Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tjhammer

Scouting's Real Gay Policy

Recommended Posts

I have always wondered about the following passages:

 

Leviticus 11:6-7

"the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig which does indeed have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you"

 

Leviticus 11:12

"Every water creature that lacks fins or scales is loathesome for you"

 

Leviticus 17:14

"Since the life of every living body is its blood, I have told the Israelites: You shall not partake of the blood of any meat

 

I just wiped out eating all pork products and I am not sure my wife will buy I cant take her out for Valentines Day for Lobster and a nice medium rare prime rib because its against the Bible.

 

I am open to explanations,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By plurality and relative perspective on mores. And by mutual respect for each other, tolerance and standing on common ground. Ironically, that's the same argument some use to kick gays out of Scouting.

 

According to your own statement, BSA is acting morally by doing so. Why should you find it ironic? This is not my logic. It's yours.

 

If "plurality and relative perspective on mores" drives these decisions, why add the other stuff - "mutual respect for each other, tolerance and standing on common ground"? Suppose the "plurality and relative perspective on mores" decided that they did not want to respect a certain group, have tolerance for them, or stand on common ground. By your logic, who's to say they're wrong.

 

So, if BSA is do the "right thing", they should conduct a poll to determine what is morally acceptable behavior? Now, should they poll BSA or should they poll the United States to find that plurality?

 

Just out of curiosity...

 

So if a nation, like somewhere in the Middle East wanted to treat their women like second-class citizens. That would be morally acceptable if 51% of nation agreed.

 

Does that plurality thing still work everywhere? OR, at some point, do you just say something is wrong because it IS? What do you think the "plurality and relative perspective of mores" is in some prison populations? The point being, you're assuming that the majority of the people will always gravitate to the same high ground. From what I've read of history, that's a very bad assumption. Additionally, it assumes that there is a common high ground. If it's always up to the will of the people, why even have standards? What's the point of being moral, if the mores are bound by time? What I do today could be construde as improper tomorrow and vice versa.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGE,

 

You can point to all sorts of Old Testament law and ritualistic practices. You are not going to get a quick and easy answer for each one. They have explanations, but I don't have the energy, or always the proper knowledge, to give you a good education. There are answers to these questions, you know. The simple answer is this - We are unable to please God on our own. We cannot meet the requirements of the law to be acceptable as his children. Christ freed us from judgment. He makes us acceptable before God the Father. There is a difference between ritualistic and moral laws. We are still bound by moral laws (although freed from judgment if we accept Christ). We are no longer bound by ritualistic law, which prohibited the eating of animals with hoofs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose the "plurality and relative perspective on mores" decided that they did not want to respect a certain group, have tolerance for them, or stand on common ground. By your logic, who's to say they're wrong. The trap you try to lay is a great case in point: youve provided no evidence that the 900,000 adult volunteers or 3.2 million boys and their parents have come together in common ground against homosexuality. In fact, the only opinions we really know for sure are those of the BSAs National Relationships Committee, lead predominantly by the Mormon Church and a few of the other large chartering organizations (well, and your opinion, we also know that for sure). So if a nation, like somewhere in the Middle East wanted to treat their women like second-class citizens. That would be morally acceptable if 51% of nation agreed.No, you unfairly equate my statement to mean simple majority rules. Its no more appropriate for that country to treat its women as second-class citizens than it is for the BSA to treat homosexuals that way. And not just because 51% of the rest of the world believes it to be wrong. As I have already argued with you in a separate thread, I believe morality is relative. Some morals come closer to absolute morality than others (like basic human rights).

 

As I have said in the other thread, some mores are almost universal, while others are so relative as to not resemble mores but rather choices. Murder is almost so universally shunned that you might be tempted to argue the case for absolute morality. But homosexuality? Thats so controversial you wont get a consensus, thus showing the utter relativity of the question. Most people hold some things to be absolute. But you cant use that fact to argue all morality is always absolute, or that no morality is relative.

 

And so ultimately we look to our common cause, our common purpose in Scouting. It is certainly not to teach the immorality of gays. In fact, it isnt even to teach a particular sectarian view.

