Rooster7

Just to be clear For those taking offense, true believers (a.k.a. Christians) do not condemn anyone. In fact, our faith is rather simple. We claim to believe in the God of the Bible and embrace His Son, Jesus not only as Lord (great teacher and philosopher), but as Savior. If you have no reason to believe that you will be judged, then I suppose thats a good thing. However, my faith tells me that we (all of us) are in desperate need of a Savior that we must humbly bow down and accept the gift laid before us if we want to see God that gift being Jesus Christ and His work on the cross, an atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world. No religion on Earth reconciles us to God. Most claim that we must go through some sort of a process and elevate ourselves. Jesus suffered on the cross so that we all could be elevated by his death and resurrection. All we need to do is to accept Him. So, if you reject Jesus Christ, you reject His gift. If you know of a way to be reconciled to the God of the universe without this gift, then youre one up on me. However, if you do not know of another way, then do not be offended by my salvation. I know that I am a sinner that needs a Savior. I rejoice that God has given us this gift and gladly accept the covering of Christ. Is it such a curious thing that millions of believers cheerily greet whoever they meet this time of year with Merry Christmas? If you must take offense at someone, than direct your disdain toward the source. I am merely a man who believes in Gods Word. Although, as someone who truly believes in the God of the Bible, I dont recommend that you do that either. But the point is - your hostility is truly misdirected for a number of significant reasons, but three definitely standout: 1) My faith is what I believe. Its not something I concocted (i.e. a members only club). The Holy Spirit tells me that Gods Word is true. 2) I do not judge whether or not someone will be condemned to Hell. Only God has the authority, knowledge, and power to judge people in that manner. Christians more than others recognize that fact (although theres always some who dont follow what they claim to know). 3) Believers do not know your fate. We can only communicate what the Bible tells us about faith and Gods judgment. However, some folks upon listening to believers speak and reading a Bible, realize that they have reason to be concerned.

SemperParatus, I believe Jesus died for all men. But not all men will receive Jesus. With that said, Im not sure what your point is concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees. He certainly did not respect them. 32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw 36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' 37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 10:32-39 Perhaps I am alone in my thinking, but Jesus does not seem to be saying, Say, do, and believe as you please, I will still respect you.

I agree with Ed. Its important to understand and note the definition of words. While Jesus implores us to love one another, we are not exhorted to accept all people and ideas in high regard. SemperParatus, How do you reconcile - Jesus calls you to respect (and love) everyone, even when they offend you, disrespect you, or cause you far worse harm. As compared to Jesus words in these verses: But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. Matthew 3:6-8 Did Jesus respect these men? Or these verses: Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them. So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere. Luke 9:4-6

SemperParatus is exactly right. In order for anyone to uplift Jesus as a great teacher or philosopher, and not recognize him as God, one must completely ignore the claims He made about himself. And just to clarify, I doubt that SemperParatus is offended. I know Im not. Im just dumb-founded that folks cannot see the simple truth. DanKroh, So, when some well-meaning Jew wishes me a Happy Hanukkah, I have a right to be offended? I should berate and beseech him to start using the more generic and politically friendly Happy Holidays? Why would someone be offended by the force-fed, politically correct Happy Holidays? Because - its a bogus meaningless greeting that ignores the obvious that millions of Christians in this country want and need to recognize their God at this particular time of the year. And worse, self-proclaimed liberal intellectuals embrace and exploit it as an opportunity to spit in the collective eye of Christians without recognizing or taking ownership of their own hatred and duplicity. And finally, it is yet another example whereas self-proclaimed Christians willingly deny an opportunity to recognize and honor their Lord and Savior in deference to an inane liberal philosophy, which claims that we must deny our own faith in order to properly recognize the faith of others. Id much rather have a faithful Jew wish me a since and hardy Happy Hanukkah without any forethought, then to be subjected to the empty refrain of Happy Holidays, deliberately concocted and designed purely so to not offend. At best, its a sterilized greeting with no meaning. At worst, its a mindset that encourages Christians to place a higher priority on political correctness than on honoring their Lord and Savior. In short, this whole idea of settling on a universal holiday greeting is a bunch of ****! I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarmneither hot nor coldI am about to spit you out of my mouth. Revelation 3:15&16(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

