Jump to content

Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

Recommended Posts

What this all boils down to is political correctness which is wrong. Being politically correct to me means being wishy washy about anything that matters. What's wrong with a judge that is a wiccan? or member of the BSA? or a member of an exclusive all male country club? As Americans, they have that right!


When political correctness gets involved then everything gets screwed up!



I agree. No way can you compare the BSA & KKK in any aspect.


A joyous New Year to all!


Ed Mori


Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



Pardon me for taking a moment to be indignant. I NEVER EVER ONCE COMPARED THE BSA TO THE KKK IN FORM OR FUNCTION. They share no similarities except one. For the last time, they are both

private organizations that openly discriminate against certain segments of society in their membership criteria. Period!!! I used an analogy, not a comparison. An analogy often uses a colorful or extreme example that illustrates a principle. It takes a view and sheds it in a different light in order to make the principle more understandable. The BSA and the GSA and the KKK and the Augusta Golf and Country Club are private organizations that have a legally recognized right to discriminate in their membership criteria. That discrimination can even cross over into what is considered legal "public" civil rights areas of race, color, religion, etc.


What is it that you do not understand about "ALL" private organizations having the right to discriminate in common. I never placed a value judgement on whether this discrimination was right or wrong, good or evil for any of these organizations. It is their right! That is the only comparison I ever made.


I do not know how to make it any clearer short of using a 2x4. please quit characterizing my comments to be something they are not. I have been consistent in my posts. Go reread them with a clear mind and tell me if I ever said that the BSA = the KKK. It isn't there and I'd appreciate it if you'd quit saying that is what I said.


For the record (for the umpteenth time), I have no problem with the BSA's exclusion of gays or atheists. In fact, I support them. I think the KKK should be outlawed. But we have a form of government that guarantees us certain freedoms that allow both to exist. That is called....fair.


Whether I like it or not, agree with it or not, I believe the intent with the CA judges is an attempt at fairness and not giving the appearance of conflict by discriminating against someone's civil right in an organization you belong to and then presiding over a court where civil rights issues are decided. What in the world is SO blooming hard to understand about that?


I'm not saying I advocate banning the judges, I just understand the reasoning behind it.


Does anyone understand my point yet???


(Indignation turned off)

Link to post
Share on other sites

kwc57, The KKK (one label of which is the 'Christian Knights of the KKK') is not chartered by congress, also an important distinction.

I agree with an earlier post that this topic is tired...but soon we may have the means for better answers to some of the questions regarding nature vs nurture. Assuming that the religious group promoting human cloning is successful (and especially if China gets into the vanity cloning business), we will have the first extensive group of genetically identical persons for tests of all sorts of hypotheses. The results will be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...we will have the first extensive group of genetically identical persons for tests of all sorts of hypotheses. The results will be interesting.


No offense, but the tests - by nature - will always be detestable. A 1940's Nazi "scientist" could have fashioned the above statement for his journal. And the results - as long as humans are involved (whether that be the tester or the subject) - will always be debatable.


As to the aforementioned self-proclaimed "Christian" group that promotes human cloning, I doubt their claim as people who take God's word seriously.


Finally, while I continually argue against those who claim homosexuality is natural (or worse, created by God), I doubt if I will sway those folks or that they will sway me. I argue in an effort to help prevent those "on the fence" from being dragged into darkness.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Link to post
Share on other sites



I am unaware of a Christian group that is promoting cloning. Who are they? You are not thinking of the Raelians are you? Their "high priest" is the one who setup the Clonaid company that "claims" to have cloned a human. They are not Christian. Their fouder is a former French journalist and race car driver who says he met aliens on top of a volcano in 1973. He claims that they created all life on Earth thru genetic engineering. They place man in the role of God and believe that cloning is the way to eternal life. They claim to have 55,000 followers worldwide.


Let me ask you a question Rooster. What do you consider "natural"? Do you believe God causes everything to be created exactly the way it is or he allows things to be created by laws of nature he set in motion? Did God create me as an insulin dependent diabetic and my wife with a chemical imbalance that causes depression? Or did he set the processes in place in nature and allows for the variations that cause defects and abnormalities?


