Khepera

Another Reason http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/622681/posts?page=47#47 Academics Homeschoolers have proven that their children learn more many times over So I have not hit on that aspect.

One reason to home school Crafting Gay Children An Inquiry Into the Abuse of Vulnerable Youth via Government Schooling & Mainstream Media by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. http://rsvpamerica.org/crafting%20august%202001.htm#title

Crafting Gay Children An Inquiry Into the Abuse of Vulnerable Youth via Government Schooling & Mainstream Media by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. http://rsvpamerica.org/crafting%20august%202001.htm#title

Just remember that the bible mentions not only Gays but also talks about their supporters as being no better than they are when it comes time to inherit the kingdom of God. Now I know that Gays and other sexual outlaws do not care what God says or whats in the Bible but thats just the way it is. If the scouts drop their moral stand they will cease to be. Its as Simple as that. Look to Europe as an example if you need to. So keep your sample as small as you want. Better yet just poll the Gays. You will eventually find a way to justify yourself in your perversion. Of that I am also confident. When you talk about being Scout like just substitute the word Scout for Christ and you are saying the same thing. By inviting others to participate in your poll you are not being dishonest but in keeping the poll to a small select group you will soon convince yourselves that dropping morals is the right thing to do. Those who do not want outside influences are really saying we only want to hear ourselves and not others because we are selfish and want what we want. o you serve yourself or do you serve God. Bow down before the one you serve, Youre going to get what you deserve.

Sometimes its hard to tell when people are being humorous on a post especially when you do not have a history with that person. Im sorry if I misunderstood your reference to Janet Reno. Believe me when I tell you there are plenty of liberals and Gays on FreeRepublic who come to debate or sometimes heckle. I would also like to say that there have been numerous problems in the Catholic Church (Im not bashing Catholics so chill out on that) since they have been more open to gays in the church. I do not want to see the BSA having the same problems. Here are but two examples. Gay Priest In Spain Urges Tolerance http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/624482/posts DAs given names of 49 more priests http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/624884/posts

My first post was written by Greg Koukl. For more enlightenment visit his web site at http://www.str.org/

sctmom: I wasn't discrediting the Bible. Even Bible scholars say you can't pick the Bible apart word for word and not everything is scientifically provable. Same with other religious texts and the same with orally handed down stories. Actually the text of the New Testament was in the form of letters and sermons which where address to churches of the time. These texts where presented orally to the congregations of the church. Many of these people where present when Christ spoke and performed miracles. Some were even non-believers. Not once is it noted that anyone who heard these texts protested or said that they where not 100% accurate or untrue. Lets play with this sentence Even Science scholars say you can't pick their works apart word for word and not everything is scientifically provable. There thats better and another point. No one was standing there with a pen and paper writing down word for word what was happening as Moses traveled around or when Jesus was speaking. These things were written down centuries after they happened Actually it was not centuries after it happened. The New Testament was written about 20 years after the death of Christ. The disciples didnt live for centuries.