DanKroh, You can believe in whatever you want. Im merely saying that your acknowledgement of Jesus as a great teacher and philosopher, but not as Gods son is incredibly silly. Its akin to saying that I believe in the planets and stars, but not the Earth and Sun. It simply does not make sense to acknowledge one without the other. Why do you suggest that non-Christians will be, or ought to be, offended when others wish them a "Merry Christmas"? Why do you consider this greeting an insult to non-Christians, when almost universally throughout this country, people warmly accept the occasional "Happy Hanukkah". I have faith in the minority religions to be just as gracious and accepting as the vast majority. And I also believe that they have the intellectual capacity to discern between a good hearted greeting and some sort of slight made by the occasional bigot. Ed, I wonder how many folks on this board will be singing the praises of Saturn in about 50 years. My guess is, none. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

DanKroh And why can't I celebrate the beauty of his life just because I do not accept that he was divine? That's like saying that because I'm not black, I can't celebrate MLK Jr. Day. To me, Jesus was a great man who was certainly touched by God. To you, he was/is the Son of God. You are entitled to your belief, just as I am entitled to mine. Yes, we are. But use some common sense here. Your comparison to MLK Jr. is amazingly lacking. Jesus proclaimed that no one could come to the Father except through Him. He made it clear in many different ways, if you want salvation, you must accept Him and His perfect sacrifice on the cross. In order for those words to make sense to anyone, one must believe in Jesus divinity. GernBlansten, Now what if that religion were Mormon, Catholic or Islam. Would that make you uncomfortable if you didn't share that belief? Would you have any concerns that you might be persecuted for your beliefs? Theres a huge difference between what you fear and what our founding fathers were willing to permit (in the name of religious freedom). The whole point of having a government that is non-religious, dare I say SECULAR, is to allow the people to worship as they see fit Perhaps not by your interpretation, but that of many who embrace the now twisted interpretation of Jeffersons letter, religious freedom means abolishing all public signs of faith and in particularly on publicly owned lands. This was not our founding fathers intent. That can be proven as fact. Abolishing religion in the public square is most certainly an anti-religious view and not merely the posture a non-religious government.

DanKroh, Personally, I have no problem with Christmas. I celebrate it like I do any other day of recognition for the life of a great teacher and philosopher. It's right up there with MLK Jr. Day in my book, and President's Day. Your statement is truly a foolish one. Jesus Christ was either who he said he was, or he was a mad man. If he is not who he said he was; theres no reason to recognize Christmas. Christians and others, who present Jesus as merely a great teacher and/or philosopher, have not examined His life or His message. They are attempting to intellectualize Christ as someone other than whom he really was and is Gods son. Kudu, By your reasoning, anyone who does anything that can be remotely tied to some pagan holiday (i.e. take time off from work, light candles, or dance), is celebrating that holiday. Thats ridiculous. Ronvo, Since youre quoting Jefferson, try placing that quote in the proper and full context of his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jeffersons words were always meant to quell concerns from religious people that the government may one day choose to intrude on their ability to practice their faith freely. You have turned Jeffersons wall metaphor on its head. That is, Jefferson was not troubled by the notion that one day people in government would recognize and encourage people of faith and/or allow government agencies to do so. If that was his concern, why did Jefferson attend church services conducted in the Capital building? Why did he allow dozens of other such worship services be held in other federal buildings throughout Washington, D.C.? Why did he personally approve the designation of federal funds for outreach to American Indians? Why did he sign into law a tax exempt status for churches? The inconsistencies are huge. Secular proponents of this revised interpretation of Jeffersons letter (most notably, Justice Hugo Black), ignore history and common sense. The First Amendment was not intended to stop the states from establishing a church or favoring a particular religion. Both Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists understood this. The very day Jefferson sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended church services in the House of Representatives.

Ronvo, Okay...so you're "a separation of church and state guy". I'm not entirely sure what that means outside of the context of purported Constitutional arguments. Regardless, it seems to me, it has no meaning whatsoever in regard to Scouting. What does the "separation of church and state" have to do with a private organization's goals of mentoring young boys? And Merlyn, I already know your response (i.e., the BSA dishonestly solicits the support of public entities blah, blah, blah, or something along those lines), so please spare us.

A group of foxes is a skulk. I'm not sure what you thought it was, but you sure make it sound a lot more sinister. And my reference was to boys in general, not just your son. Perhaps you're right. Our experiences may be quite different. I remember my teenaged years. Most of the time, when I thought about girls it didn't involve outdoor adventure and service projects. However, no matter how undisciplined my thoughts were, somehow I doubt I was in the minority...at least among the male population. Okay, so we've established that "scream" and "demand", rubs you the wrong way. How do you feel about "stomp their feet and cry"?