Personally, I think that the vast majority of gays have something wired differently in their brain in the womb that causes them to be gay. I would find it hard to argue that all other manner of "defect" can happen in the womb EXCEPT being gay. To make that claim says that people could and would choose to desire sex with the same gender while their natural instinct is telling them to be attracted to the opposite sex. I think a small minority could become so depraved that they might TRY it as an experiment, but a tiger can't change it's stripes. Can you imagine making yourself be sexually attracted to men for the rest of your life and unattracted to women?


You will get no argument from me that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. It does and it is. But I will argue about people choosing to be homosexual as opposed to being born that way. The Bible never says that people choose it, it just says that it is sinful whatever the underlying cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites



My mistake...for some reason, when I read paddlesack's post and saw "religious group", I interpreted it as "Christian". Byproduct of reading a post too fast, I guess...Sorry about the confusion.


Regarding your supposition that homosexuality is perhaps as natural as your diabetes or your wife's depression, I believe it is founded on a false pretence. There is a great distinction to be drawn between sin and physical illness. When your sugar levels are low, you are prone to fainting. This is beyond your control. You do not choose to faint. Likewise, your wife does not embrace a sense of gloom and hopelessness. You both suffer because your bodies are not functioning properly. Conversely, there is no physical dysfunction that drives a man to have sex with another man. He chooses do so. His behavior is driven by lust, a perverted desire that he has chosen to embrace. He knows that it is contrary to nature. Just as a pedophile knows it is wrong to have sex with a child. There is nothing unique or unusual about men who have perverted or unnatural desires. I venture to say that most of us has probably experienced an unnatural thought. Yet, how long does one entertain that thought? What does one do with it? It seems to me that we are all capable of sinful behavior; submittal is a matter of faith and/or discipline. I also propose that those that stand on discipline alone are fighting a losing battle. That's not to say that one cannot live a lifetime without overtly committing a particular sin. I believe some folks can. Nevertheless, without God, one can only hope to win a series of never-ending battles. With God, one can win the war. God is the only one who can truly cleanse us of our sins, and deliver us from our sinful desires. We need to present ourselves before God as His repentant and humble children.


As to why so many of us suffer physical illness, I don't claim to have a complete and accurate answer. I have a theory or two. I believe they have merit. God gave the Hebrews many laws, of which, there are many that we are no longer bound to follow. Specifically, I am addressing those laws that established the Messianic Priesthood and instructed the Hebrews on how to make themselves holy before God (i.e., make sacrifices for their sins). He was and is, Holy and Righteous. The Hebrews were given very strict instructions so to ensure that they maintained the proper respect, not only out of reverence, but also for their own protection. Christ's sacrifice made us holy before God - not just for a limited time, but for all time. Furthermore, Christ enabled us to have a more intimate relationship with God the Father, by eliminating the "middle man", the Messianic Priesthood. In addition to these "ritualistic" laws, God also presented moralistic laws (i.e., the Ten Commandments and other laws dealing with our behavior towards God and others). We are still bound to follow them. However, for those that embrace Christ as Lord and Savior, when we fail to comply, we are forgiven and can still stand before God the Father as His holy people. Forgive me for babbling, but I needed to present this information before I can explain one of my theories. I believe there is a third group of laws that do not quite fit into either of the aforementioned categories. There appears to be many laws in the Old Testament, which deal primarily with health and sanitation issues more than anything else. I believe that modern man has drifted so far away from these instructions that we may have inadvertently introduced some illnesses into our society. For example, isn't interesting that pork happens to be one of the unhealthiest meats that one can eat. Or, did you know that there are instructions in the OT that deal with cleaning molds from one's household. There are hundreds of other examples. Many of which, no one seems to understand there purpose. While I know that we are no longer bound by these instructions because they do not concern our relationship with God and others (i.e., they do not concern matters of right or wrong), they seemed to be for our own benefit as physical beings. I feel it is very possible that our lack of compliance with these regulations in the past and in the present may have resulted in many of the illnesses we see today. Secondly, God has punished and disciplined various peoples, including His own, by inflicting them with various diseases. Whether or not this still happens today, I do not know. Certainly, according to His Word, He has used illnesses to convey a message of consequence for rebellion. Lastly, while God is a spiritual force that no one can challenge, until the Day of Judgment arrives, He has allowed Satan to influence this world. The fact that diseases exist could simply be a matter of Him exercising restraint until that day arrives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it ain't natural, why are there animals that exhibit the behavior?