sctmom: Is it legitimate to condemn religion for historical atrocities? First we had better examine the facts. I got a call from a gentleman from San Francisco who was exercised about Christian missionaries going into foreign lands. Then he started talking about not only the destruction of indigenous beliefs, but also the destruction of missionaries. That's what he wanted to see happen. He also said that Christians and religious groups are responsible for the greatest massacres of history. It turns out he was quite supportive of Wicca and indigenous religions which worship the Mother Earth force, Gaia. This is essentially the basic foundation for witchcraft. The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them. But a couple of the things that he said were a challenge to me. Not only did he assert that historically missionaries have destroyed cultures and indigenous religions at the point of a gun, but also Christians and religion were responsible for most of the bloodshed in the world, or the great majority of it. I've heard this claim before. I wanted to respond with more detail because I'm sure you've heard these things as well. I have a tactic that I employ in situations like this that is called "Just the Facts, Ma'am." In other words, there are times when you're faced with objections to Christianity or your point of view that really fail with an accurate assessment of the facts. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them. The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. The greatest atrocities committed against man were done in the name of God. Before I get to the particular facts, there is more than just a factual problem here. There is a theoretical problem as well and I tried to make the point that we must distinguish between what an individual or group of people do and what the code that they allegedly follow actually asserts. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow. But often times when that happens, especially where religion is concerned, the finger is pointed not at the individual who is choosing to do something barbaric, but at the code he claims to represent. The only time it's legitimate to point to the code as the source of barbarism is if the code is, in fact, the source of barbarism. People object to a religion that used barbaric means to spread the faith. But one can only use that as an objection against the religion if it's the religion itself that asserts that one must do it this way, as opposed to people who try to promote the spread of the religion in a forceful fashion in contradiction to what the religion actually teaches. It's my understanding that much of Islam has been spread by the edge of the sword. That isn't because Muslim advocates were particularly violent. It's because their religion actually advocates this kind of thing. The difference between that and Christianity is that when Christianity was spread by the edge of the sword it was done so in contradistinction to the actually teachings of Christianity. This is when individual people who claim to be Christians actually did things that were inconsistent with their faith. I've had some people that have told me when I've brought this up, "That's not a fair defense. You can't simply say that those people who committed the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings weren't real Christians. That's illegitimate." My response is, why? We know what a real Christian is. A real Christian is someone who believes particular things and lives a particular kind of lifestyle. John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. So why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote genocide to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text, therefore you can't really call them Christians. I think that's legitimate. It's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches. For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don't keep it. We wouldn't say there's something wrong with the oath, the code that they allegedly follow. We'd say there was something wrong with the individuals who don't live up to the ideals of that code. That is the case frequently where people waving the Bible in one hand are also waving a bloody sword in the other. The two are inconsistent. So it's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches ought to be done. So that's the first important thing to remember when you face an objection like this. Distinguish between what a person does and what the code they claim to follow actually asserts. Christianity is one thing, and if we're going to fault Christianity we must fault its teachings and not fault it because there are people who say they are Christians but then live a life that is totally morally divergent from what Christianity actually teaches. As I said earlier, this kind of objection falls when you employ a tactic I call "Just the Facts, Ma'am," and I'd like to give you some of those facts. My assertion as I responded to the gentleman who called last week was simply this: it is true that there are Christians who do evil things. Even take people's lives. This is an indication that these people aren't truly Christians, but it may be true also that people with the right heart, but the wrong head do things that are inappropriate, like I think might have been the case in the Salem Witch Trials. My basic case is that religion doesn't promote this kind of thing; it's the exception to the rule. The rule actually is that when we remove God from the equation, when we act and live as if we have no one to answer to but ourselves, and if there is no God, then the rule of law is social Darwinism-- the strong rule the weak. We'll find that, quite to the contrary, it is not Christianity and the belief in the God of the Bible that results in carnage and genocide. But it's when people reject the God of the Bible that we are most vulnerable to those kinds of things that we see in history that are the radical and gross destruction of human lives. Now for the facts. Let's take the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Apparently, between June and September of 1692 five men and fourteen women were eventually convicted and hanged because English law called for the death penalty for witchcraft (which, incidentally, was the same as the Old Testament). During this time there were over 150 others that were imprisoned. Things finally ended in September 1692 when Governor William Phipps dissolved the court because his wife had been accused. He said enough of this insanity. It was the colony's leading minister, by the way, who finally ended the witch hunt in 1693 and those that remained in prison were released. The judge that was presiding over the trials publicly confessed his guilt in 1697. By the way , it's interesting to note that this particular judge was very concerned about the plight of the American Indian and was opposed to slavery. These are views that don't sit well with the common caricature of the radical Puritans in the witch hunt. In 1711 the colony's legislatures made reparation to the heirs of the victims. They annulled the convictions. I guess the point is that there was a witch hunt. It was based on theological reasons, but it wasn't to the extent that is usually claimed. I think last week the caller said it was millions and millions that were burned at the stake as witches. That certainly wasn't the case in this country. It seemed that the witch hunt was a result of theological misapplication and the people who were involved were penitent. The whole witch hunt lasted only a year. Sixteen people were hanged in New England for witchcraft prior to 1692. In the 1692 witch hunt nineteen were executed. So you've got thirty-five people. One hundred fifty imprisoned. This is not at all to diminish or minimize the impact of the American witch hunts which resulted in thirty-five deaths. But thirty-five is not millions. It is not hundreds of thousands. It's not even hundreds. It's thirty-five. This was not genocide. Now in Europe it was a little different. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft in 1431. Over a period of 300 years, from 1484 to 1782, the Christian church put to death 300,000 women accused of witchcraft, about 1000 per year. Again, I don't want to minimize the impact of 1000 lives lost a year, but here we're talking about a much, much smaller number over a long period of time than what has been claimed in the past. In America we're talking thirty-five people. In Europe over 300 years, we're talking about 300,000. Not millions. The sources here are World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana . You can also read in Newsweek , August 31, 1992. I was accused of being a liar last week. I'm trying to give you the facts from reputable sources that show that the accusations from last week aren't accurate. There were two Inquisitions. One of them began right around the end of the first millennium in 1017. It began as an attempt to root out heretics and occurred chiefly in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Spanish Inquisition followed in the fourteenth century and was much bloodier. It began as a feudal aristocracy which forced religious values on society. Jews were caught in the middle of this and many of them were killed. About 2000 executions took place. The Inquisition that took place at the turn of the millennium, less than that. So we're talking about thousands of people, not millions. There were actually seven different Crusades and tens of thousands died in them. Most of them were a misdirected attempt to free the Holy Land. Some weren't quite like that. There were some positive aspects to them, but they were basically an atrocity over a couple hundred years. The worst was the Children's Crusade. All of the children who went to fight died along the way. Some were shipwrecked and the rest were taken into slavery in Egypt. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination. A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religion criminals have committed. My point is not that Christians or religious people aren't vulnerable to committing terrible crimes. Certainly they are. But it is not religion that produces these things; it is the denial of Biblical religion that generally leads to these kinds of things. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination. My source is The Guinness Book of World Records . Look up the category "Judicial" and under the subject of "Crimes: Mass Killings," the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978. In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million. Finally, in Cambodia (and this was close to me because I lived in Thailand in 1982 working with the broken pieces of the Cambodian holocaust from 1975 to 1979) "as a percentage of a nation's total population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day." Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people. China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism. Religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world. It seems to me that my colleague Dennis Prager's illustration cannot be improved upon to show the self-evident capability of Biblical religion to restrain evil. He asks this in this illustration. If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw ten young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class? Of course, the answer is certainly you would. That demonstrates that religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world. It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.

