The Gay, Communist, Gun Club!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic, if the "god" issue is foundational to scouting, how could so many public schools have been chartering organizations? For that matter, wouldn't National have considered public schools insufficient as potential chartering organizations?

[skeptic 992]

Mr. LeRoy:

 

You know, there was a time when public entities were not afraid to represent basic, majority beliefs of their constituents and clients, because most recognized that was a reasonable thing to do. When the challenges began, then many various responses materialized. But, that has nothing to do with this suggestion by me.

 

What I am saying is simply that those opposed to the idea of God in scouting need to recognize that this has "always" been one of the keystones of the program, even in the original version of B.P. So, please, stop trying to twist this into "your" narrow minded agenda.

 

Thank you. I will now continue to ignore your incessant whining.

[DeanRx 69]

Merlyn- The "God" issue is one of the main reasons public schools (or more correctly the local PTA's of schools that often acted as CO's when I was a kid) no longer CHOOSE to be CO's. I don't know about your part of the country, but there are NO public schools that I know of in California that will even entertain the idea of being a CO for a unit. We are lucky enough to gain access (sometimes for a fee, sometimes free of charge) to use the school grounds for meetings, but our pack is NOT chartered or endorsed by the school or the PTA/PTO.

 

Skeptic - I think the reason the 'gay' and 'God' issue gets lumped together is because the exclusion due to lifestyle choice and lack of faith is taken from a Christian biblical standpoint. I would agree that a lack of faith is different than a lifestyle choice (if you want to call it a choice - I'll leave the debate to choice vs can't help being gay to another topic). The issue is both are included in federal, state, and even local municipality anti-discrimination laws - therefore, they get lumped together whether they deserve to be or not. Most folks (and I would be in this camp), view discrimination as discrimination. A prejudice is prejudice regardless of the criteria used to define the group being targeted. Thats why the two get cast under the same umbrella.

 

As for the idea that you should go find another group if you don't agree, or you can be in the group and choose to ignore the parts you don't like - I tend to agree. Whichever works for the individual. Two of the main reasons the issue(s) won't be left alone:

 

1) There are parties on both sides that see it as a fundamental belief at the core of what the organization stands for. One side sees it as a moral compass point, the other as a prejudiced practice that doesn't allign with BSA's stated goals of the Oath and Law, thus neither side is willing to conceed because they each see it as a fight for the ideals of the organization.

 

2) There are individuals who disagree strongly with the current policy stance, yet they give time in service and monetary support to BSA on a continuing basis. BSA, however, does not disclose (or at least doesn't like to disclose) how much of our national dues money, FOS contribution, or even how much of the profit margin on your new centenial scout shirt goes towards defending policy in court that the person spending the money might not agree with! It doesn't sit well with some folks (myself included) to know that a portion of every scouting dollar I spend goes to support a bigoted idea that I find extremely distasteful on a personal moral level. That said - I accept it much as I accept that I don't agree with or support everything my church spends money on, yet I still thith. I don't agree with everything my choosen political party spends money on, but I still contribute to it because I believe in their overall principles vs the alternate party's view.

 

The difference is - even in my church and surely in my political affiliations (or any other civic group I choose to support), if I disagree strongly enough, I can provide input and work to change the policy within the group. With BSA, you are given no voice on these two issues. You speak up or speak out and you risk termination of your membership.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So it was OK back when public schools flagrantly violated the law? Some "values" there, skeptic. But that still doesn't answer the contradiction between religion being a supposedly vital part of scouting while having public schools as chartering partners in the 21st century.

 

DeanRx, schools didn't choose not to be chartering orgs, the ACLU threatened to start suing public schools that violated civil rights by running a religious club.

[Scoutfish 16]

Eagledad/ Barry ( not sure of your preference<

 

NO! I did not say that due to changing immorality, that being homosexual was ok. But I'm not saying it isn't ok.

 

What I AM saying is this: The God you chose to follow ( meaning there are many different gods in many different cultures) may have laid out a set of defined rules. But man wrote them down his own way.

 

I consider myself a Christian, but you don't have to look long in the bible to see many contradictions. Did I say God contradicted himself? NOPE! But humans have when they wrote it down. Then take the translation: Armeic to grek to english. Then you have modern and "hip" translations. Well... did you know that in spanish, "ch" is it's ownseperate letter that is different from just a plain "c" or "h". Some words don't translate at all.

 

Now, when I mentioned good old King Henry, I was talking about people who used religion as the backbone of their "royal power" . But then you had their Bishops who were more interested in their own power than te word of God. They went along with the kings in any way that kept their own power going...this means they changed this rule, added God's "ok" to this rule and that rule.

 

And let me ask you this: Have you ever read any particular passage in the bible, and get a particular meaning from it... only to read that same passage years later and find out it means something else to you now?

 

Why? Is it because as you got older or experienced luife more, you may realize you didn't treally understand it the first time?

 

AS other have pointed out, You can't expect others to follow your specific beliefs. Not unless you expect to follow theirs too.

 

As for moral ..that again depends on who is using what morals. Too many "christains" burned, killed and drowned too many other groups in the name of God,. The same God who said to do unto others as you would have done upon yourself.

 

Remember Salem? Lot's of innocent people died because they were wuitches.

 

Pagan are persecuted for Devil worship, yet if any body actually checked... they would find out that Pagans and Wicans do not believe in or recognize the devil in any way , shape or form.

 

Biggest point I wanted to say was this: I never said that depending on the times, that homosexuality was ok. But again, I do not condemn it either, That is not my place. Well, at least according to the Christian Bible that, is.

