AZMike

moosetracker: "The Republicans trying to throw the bible into preserving the earths's resources is the problem, they try to use it to ignore global warming, and those the republicans have chosen to be on the science committee, have all stated ridiculous things that make them walking jokes. Who the heck was saying anything about the Republicans, Moosetracker? Stay with the argument that was raised. I said that if you accept some arguments based on religious morality in the public sphere, you shouldn't exclude any other views that are less congenial to your own prejudices, based sheerly on the fact that they are also religious in origin. Examples of political stances based on religious beliefs include the abolitionists' opposition to slavery, religious opposition to nuclear armament, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's battle for civil rights, Pope John Paul II's opposition to the suppression of the Poles, the Dalai Lama's opposition to Chinese occupation of Tibet, Pope Pius XII's opposition to Nazism and rescue of almost a million Jews, and the charity shown by Mother Teresa to the poor of India. Not all religious people are Republicans, as I would think you should know. All the beliefs I named were based on religious teachings. The need for stewardship of the earth's resources is found throughout the religions of the world. The Pope has spoken on the need to reduce global warming. Other religious figures have as well. "Treat immigrants humanely? REALLY?? We just went thought the election process, it was very apparent who was disrespectful of the immigrants.. If your treatment of them came from more bible teachings, count me out!" The Bible teaches us to give respect and treat the alien with dignity and compassion, and such teaching is fundamental to Catholic teaching on social justice. "And we have already debated and condemned the biblic views on sexual morality, that make the religious very intolerant, outdated and uninformed.. It can not accept anything that does not resemble a 1950 sitcom.. " Who is this "we" who have already "debated and condemned" biblical teachings of which you speak? There is no "private" and "public" morality, there is just morality. If the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and the Dalai Lama both condemned homosexual behavior, should we also ignore their other moral views?

"I understand and appreciate the views about homosexuality by some religions represented in the BSA members. But I don't think it's fair to press those religious views on the rest of us. There a plenty us who don't subscribe to their strict interpretation of the Bible or follow other religions whose beliefs are that homosexuality is a personal choice." DigitalScout, people have moral views that originated and are informed by their religious faith. If you believe that it is unfair for them to press those religious views on the rest of you, why is it not unfair for you to press your secular views on them? Judaeo-Christian religious teachings inform many people's moral stances on the environment, on civil rights, on the status of immigrants, on the need for charity, on prison reform, on capital punishment, on the status of women, on the sanctity of human life, and on peace between nations. You may agree with many of those views, some you may not. If those religious views guide them and create a better world, should you say, "well, religious views are acceptable in the public sphere if it concerns the need to preserve the earth's resources, or to treat immigrants humanely, but not if it concerns sexual morality"? You can certainly disagree with articular religious teachings (I don't agree with all the teachings of other faiths), but you can't ban them from the field of debate simply BECAUSE they are of religious origin.

"But Horizon, aren't you worried about the possibility that your son will become a....Presbyterian?" At least he'll probably have a ministry, which is more than the Episcopalians will have if they continue to dissent and schism over the gay "marriage" issue. The South Carolina Episcopalian Diocese just voted to secede from the main body of the church over the issues of ordaining gays and gay marriage: "Despite the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church writing a pastoral letter to the members of the South Carolina diocese to stay, a majority of parishes voted to leave the denomination over its ordination of gay clergy and acceptance of same-sex unions. The vote took place at a convention organized by the South Carolina diocese leadership at St. Philip's Church in Charleston on Saturday, Reuters reported. It followed the U.S. Episcopal Church's certification last month that South Carolina Bishop Mark J. Lawrence, who had criticized pro-gay positions of the denomination's hierarchy, had abandoned the church's doctrine, discipline and worship. "This has never been about who is welcome or not welcome in our church," Lawrence was quoted as saying at the convention, attended by about 200 people. "It's about what we shall tell them when they come." It's the fifth Episcopalian diocese in the country to leave the church's national body, which is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Congregations in San Joaquin, Calif.; Quincy, Ill.; Fort Worth, Texas; and Pittsburgh, Pa., also left the church in recent years. Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/south-carolina-diocese-vote-to-split-from-episcopal-church-85179/#mXRWPUfIlO58ehms.99