I have an Idea. Why dont you just hand pick who you want to take the poll and then send them an email. You already have everyones email. Then you could select just those members whose opinion counts. Maybe you could just select those members who vote "right" while youre at it. This would assure you that you would get the correct opinions from the right people. I'm sure it would make you feel really good about yourselves and whatever positions your screening for. I'm sure you'll get the results you want no matter what effect it has on the BSA. Lord knows we wouldn't want to skew the results with a bunch of irrelevant opinions. No sir. For some reason I thought I was a registered and legal person on this board but evidently your entry requirements are too lax. Here look what you need to do is have people submit a request for membership, then you send them a nice little questionnaire to fill out. Make sure they include adequate personal information to do a proper FBI check or whatever. Ask their opinions on several topics and make their submission of their answers mandatory. This way you can screen out subversives and rabble rousers. Then only allow these folks to view your board. After that you will be able to post polls on almost any topic and know about the results before hand. This will be a big help to the Boy Scouts as I am sure they will then be more interested in what you have to say.

In your opinion.

Not even Jesus gave full disclosure. Not that it will matter to you.

"What reason is there to have a poll if your not promoting an agenda?" Ummmm, maybe to get people's opinion... Well it looks like your getting peoples opinion. I may also add that spreading the word about a poll or anything for that matter is not Cheating. You can feel free to submit an announcement anywhere you wish. Contact the ACLU, write to Janet Reno, Contact NAMBLA. (North American Man Boy Love Association) Your in control as much as the next guy. Lets make this a true test or are you too afraid of the results? Are these not the results you wanted? Just what is it you want for the Boy Scouts? Now if I am asking you this just think of how many others here will question your motives. Just what kind of person do YOU think should be influencing the youth of America?

I am not pretending I had nothing to do with spreading the word. I just don't always tell everything I know. The fact that the poll was advertised does not invalidate the meaningfulness of the poll since it was advertised to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike it represents a clear picture of support for both sides. The fact that the sample is larger makes it even more valid since larger samples are recognized to have more weight statistically. I hope the Boy Scouts of America will see just how much their stand means to people everywhere. I also hope the Boy Scouts will continue supporting the policies that have made them one of the premier secular institutions on the planet. I was mistaken when I called them a Christian Organization however, the moral values they hold are held in fact by a majority of religious institutions globally. Without these moral policies the Boy Scouts would no longer be needed since Social Clubs all over the world could do as good a job of entertaining the masses. If people just wanted to go camping and learn arts and crafts the could join any number of groups and clubs but the Boy Scouts are Special for some reason. What do you think makes them special? What do they provide that all those other organizations do not or will not? I could tell you but I think you already know.

I stand corrected Mom

Well others coming in to vote is not anything like people voting more than once like you accused in your post. Are you hoping to keep the sample small to bolster your agenda? Seems like a good thing that people are participating in the poll. I bet most of them are or have been scouts but thats just a guess. Why on earth would you want to consult with Janet Reno on anything? Do you think she has credibility? What reason is there to have a poll if your not promoting an agenda? If you do not want to know the answer then it would be best not to ask the question.