My last two sentences in my previous post partially answers that question.


Nevertheless, another quick and obvious answer follows - we are not animals. We have a moral conscience; they don't. If the "animals do it" argument holds water, then I guess gang rape is natural because scientists have observed porpoises engaging in this behavior. Or, eating one's vomit must be natural, because dogs commonly do it. The praying mantis bites off the head of her mate after sex. If that was natural, I'm sure Mrs. Bobbit would have incorporated it in her defense. No, I'm afraid the "animals do it" argument does not apply to human beings. It won't work in a court of law. And it certainly won't work standing before God.

Link to post
Share on other sites



I understand and agree with your explanation...up to a point. You are confusing actions with instincts. As a youth, there were many many girls I lusted for, but controlled my behavior and did nothing. In fact, the vast majority of those girls never ever knew I lusted for them. I chose not to persue the actions of my feelings. I didn't commit the physical sin. However, my body experienced certain physical states of arousal in the presence of these girls. They couldn't be helped, just suppressed. I think you know what I'm talking about. :) I'm betting that you used to be a teenager with raging hormones too. LOL You were naturally attracted sexually to the female of the species. There was nothing you could do to stop being attracted. For a gay person, the feelings are the same, except for the same gender. They don't one day just say, "hey, I'm going to flip this switch and never be attracted to a woman sexually, but will be to men!" Now, they CAN choose not to follow that attraction all the way to a sexual relationship, but they CAN'T choose to not have the attraction. It is not the physical act that makes them gay, it is the atraction that is at the root of it that makes them gay. That attraction comes from the brain just as autism or lack of seratonin uptake does. 99.9 % of gays will tell you that from the time they hit puberty, they have always been attracted to their own gender just as you and I were attracted to the opposite sex at that time.


Committing the act is a choice, feeling the attraction is not. It is inborm instinct. Why their brain developed this way is the mystery that many scientist are still trying to crack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is inborn instinct. Why their brain developed this way is the mystery that many scientists are still trying to crack.


You say it is inborn. However, I have to ask - when does one become aware of their sexuality? Is it in the womb or at birth? Or is it at four, eight, 12, 16, or some other magical age? From my experiences, while I was always aware of girls, I did not truly appreciate them until I was around 13 (when, as you say, the raging hormones kicked in). This appears to be true for most of the boys that I knew at that time.


I mention this, because it is my belief that homosexuals develop their inclination via one of three avenues or a combination of the same - 1) they're raised to be effeminate [i.e., brought up and spoiled by mommy], 2) they are molested at an early age whereas they become confused as to what is truly natural, and 3) they experiment with sex without restraint or conscience. In short, with exception to the third scenario, through negative social and sexual experiences as adolescents, they develop a psyche, which makes homosexuality appealing to them. I am not suggesting that every boy who was ever "mothered" or molested has homosexual tendencies. I am suggesting that these circumstances serve as catalysts. Couple these catalysts with other influences, such as today's moral attitudes and/or other traumatic events in one's life, and it's easy to see how a confused boy might become seduced by homosexuality and by those that offer a sympathetic shoulder. Why do people ignore the fact that many homosexuals are victims of pedophiles? Are folks suggesting that it when a 25 or 35 year-old man seduces a 14 or 15 year-old boy that it is not pedophilia? From the studies I've seen, a majority of homosexuals are "seduced" by much older partners in their early teens or even at a younger age. Why do people ignore the fact that many homosexuals come from family backgrounds whereas the father is either not around or the household is dominated by an over-protective mother? Why is it that when children are brought into some perversity (i.e., kiddy-porn, etc.) that they struggle with it as adults? If, what is "natural" is supposed to overrule all other inclinations (even if it means going against society), how come many victims of homosexual molestation struggle with homosexuality and cannot establish normal heterosexual relations? In other words, why don't these victims just return to their natural inclination of heterosexuality without a struggle? I realize that someone will suggest that these boys were always homosexuals and that a molestation by an older man was just incidental. To me, that's like saying the hemophiliac was destined to bleed to death, the fact that someone stabbed him was inconsequential.