I'm as big a fan of meandering thread topics as anyone else, but am I the only one who thinks this thread has jumped the tracks and rolled into the ditch? Every thread on the BSA and homosexuals seems to deviate (no pun intended) into side-arguments on Republican/Democrat politics, the election results, the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, the Catholic Church, LDS, atheism, etc. The same arguments are made, no one's mind is changed, and the tone of debate just gets angrier and angrier.

Some good tips in this video on how to bed down for the night in snow camping: http://www.scoutmastercg.com/2012/11/cold-weather-camping/

"Well AZMike, I guess you're penalizing me, because you've never given me ANY money, ever." You failed to file a timely grant application to The AZMike Foundation, which provides ample financial support to angry Minnesotan former Cub Scouts who obsess over youth organizations' failure to admit the godless and those with a same-sex attraction.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

"Corporations don't really make decisions, ...blah, blah, blah, ...will my masters think my decisions have resulted in a profit or a loss for the company?" "I REALLY liked this. Thanks AZMike, I'm going to quote a slightly modified version of that one particular part at the meeting I have to attend today..should be fun." You're very welcome, but don't blame me if you get fired...

"Organizations that apply should demonstrate that they are competent to manage a program with low administrative expenses and that they do not discriminate with regards to who the program will benefit. " Last time I checked, the nation as a whole benefits greatly from the scouts, in terms of community service projects, disaster response, vocational training, leadership opportunities for youth, and increased environmental awareness and training. Many organizations which restrict membership to women, youths, ethnic groups, religious denominations, etc. receive grants as long as the overall benefit to society is positive. "Soon you'll be living off your own chickens and growing your own corn and living as a hermit due to all companies being PC.." Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. I'm considering becoming a Stylite next.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

"Part of the eMail I sent to UPS: "UPS thinks it is okay for two gay men to take 5 or 6 eleven year old boys into the woods? Really? Is your son going to be on that trip? FedEx has gained me as a customer." May not have much impact. But it might be enlightening." Let me suggest an experiment. I've noticed a trend in these matters. Some gay activist creates an on-line petition, such as this one to get UPS to defund the BSA, or to get Intel to defund the BSA. The head of "Diversity Affairs" or somesuch department at said corporation gets a copy, and having been hired for graduating at the top of their class in Grievance Studies, feels both a deep sense of ideological solidarity with the activist, and a corresponding worry that the host corporation with which they have developed a parasitical relationship could look bad, so they send an email to their corporate masters suggesting they stop the funding to those gay-hating scouters. Corporations don't really make decisions, as corporations can't think. They can't really masturbate either, which is why corporations have meetings instead. Those meetings are made up of the people inside the corporations, who make decisions in a manner that make the characters in a Dilbert cartoon look decisive. Those decisions are based around the questions (a) will this action lose money for the firm? (at a higher level in the corporation), or (b) will my masters think my decisions have resulted in a profit or a loss for the company? (at a lower level). Internet-based petitions, which involve the sort of deep personal commitment to social action and risk-taking that we see in a bored teenage boy channel-surfing while lying on a couch in the afternoon, evoke a strange sense of corporate dread among the corporate minions who make class (b) decisions. If you do NOT feel that the BSA should be penalized for its current policies (i.e., most of the BSA except the handful of regular posters on this forum), it would be worthwhile to start an on-line petition to inform UPS and Intel that, while they are certainly entitled to their corporate opinion, you as a consumer will base future decisions on their current actions. The petition might further ask why UPS and Intel would refuse to fund a private organization that provides leadership and environmental awareness training to millions of American youth, many of them minorities, while providing community services in mass disasters and millions of dollars worth of community improvement projects. Then, start emailing everyone you know and suggesting they sign the on-line petition to UPS and Intel, and suggest they contact their friends. Post a link one every scouting website you can find. There are a lot of people who were scouts, whose kids are or were in scouts, who respect the traditional values the scouts stand for, or who just don't like being pushed around by the new secular cultural elite. Pick the largest number of people who signed any pro-homosexual petition, and I guarantee that a pro-BSA petition could get 10 times that number, easily. Maybe a 100. UPS may not change their minds (and maybe we don't _want_ their steenken' money any more), but it would create a lot of media attention, make scouts and scouters feel like they don't have to play defense all the time, and make the next corporate sponsor who is bending a knee to the god of political correctness reconsider their actions. It would be an interesting experiment in civics, if nothing else. So, anyone know more about this Interwebs fad who know how to set up such a petition? I'll sign.