 

Im willing to bet youve never been to a world jamboree, and sat in an outdoor arena with 50,000 Scouts from every corner of the globe. Its an awesome feeling of brotherhood that rises above nations, politics and religion. I can think of no better example of the real purpose of Scouting than the feeling that comes across you in that situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like we've reached a point that perhaps some of us can agree on. The BSA, in it's current form, is an organization of brotherhood with a common purpose and a common history going back nearly 100 years. Those who agree with the way things have always been should stay. Those who feel the rules are too liberal should join the Royal Rangers or some other more religiously grounded organization, and those who find the current rules too conservative should find or found an organization that will welcome homosexuals and athiests with open arms (so to speak). Everyone is free to associate with those of similar convictions. If I don't play tennis I wouldn't join a tennis club. Why join scouting if you don't agree with it's basic tenets? I'm here because I believe in the stand the BSA has taken. If I didn't, I be somewhere else.

 

BTW: I was being facetious about us agreeing (wishful thinking). I know better. But I do feel that if someone disagrees strongly enough with the BSA's stand on this issue then perhaps they are in the wrong organization. Not that they don't have just as much right to be here as I or anyone else I just don't see why you would want to be here. I think there are far to many of us who like things the way they are for them to change in the near future...and Yes, I thank God for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean to tell me that I've been wasting my time arguing with a guy that is stealing other peoples words? For crying out loud! It seems you were able to use quotes elsewhere in your posts. Give me a break. Yes CJ, you have. As DD has exclaimed occasionally - Please read my previous post. R7, dont bother, TJ has proven over and over he is not capable of an honest exchange of debate, let his own words speak for his character and agenda. Hes said more than enough to corrupt himself and his intentions.

... I would answer the question by posing the same question another way...Answering a question with a question? TJ youre a real piece of work, you know that? I have always wondered about the following passages I am open to explanationsOGE, if you went to seminary for three years I for the life of me cant understand how you could ask such a question. You know well and good that the bonds of Jewish Law and ritual (not morals) in the first testament were forgiven by Jesus. These particular laws are like our liberal modern day laws that protect people from themselves. Shellfish, under cooked meat and especially pork posed great health risks from Salmonella and Botulism.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dedicated Dad: You are the greatest! I'd love to buy you lunch, but the travel expenses probably aren't in the budget.

 

tjhammer:

 

You stated, The trap you try to lay is a great case in point: youve provided no evidence that the 900,000 adult volunteers or 3.2 million boys and their parents have come together in common ground against homosexuality.

 

The burden of proof isnt ours. You are the accuser. You are the one making the accusations that millions of respectable young men and their parents had no clue what kind of organization they were joining. You are the one making a case that they and I just dont know any better- that we dont know the values of our own organization. Excuse me, but on behalf of all of those that joined Scouting because of its principles, you are wrong. We know what we believe and we know what morality is. You can sit here all day and dissect sentences, word meaning, word choice, and personal traits. The statement you made against homosexuality. obviously isnt even worth addressing because Scouts respect all of Gods creation. Just because we dont accept homosexuals as members doesnt mean we teach our Scouts that homosexuals are bad people. In fact we are an organization that promotes respect to all people, of all countries and of all walks of life.

 

Our congressional delegates have reaffirmed their support of the values we represent. Our highest elected officials have reaffirmed what Scouting stands for so that there are no questions to our beliefs. And the supreme court of our land ruled that that we have these rights. And somehow it is still unclear? Somehow, all of our members dont know what they believe? Somehow we dont know what is best for ourselves?

 

The burden of proof isnt ours dear sir. The Boy Scouts of America has captured the hearts of millions of Americans. Most of them find the term Scout synonymous to being a good person. The leaders of our county, writers of our movies, and pastors of our churches have equated the term Scout with the ideal citizen.

 

Yes indeed the burden of proof is yours. You must prove that we are all wrong and joined an organization that we dont know what it stands for. You must prove that we really didnt know what we were getting into- that we were misguided. You must prove that all of our millions were just a bunch of ignorant people without an ability to determine right from wrong.

 

We dont need to justify our actions except to God. And so once again I must ask the question that if the Boy Scouts of America is not your idea of what is the best type of organization for our youth, then why dont you start one of your own and show us how its done? Why must you insist on changing my organization, what I believe, and what I hold dear? Why do you insist on trying to resurrect dead people and presume what their intensions were when living people with the authority to speak on our organizations behalf already have? What is so unclear about our organizations statement with regard to this matter?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dad, with all your knowledge and powers, there is one thing you cant do and that is know what I know. You may know more, but its still not what I know, ya know?