Given the increasing influence that homosexuals have on society, I see a downward spiral that will grow steeper as more and more people believe the lie. It's sad that so many will suffer because so few are willing to stand up and say its wrong.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Ok, first, (and not necessarily to defend the Raelians) the previous characterization of their group is not too far off from one that could be made about Joseph Smith and the Mormons. I don't think the Raelians are trying to harm anyone so I don't judge them too harshly except for the stupidity of following someone who makes some outrageous claim (I admit this may be unfair). Someone please tell me the religious group that hasn't been labeled as a cult at one time or another by someone who was in disagreement with that religion. (sorry, I don't intend to play the role of Merlin here)

Second, I agree that the statement could have been made by some Nazi scientist, or any of the numerous other past persons and movements attempting eugenics in this country as well. But until now, we never actually HAD the ability to carry out the experiment to examine nature vs nurture (and perhaps shorten forums such as this). I merely observe that, having abdicated our control over the numerous biotechnologies (handing them over to industry with free rein, actually) we ARE going to see the outcome of their application. Market forces alone will decide the ultimate directions for better or worse (everyone happy with this?) One of the results will be an opportunity to address the question of nature vs nurture. I don't necessarily endorse these results as good or as bad, although different applications will certainly supply us with both qualities eventually (although cloning isn't addressed in the Bible, who could have been omniscient enough to forsee that?). I merely state that it will be interesting, yes, perhaps as in the Chinese curse. But it is unstoppable and I doubt that many of us, at this time, would want to turn the clock back even if we could.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In many respects this sounds like it is boiling down to the nature or nurture arguement. But why can't it be nature AND nurture?


For example my wife and sons are of Indian (Native American if you prefer) descent. We know through science that some Indians are genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. But that is no guarantee. whether or not that pre-disposition comes to be fact will be dependent on the choices they make in life.


Heart disease runs in my side of the family. That means I have a greater chance of having heart disease in my future but again it is not a guarantee. The number of big macs consumed will also play a role in this.


Whether you take the bible literally or not, the point of the Adam and Eve Creation story is that sin is a matter of choice. And our choices, whether good or bad, positive or negative have a far reaching impact on not only our lives but the lives of many others, just as the choices of Adam and Eve had great consequences for all of mankind. I believe this is what Rooster7 is referring to when mentioning how children are raised that may "push" them in the direction of homosexuality.


kwc57, I believe that choice may be a bigger factor than you may notice although the choice may be more subconscious and thus gets confused with inborn instinct. Why?-because inborn instinct does not explain bi-sexuality, where a person like to have sex with both genders. It also does not explain other types of sexual activity that I will not describe in detail here for obvious reasons.


I have read of programs (one called Project Exodus) that have had some success in helping men "become" heterosexual again. This of course leads me to question this idea of inborn. Remember, we hear the hue and cry of inborn homosexuality form the gay community primarily. Why?-perhaps it is becasue if this concept were true then a gay person does not have to face the consequences of ones' choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing in response to an earlier post... in addition to the current BSA blacklist (that I don't agree with completely), I do believe that persons who have drug or alcohol problems or who use tobacco products should be ejected from BSA leadership because they are poor role models for the boys. Also anyone who is a felon or has a history of domestic violence. Not, of course, to necessarily equate the judiciary with the above.

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
  • Create New...