"Nixon: In Your Heart, You Know He's Right." Nixon's health care plan was actually quite good, because it allowed for far more flexibility on the part of employers than Obamacare, and was a market-based program. There was less partisanship and more importantly, a very different economy. Everything is context.

Fred, what is your view on the eligibility standards for health care subsidies under Obamacare? Federal subsidies set at 400% of the poverty level (i.e., at $90,000.00), when the median family income in the U.S. is about $50,000.00 seem more than a little unsustainable to me. If the financial disincentives to employers under Obamacare cause them to dump health care programs (especially if the first employers' reductions lead to an avalanche effect), that would mean we (you and I, the taxpayers) would have to cover the subsidy for health care costs for about 63% of U.S. households. The Obamacare tax (as the Supreme Court ruled it was) pays for mandatory comprehensive policies that don't fully meet the requirements of the young (for example) but they are required to purchase them anyway, as a way to increase the risk pool for the older baby boomers. Obamacare specifically forbids altering coverage plans to suit the needs of the insured in such a way, so we can't use that to cut the cost of coverage for the $90,000 recipients. Congress is looking to tap into the subsidies for the higher income recipients to avoid the fiscal cliff - if the middle class (such as me, and possibly you) no longer see any benefits to Obamacare, what then?

"May have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one."

I'm quite okay with being part of a niche, smaller social group. The reference to "the Nelsons, Reeds(?)(AKA Stones) and Cleavers (Beaver, not Eldridge)" referred to traditional moral codes, not the whiteness of their skins. (And it should be noted that the real-life Donna Reed was quite the lefty.) I would also note that the argument that homosexual marriage in no way detracts from heterosexual marriage, while fallacious, applies to the diversity of opinion represented by a group that holds to traditional values. Such a private group (the BSA) does not detract from those who choose to elevate a civil union based on sodomy or tribadism to an all-important civic imperative. Should homosexuals be able to live together and call the relationship anything they want? I think the state has little say in the matter, and if it doesn't affect me, I probably wouldn't care. Should homosexual couples be given equal access to adoptions? It does then affect a third party, so yes, the matter does begin to become a matter which I as a plankholder in the government can express concern. There is research on both sides of the issue that points to (variously) more and less hospitable environments for children in such relationships. The issue should thus be open to examination without cries of discrimination. Should a religious institution, or a charity established because of a denomination's religious requirements for charity, be required to adopt children to homosexual couples despite the religious condemnation of homosexual activities? Clearly, this is a conflict between freedom of religion and a claimed right of association. If the churches close the institutions rather than compromise their beliefs, many people who would have had access to those institutions suffer. Thus, the state's actions in my view were a moral wrong. The popularity or lack of same for a new right to homosexual marriage is meaningless, or should be, in terms of the morality of such actions. Morality is not a popularity contest.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Even Elmo of Sesame Street (actually, the puppeteer who plays him) has been accused of child sexual abuse: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231695/Kevin-Clash-Voice-Sesame-Streets-Elmo-accused-having-sexual-relationship-underage-boy.html.