Hunt, Have you stooped to baiting? I thought we were engaged in a thoughtful debate. Let me clarify As to the high moral standards of the boys you know verses the ones I know please. Im sure the boys we know are very similar. Now, you may choose to see things one way, and I another but lets not compare children. Thats just a little tacky. When I wrote scream, I did not intend folks to take it literally. It was meant to convey that folks believe passionately that they have a right to demand the local option, because peoples convictions on these issues vary from troop to troop. I will also point out that boys and girls over 14 can already be together in Venturing Crews, so I guess BSA is not as convinced of the "predictable" results as you are. Evidently true. But that doesnt make it a wise decision. I dont know much about Venturing Crews, so I cant comment. You have labeled my thoughts on this matter as mere rhetoric. Apparent this stems from my comment which concluded with, "it doesnt guarantee a nice outcome especially for the hens." Our culture, the daily news, and my common sense - tells me that boys and girls are attracted to one another and are seeking to gratify that attraction at an epidemic rate. Dismiss my concerns as rhetoric if it allows you to sleep well. But to return in kind I must say that your lack of concern regarding this matter is extremely nave, at best. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

In reference to the Anne Frank analogy, a third option exists. Dont reveal her location and be truthful about it. Of course, there are few men that I know that could or would do this, because the end result would likely be their own execution. Morally right by human standards, and morally right by Gods standards, are two separate things. Certainly we can sympathize with the telling of a lie in order to save innocent people and/or ourselves from suffering evil at the hands of others but that doesnt make it morally right. It just makes it understandable.

Hunt, How old is your son? 15? 16? My point Asking the boys (most notably those 15 and older) if theyd like to see girls introduced into the BSA (i.e. would you like a teenaged girl or two sleeping in the tent next to yours), is akin to asking a fox if hed consider inviting a few hens into his skulk. The resulting answer is predictable, but it doesnt guarantee a nice outcome especially for the hens. As to god and gays while many here have boldly stated that these issues are relatively minor in their impact, I doubt if anyone can truly gage and verify such a remark beyond their local sphere of influence. That is, Troop 1 in Hawaii has no idea how these issues affect Troop 9999 in Arkansas. This statement as perceived by some folks is a door, which a few wish to open and scream, local option! However, it truly is not. This fact - that some folks are moved by these tenants, and some or not only provides dissenters with some food for thought for which they can offer up to the current powers-to-be. Its not a mandate for anything. Its is what it is. The organization has no obligation to respond to popular opinion, nor should it. Even if it can be proven that a majority of members feel differently, we are not the overseers. The BSA did not draft us. No one was tricked into agreeing with the organizations values. We agreed willingly when we volunteered to be leaders. We are not equal partners with those who cast the vision. We are the volunteers who agreed to carry out the vision. Having said the above, we are free to leave the organization if/when it changes. And conversely, we can leave if/when it refuses to change. Both options are valid. But dont tell me because x number or y percent of volunteers believe z, the BSA should embrace the same. Democracy should be fought for, and promoted, in all countries. Its the only way to govern a nation fairly. However, a private organization is not a nation of people. We ought not to try to make it otherwise. This has been said numerous times and ways, but if you dont like a private organization and it doesnt change to your taste, then eventually you should take the hint and take a hike. Find or build your own organization according to your values. Dont attempt to high jack an existing organization. Its just plain un-American.

Regards "don't ask, don't tell", my district professional told me that it is the official BSA policy. For what it's worth. No offense, but its not worth much. If the only way a policy can be verified as official is through word of mouth (i.e. my district professional told me, or at a council meeting, blah, blah, blah, or something else along those lines), then I have no confidence in it. If its official policy, then it can be found in writing somewhere. Otherwise, its a bunch of conjectureusually to support somebody elses idea of what official policy should be, vice the reality. And, do you think it's only "liberals" who are looking for loopholes? No. Conservatives can find loopholes with the best of them. However, in this particular case, Id like to point out three facts as I see them: 1) this loophole is imaginary, 2) the cause is dubious, and 3) liberals [yes, liberals We are the world, Cant we all just get along, ban all guns, make love not war, lets open the jails, and kiss the trees liberals] are behind this little effort. I remember a certain President who's supporters spend a good deal of time trying to figure out what counts as torture and how to get around the Geneva Conventions. Youll have to elaborate; I dont read the Washington Post, New York Times, or the LA Times. Although I realize these are fine newspapers for lining bird cages and wrapping fish.

