterosexual marriage and no tolerance for incestuals." Go figure?

You would be listened to more and respected more if you would quit playing word games and quit the name calling. Please cite your points so that I may respond in particular. Others on this board who agree with the current BSA policy have stated so with confiction and stated why they feel that way without putting others down, ridiculing others, calling them liars, or playing picky word games. Calling tj a liar was wrong. But after so many of his purposeful falsehoods intended to misrepresent my position it seemed to serve me well to stop him and make him correct his untruths. Id tried several times before without any success. I have to really wonder what values you are teaching the young men around you -- that we call people liars, The values of right and wrong, what specifically do you wonder about. refuse to answer specific questions, Id not realized I had missed any questions, it was rather busy yesterday, if you dont respond to anything else that Ive asked would you please point out what questions Ive overlooked? play with semantics when answering questions, refuse to stick to the subject at hand, lump all others into some big pot of deveint, evil people. mom, this I reject in total, try actually using quotes when you make misleading statements like this, really.

None. But I am aware of multiple unavowed homosexuals. tj, are you homosexual?