 

No I didnt know that Jesus forgave the food laws, when did he do this? It couldnt have been when he was alive as the reson for the food laws still existed long long after his Ascension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OldGreyEagle,

 

It was Jesus' sacrifice on the cross that replaced the needs for all the Jewish animal sacrifices and food requirements specified in the Old Testament (Mosaic Law). This is pretty clear in Galations where Paul is telling them that they do NOT need to follow the old laws of the Jewish faith (circumcision, etc.).

 

Also, if you go back and read the early Church fathers (1st century AD and on), you can find writings dealing with the Mosaic laws. You may be interested in www.catholic.com. They have many answer tracts on various Catholic beliefs where the early Church fathers are quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'TJ youre a real piece of work, you know that? ' DD, does your lack of courtesy and self righteousness know no end? Reread OGE's post about this and consider following his advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry OGE, I didnt mean to assume I knew what you knew and when you knew it. I should have known that you wouldnt ask a question you would have known when its known you should have known. I apologize. No I didnt know that Jesus forgave the food laws, when did he do this? It couldnt have been when he was alive as the reson for the food laws still existed long long after his Ascension. Good point, and you are correct. You see, you appear to have really known more than you claimed have to know and when you knew it. Busted! HeheheJesus came as a Jew to his own people, we should expect that he would uphold the teachings and the old covenants during his lifetime. Jesus demonstrated that the Old Testament itself pointed to him as the Messiah and was the fulfillment and embodiment of the Holy Scriptures. He did not change anything until his redemptive work was complete and, of course, he did imply during his ministry that things would change in the futureand that is an important point. The people of God would no longer worship at the temple in Jerusalem, but they would worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24). They were no longer defined by a national covenant, but defined by faith in Christ. They would no longer keep the Law of Moses but the "law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). Christians are not under the old covenant, which is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DD, does your lack of courtesy and self righteousness know no end? MS, The courtesy was for TJ NOT to answer a question with a question. He has in several instances purposely misrepresented CJ, R7 and me without apology or retraction. He makes thing up out of whole cloth to promote an agenda of disruption and vice. Sorry if your perception of such things has become so dulled and or that youre condoning that with you silence of his actions.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I didnt know that Jesus forgave the food laws, when did he do this? It couldnt have been when he was alive as the reson for the food laws still existed long long after his Ascension.

 

Good point, and you are correct. You see, you appear to have really known more than you claimed have to know and when you knew it. Busted! Hehehe

 

I am not sure how my response qualifies as me being "busted", You will have to edify me.

 

I did not know that Jesus retracted the "food laws", and I couldnt imagine him doing it while he was alive.

 

Glenn, rather than poking fun and insulting gave me the reference I needed and now I undestand. Glenn, thank you for acting scoutlike

 

And yes I was in the seminary, but the fact I am a roman catholic and have a son who is an Eagle should tell you that I was a pretty lousy theology student who might not have been as attentive in class as I should have been and wasnt real "priest" material. I did miss a lot and have regretted it ever since

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGE, Im so sorry you took that as insulting. I didnt intend to do so, I thought we were bonding, good golly! I thought we were having a fun conversation about a subject we both respect and love. Ill not respond to your posts anymore, again I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a brand new signer-on in this forum, I am just trying to catch up with the discussion and post a few replies. I just want to say that a quote from the Book of Leviticus purportedly conveying a command from God against homosexuality cannot possibly be relevant to whether the BSA should or should not accept avowedly gay leaders. (And this is regardless of what Jesus Christ, who in my religion is considered a teacher with no divine attributes, did or did not do.) The BSA does not require that any member or leader subscribe to or believe in the Book of Leviticus or any other book in the Bible, or even the Bible (pick a testament, edition and translation) itself. Or any other religious book.

 

The BSA says, if I am recalling and paraphrasing the Declaration of Religious Principles correctly, that no boy can grow into the right kind of citizen without acknowledging his duty to God; that a member should receive religious training; and that the BSA remains absolutely nonsectarian (I believe those 2 words are exact) as to the form such training should take. The BSA has also made it very clear that "God" does not necessarily mean the God of the Old Testament (the Jewish bible) or the New Testament, but whatever deity or deities you happen to believe in. If this were not the case, the BSA would not have approved Hindu or Buddhist religious awards for uniform wear. Hinduism is polytheistic, while Buddhism is non-deistic (but still spiritual.) So you cannot get support for a BSA policy out of any particular religious book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...