"The fact is there are more and more Modern Families and fewer and fewer Nelsons, Reeds and Cleavers." Should there still be a place for diversity in matters of opinion? Should we not still have a place in American society for the Nelsons, Reeds(?) and Cleavers?

Or why couldn't one backhand the parent of said child? He or she is ultimately responsible for the child's behavior, right? Why not wallop him or her and then tell the parent to make sure their child's behavior changes. The other parent could be bigger than the person doing the striking, of course, which means you can't hit him out of fear. Best to be like most bullies and only hit people who are smaller than you. Whenever I hear a parent describe how their dad used to smack them whenever they misbehaved, and how they do the same to their kid, I always think, well, if it didn't correct the behavior after the first time you hit them, what makes you think doing it over and over will help? At some point, it;s not really about changing the child's behavior anymore.

So, DeanRx, let's say you are working in a free clinic that offers abortion services. Your hypothetical 13 year old girl now appears as a patient to you asking for an abortion. She is accompanied by a 29-year old male that she tells you is her "boyfriend," and who is the biological father of the fetus. The boyfriend is a little surly and doesn't talk to you much, but tells you they don't have any money to pay for medical services. You saw them pull into the parking lot of your clinic in an 2012 Escalade, and he is dressed in expensive sport clothes. She treats the male with elaborate deference. You examine the girl and find no signs of physical abuse, but she has a tattoo on her back with a man's nickname surrounded by dollar signs. She exhibits a hypervigilant response when questioned and states she has trouble sleeping, as well as other symptoms of PTSD. You ask the girl who the name is on the tattoo, and she tells you that is the nickname for her boyfriend, out in the waiting room. You look at the medical form she filled out and see that she has been treated twice for STDs. Now, you know that all these factors indicate she is being prostituted by the 29 year old, who is her pimp (if you don't recognize that, go talk to your nearest S.A.N.E. qualified nurse-examiner), who wants to dispose of the baby so he can go on prostituting her. You may not see any signs of the "physical" abuse to which you referred, but you know, and the law states, that a 13 year old cannot give lawful consent to a sex act with a 29 year old, or to anyone else. Medical confidentiality does not apply in this case, and as there is a hearsay exemption for statements made to a medical professional, you can offer testimony against her pimp in court. If you do not intervene and contact the police, yes, she will receive an abortion, not have an unwanted pregnancy, and go on her way, but she will continue to be sexually molested and exploited, both by the pimp and numerous johns, until someone else intervenes or she is killed or ages out. Would you report this? If you are the man I think you are, of course you would. Why does Planned Parenthood fail to do so when this happens? Is protecting the right to a confidential abortion of more importance that the life and safety of a child who is being sexually exploited by an adult?(This message has been edited by AZMike)

packsaddle:"SR540Beaver, isn't there something in scripture about God visiting the iniquities of the father on multiple generations thereafter, or something like that?" I think it's right next to the line about "Smite not the Smithsonians, lest thee thyself be smooten." Actually, all lines that are somewhat similar to yours are from the OT, and the NT says that Christians are no longer bound by the sins of their father (original sin), as they are washed free in the baptism of the Holy Spirit: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Even the references to the Israelites sins being carried to the 3rd and 4th generation are moderated in the OT in Ezekial: "Yet you say, Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." The new covenant is also described in Jeremiah: "In those days they shall no longer say: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ..." (This message has been edited by AZMike)

CalicoPenn: "Can you prove anything you just stated about Planned Parenthood, or are you repeating what you've heard and read from evangelical and anti-PP blogs and pundits? Have you ever asked those folks what kind of proof they have? Have you ever wondered why they told you these things or do you just accept it on blind faith?" No, I pretty much just accept it on blind faith, like all the people who disagree with you. None of us ever do any research or have any relevant personal experience. Actually, yes. I have personal experience with this issue. But Calico, are you serious? You haven't heard ANYTHING about this issue, and think it is all drummed-up by "evangelical and anti-PP blogs and pundits"? Seriously? Do you not read any "blogs and pundits" who don't agree with your own preconceptions? http://www.gazette.com/opinion/state-143700-penn-didn.html http://www.liveaction.org/monalisa/tucson-az/ http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/21/planned-parenthood-forced-to-settle-suit-failed-to-report-child-rape/ http://archive.lifenews.com/state4167.html