National never said that they wanted all the gays and atheists weeded out. Well, yeah, they did. Are you insinuating that they do not care if folks lied or slipped through the application process? Your slant seems to be, they dont really careas if these BSA policies are merely placeboes, to keep their conservative base happy. Heres my take. They dont openly encourage members to weed out gays and atheistsnot because they dont care, but because theyre more fearful of the witch-hunts that such encouragement might generate. In short, your conclusion is akin to saying; the police dont care if rapists are not caught because they dont actively encourage citizens to conduct their own investigations. Vigilantism at any level leads to witch-hunts. The police are not the only folks who are sensitive to this. I give the BSA credit for being wise in their approach. Lastly, despite the constant yammering of others (mostly liberals trying to find a loop-hole), the BSA has never openly embraced the notion of dont ask, dont tell. Specific to the homosexual issue, the word avowed has been interpreted in a number of creative ways. Interestingly, none of these fine legal minds seem to recognize that the policy does not say - self-avowed, only avowed.

It will change; just take some more time. Girls will be in the BSA at all levels (name will probably be changed to Scouting USA or some such) Homophobia will become a non-issue. Not sure what to predict about Reverence. Redefined? Dropped? Replaced? And the rainbow coalition marches on... If girls are allowed to join the BSA, and thus the organization is renamed appropriately, it will be a sad day. Not because girls don't deserve to have access to such a fine organization - But because an organization uniquely designed to capture the hearts of boys will no longer exist. If that day comes, the BSA will probably continue to be a good organization, but it won't be the same organization. If "homophobia becomes a non-issue", I hope its because homosexuality is recognized universally as the perversion it is, and thus homosexual activists are not given any attention by the BSA or the general public. If reverence is redefined, dropped, or replaced, then the BSA will truly cease to be the organization that millions have come to love. It will just become another in a litany of organizations that have succumbed to political correctness, either because they had it shoved down their throats and were too cowardly to resist it, or because they were overtaken from within and embraced it willingly as the new world doctrine. As such, they will no doubt trumpet the change as the beginning of a new era of open-mindedness. Alas, it will be a new era, but of mindlessness not open-mindedness. You may be right about the BSA's future, but I for one, am hoping that you are wrong...very wrong.

I think it was a Good News Bible Club that caused the end of so-called "backpack mail" in my locality. The School Board wanted to exclude the Bible Club's mailings--because they were too evangelistic, I guess, and they learned that the only way to do that was to ban "backpack mail" from essentially all outside organizations, including Scouting. What is too evangelistic? And, who gets to decide that? Evidently, this local school board is so against the free exercise of religious speech; they are willing to censor all non-school related materials. Inappropriate materials aside (i.e. pornographic, hate speech, etc.), I find their actions regarding this matter to be reprehensible. They are attempting to be every childs parent. If the materials do not align with the familys beliefs, then its a simple matter between parent and child dont accept those materials, or throw them in the thrash. Likewise for Scouting, if parents object to the organization, they can instruct their child to discard the flyer. Its not complicated. However, it is quite intrusive and arrogant when school boards make these kinds of decisions. They may think it takes a village to raise a child, but I dont want those idiots in my house. I hope there are people and organizations in your area resisting these self-appointed overseers of the public good.

Heres another thing of which I remain unconvinced... that federal judges make the best safeguards against travesties of injustice, especially those perpetrated against the law abiding people of the United States. You say - we should remain a nation of laws. Thats great. I agree - whenever individuals have direct control of the rights of another, there is plenty of room for error and abuse. However, before we go after those in military for taking the law in their own hands, lets tidy up the Supreme Court. Theyve been taking the law in their own hands for the last 40 plus years. I realize that comment takes this thread off topic but then again, we werent exactly debating immigration policies anymore. ;-)

LongHaul, Did I overreact? Its not my goal to make you my enemy to make unnecessary and harsh distinctions. You are probably a great guy, who loves his family and neighbors. Just the same, I am tired of defending our country. Despite having a long history of reaching out to other nations and being the victim of heinous terrorists acts, America is portrayed as the victimizer vice the victim. This I can barely tolerant from the French. Yet, when my own countrymen fuel the fires, I tend to implode. So, while I am sorry that I may have come off as someone whose one step away from the deep end, I feel as if you and others are pushing the likes of me to the edge of the proverbial pool. By the way, my previous statement about insurgents was not meant to be generic. I was specifically addressing the situation in Iraq. Furthermore, as I have stated several times before I am not advocating torture. I just understand why our military may resort to it, given specific individuals and scenarios. Beyond this assertion, I have pretty much remained silent. If youre putting me on the other side of the fence (from you), because I cant say where I stand on this as a moral issue, then so be it. Im not 100% convinced that its the moral high ground to provide murderous and vile men with a bed, three meals a day, and other comforts, while they withhold information that will lead to the eventual torture and killing of innocent men, women, and children.