 

Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone

[Scoutfish 16]

 

 

 

You said it LisaBob!

 

Funny thing is, at our meetings, we tend to spend our time talking about building wood projects, camping, hiking, respecting war veterans, respecting the flag, being good scouts, and all kinds of stuff.

 

Something we don't talk about is sex, sexuality, religion, God or Satan, Ghandi, Buddah, Shiva, Oden, Crom or any other.

 

 

We do end pack meetings with a non denominational , non sectarian - watered down prayer, but participation is completely optional.

[Lisabob 13]

Well I admit, I have talked with boys about Gandhi. But then, Gandhi was a civic and spiritual leader, along the lines of Martin Luther King, Jr, in US history, and not a deity. On occasion we have talked about other moral role models (Mother Theresa, for example), too. I don't spend scouting time trying to teach anybody religion, though.

[evmori 11]

Gotta stop feeding the troll know as Merlyn.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You still don't know what a troll is, Ed.

[evmori 11]

Why are you posting untruths about me Merlyn?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

What would that be, Ed? You obviously don't understand what "troll" means, since you didn't use the term correctly.

[Scoutfish 16]

Troll (Internet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation DNFTT redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see "What is a troll?".

 

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

 

[Scoutfish 16]

In other languages

 

Most languages[specify] have adopted the English word "troll" to refer to Internet trolls.[citation needed] In Japanese, arashi (あらし) means "laying waste" and can also be used to refer to simple spamming[citation needed]. In Korean, nak-si (낚시) means "fishing", and is used to refer to Internet trolling attempts, as well as purposefully misleading post titles. A person who recognizes the troll after having responded (or, in case of a post title nak-si, having read the actual post) would often refer to himself as a caught fish. In Thai, the term "krean" (เกรียน) has been adopted to address internet trolls. The term literally refers to a closely cropped hairstyle worn by most school boys in Thailand, thus equating the emotional and egoistic immaturity of internet trolls to that of a school boy. The term "tob krean" (ตบเกรียน), or slapping a cropped head, refers to the act of posting intellectual replies to refute and make stupid the messages of internet trolls.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

[Eagledad 2777]

HI Scoutfish

 

Let me preference this response by saying that a student of the bible doesnt have to be a Christian, Jew or even religious.

 

That being said, Ive not heard very many students of the bible make the claims you make, which suggest to me that you are not a student of the bible, just making some points you base from what youve heard.

 

The bible claims that God is all knowing, all present and powerful. As a Christian, how can you conclude that God couldnt guide men to write His words as He wants us to read them?

 

Ive not heard by, students of the bible, that the bible is full of contractions. In fact, one of the many powers of the bible is its consistency between the old and New Testament. And finding new meaning from past reading isnt contradiction, its called maturity and wisdom. You see it in the scouts as they grow using the Scout Law.

 

I have not asked others to follow my beliefs in this discussion; Ive only stated what those beliefs are. If you and other folks feel intimidated by those beliefs, I can only conclude its from ignorance of your emotions. I can easily reference my belief to a source that is as close as their computer. Its much harder to do that with emotion. Its just like I was trying to say with Lisa, a person who obeys all traffic laws only has to point to the law to justify their behavior. A person who breaks the law because they think it is OK can only point to their emotional logic to justify their action. If it feels good do it, right.

 

As a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you can condemn homosexuality because the bible condemns it, so dont be afraid of that. But I understand what you are attempting to say: God says we are not to judge each other. But God never says we are not judge in either the Old or New Testament. The only thing God says we cant judge is our eternal salvation. Only He gets that privilege. Your examples are being used out of context. Eye for an eye, plank in your eye, cast the first stone and many others are lessons to judging justly and fairly. They arent saying not to judge at all.

 

And lets think about this judgment thing from a practical standpoint for a moment, shall we. It is literally impossible to not judge ones behavior. I would guess that average person makes at least one moral judgment every hour of the day. If nobody judge, we would live in chaos and anarchy. In fact, the difference between man and animals is the personality we develop from guided judgment. Without moral judgment, we would only react by our animal instinct. Judgement is required for a civil society. So the best you could really say is you dont base your judgment from God, but instead from your emotion or instinct of that moment.

 

Your example of casting the First Stone is a popular example by many trying to shut down an intellectual discussion of moral judgment, but you and those others always seem to leave the part where Jesus followed by saying Go and Sin no more. It seems there has to be a sin to forgive to start reconciliation.

 

So it is interesting to me that you keep claiming you are a Christian yet, you disregard those things that guide us to be a Christian. My confidence in my faith as a Christian seems to challenge you enough that you don't want to be associated with my faith and yet, I am only a Christian. I am not questioning your faith of lack of it, but at some point your emotional justification is going to lead down a path of confusion or personal confrontation. Its no big deal to spend a little time in the word to find out just what it means to be a Christian. A little more time reading might lead you to a better understanding of being Christian or if the that is really the faith you want to follow.

 

So bringing this back to the homosexual discussion, I am curious of you and Lisa and others to which I want ask: if from some strange event in your personal life you came to believe homosexuality is morally wrong, just how do you think it would change your behavior right now. What is it about that possibility that scares you so much? And dont use the judgment thing because your judging me harder than I am of gays.

 

Barry

 

[skeptic 992]

Scoutfish; You can give all the info' you choose on the term, but neither of the two will admit fitting any part of them. I sometimes wonder if they are not really two faces of a multi-personality and are simply baiting themselves. Just try to ignore them 99+% of the time, as they will not stop.