SSSCout: "Let me understand, here, prolepsis is the idea of something happening NOW because something should or needs to happen LATER? So evolution is the defining of how/why something happened THEN because something needs to happen NOW? Therefore, since the Creator wanted something to happen THEN (human souls), he needed to direct his evolutionary forces NOW (which was THEN, NOW) so that the proper things would happen LATER?" No.

"AZ: If evolution is "directed", wouldn't God then be able to "experiment"? One type of organism doesn't quite fit the bill , try another. I forget who I read that commented that God created man because he was dissatisfied with the monkey. " Theologically, that statement makes no sense under the doctrine of prolepsis. I think God is very satisfied with the monkeys... There is also a problem with different definitions of what "random" means. In natural selection, it is used in a very different sense than "arbitrary." Macrospecies evolution is a natural physical process like erosion or volcanism, and would presumably be used to order and structure our world. God seemed to have created a world that would run on its own most of the time, with the omniscient foreknowledge of how it would ultimately result. It could be tweaked at certain points by God, and I would argue that the three points in the history of our universe where God directly intervened instead of using natural processes to change things would be the creation of the universe itself, the beginning of life, and the creation of the human soul - all points at which scripture uses a distinct word for "create" rather than "form," and all events that are difficult to explain using a purely materialist view of reality.

In Germany, that's the law - if an undercover detective witnesses a crime, he has to declare his identity and make an arrest. Not much UC work going on in Germany. What is the level of culpability? At the CEO level? Planned Parenthood is probably the worst offending agency in America for covering up the sexual abuse of minors, far worse than Penn State, the BSA, the schools, or any church you can name - they routinely deal with minors who tell them they had sex with an adult and need an abortion, and they almost never report the criminal sex act, despite being mandated reporters as medical professionals. Pimps bring in underage prostitutes for abortion, and it's never reported. Medical confidentiality can't be invoked in these cases, as medical confidentiality does not apply in the case of reported criminal sexual abuse by a minor or a perpetrator. Should the head of Planned Parenthood be arrested?

"All fine, well and good. More involvement between organizations is a good thing. I don't buy the privacy law issue...since all "suspicions" are now supposed to be turned over to the Police." Have you tried to get an honest appraisal of a potential hire from a former employer lately? Due to fears of being sued, at best you will get the dates he worked there, and nothing else. Let's take a hypothetical: You have a new adult scout leader who consistently violates the two-in-depth policy despite being counseled. He makes some statements about kids needing to express their sexuality at a very early age that you and the other scouters hear and that you find disturbing. You hear that he and his wife are separated over an issue involving his son, but you don't know anything else. There were no indications or opportunities for a hands-on offense against a scout of which you are aware. The leader has no criminal history that showed up on his background check. He makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. Out of a sense of caution, you call the police and speak to a detective on the crimes against children detail, who listens sympathetically but tells you there is little he can do without an outcry from a victim. He says he can't file a report based on the violation of an internal BSA policy. He asks you to keep an eye on the guy, and call him if you hear anything else. You share your concerns with the SM and SE, and his leadership position is revoked. You hear that he has applied for a paid youth counselor position with a church youth ministry in your town. The Minister of that church calls you and says that the former ASM listed his experience with your troop. What do you do? What is your potential for being sued if you relay your opinions and he doesn't get the job?

Bade: "..before their affiliation with the RC Church the AHG founders did not consider Catholicism to be true Christianity either. " Yeah, I'd like to see a source for that claim, too. Can you provide a link or a document or something?

SSScout - how would that be "experimenting?"