I dont think I quite said what you implied. Nonetheless, I do understand the call for torture, given the nature of our enemy, the situation in Iraq, and the terror that they seek to inflict upon our nation. Im not advocating it. In terms of its morality, Im really not sure what I believe. But I understand why our nation might employ it. Furthermore, I think what some folks call torture is a real stretch. A case in point is the story shared by BrentAllen about the Captain firing his sidearm.

As I previously indicated, I do believe in absolute moral standards those established by the God of the Bible. However, here are some disclaimers: 1) I am not always able to discern what Gods will is for a given situation. While I believe in Gods perfect law, I do not always understand how and when it should be applied. 2) While I do not believe in moral relativism, circumstances and purpose do define the nature of an act. That is to say, while I do not believe its wrong to shoot and kill a deer for food. I do believe its wrong to shoot a deer in its legs for sport. 3) Given my selfish desires, even if I understand what Gods will is, I am not confident that I will always act accordingly. Is it wrong to torture innocent people? Of course! But I dont view Iraqi insurgents as being innocent people. Is it wrong to torture people for no reason? Of course! But Im convinced we are not interrogating Iraqi terrorists for fun, but for information. Furthermore, I like to believe that we have good evidence that these individuals are holding the information that we are seeking. Should there be a compelling reason wherever torture is applied? Absolutely! With that said, saving the lives of innocent people seems rather compelling to me. Now, despite the aboveIs it possible that God views all torture as being wrong? If I knew the answer to that question, I would state it unashamedly. If it makes you feel better, I tend to believe that He does. However, depending on the circumstances, I can see myself falling prey to my third disclaimer. Does that mean I dont believe in moral absolutes? No. It means - Im a sinner and sometimes I struggle to keep Gods law. BTW, my "contempt" is not for anyone's resolve to remain faithful to a moral standard (perceived or real). My contempt is for a false, self-serving portrayal of our nation, which defames our history, our military, and our current and past presidents. This is what I find disgusting.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

We waited patiently for nearly 30 years after Munich, for the Muslim world to denounce terrorism and to purge their ranks of the despicable fiends that perpetrate and spread such violence. While we waited, these radicals have grown significantly in number, dramatically increased their influence throughout the Middle East and other areas of the world, and steadily increased the scope and frequency of their attacks. Most of the free world wants to act like an ostrich. We may not have as many allies as Id like but Im convinced that we need to act today. By the time the French realize theres a problem, theyll be turning the Basilica into a mosque and veils will become the new fashion statement in Paris.

I have had my second cup of coffee and my opinion remains the same. This debate is no longer talking about the rightness or wrongness of torture. Its talking about the rightness or wrongness of America and how it reacted to 9-11. LongHauls words ring hollow to me. Hes implying that we conducted ourselves as nation in such a way that the 9-11 attack warrants some kind of self-examination to determine whether or not their anger was justifiable. His words are ridiculous and insulting to the millions of Americans who have built this nation. Furthermore, intentional or not, they serve to endanger and demoralize those serving in the military today. I stand by my last post I am disgusted by this viewpoint and those who spread it. To be clear - he's free to express it, but I am certainly free to be repulsed by it as well.

LongHaul, Let me restate my last post in more direct language. This is one time I think may have been too polite. So to be more to the point Your views disgust me. You cannot justify 9-11. Your words, and others who preach the same garbage, are only encouraging our enemies and fueling their twisted minds to do more.

LongHaul, I dont believe the non-sense that you are spewing about our country. But since you do, I think you have to seriously ask yourself, How can I remain a citizen of such a morally deficient nation? May I suggest that you take a long haul down the road perhaps to one of those Middle Eastern countries that you seem to admire so much? Im sure you would be welcomed warmly. Certainly, there must be at least one nation in that area of the world that you find more acceptable than "The Great Satan" - at least, so your words seem to indicate.

Ironically, I do believe in absolute moral standards. Im just not sure how capable I am at meeting those standards 24/7 no matter what the circumstance might be.