So What Would You Do?

[Eagledad]

>>Moreover, i can ask the question why would someone want to worship a god that discriminates?

[tortdog]

I enjoyed your post, Eagledad - thought provoking and insightful.

 

Dug. I hope I'm not putting you on the defensive by asking that question. I'm asking/answering all this more as theory, rather than any form of an attack on a belief. I just wanted to make that clear.

 

>i understand that he is either Perfect or we have free will.

 

Sure, I hear you on this, but I simply disagree.

 

>Moreover, i can ask the question why would someone want to worship a god that discriminates?

 

I have no problem worshiping a god that discriminates. I would have a problem with a god who exercises unrighteous dominion and discriminates in an unjust manner.

 

To discriminate is to make distinctions between classes or features. One who is color blind cannot discriminate between red and green, while others can. One who is wise can discriminate between foolishness and wisdom. I believe in a perfect god who can discriminate between good and evil. I fail to see why someone would worship a god who could NOT discriminate.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

[scoutingagain]

I know I'm late to the discussion but I have enjoyed reading it.

 

Welcome to the fray, Gawin. I had forgotten what this thread was started on.

 

The discussion as to what God knows and when he knows it versus the idea of free will seems, well, to me stretched at best. I agree with those that say we cannot know how God percieves things, what He/She knows. God is omnipotent and we are not.

 

I must disagree with the idea that if God knows what we will do there cannot be free will. This presumes there in only one future to be known. There may be a million or billion or infinite number of possible futures based on the choices we make and God, being all knowing, knows each and everyone of them. We cannot even know our own future. We get to choose our path, but there is not just one possible destination in our lives that only God knows. There are an infinite number of possibilites based on the choices we make and God knows them all. We can barely grasp the concept of the infinite. It is just not possible to define the concept of a Perfect God, with the imperfect logic and perceptions of us mere mortals.

 

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.

 

SA

 

 

[DugNevius]

If there are a million possibilities, does God know which exact one you will choose?

 

Tort, I simply believe that its ostentatious for one human to judge another based on the terribly limited and ignorant as well as subjective understanding of God, and to judge a person based on a sexuality is in no way any different then to judge someone based on race or religion. Only God can truly judge, if that God is perfect and we humans are in no way close to being perfect in any form.

[Eagledad]

>>Only God can truly judge

[DugNevius]

yes but the difference is that we as adult leaders are to guide and help build boys into young men and leaders of charactor. The youth are dependant upon us.

 

When heterosexual male X judges homosexual male Z, mr X has no place or reason to judge mr Z at all, because mr z does not effect mr X at all. Mr X has no right to judge, or to place himself at a higher position. Homosexuality doesnt effect nonhomosexuals at all. It has the same effect as a person being hispanic does. Or jewish. Or short. Or Blonde.

 

Nothing.

 

If being homosexual is such a sin, then when Mr Z dies and is judged he will get what is comming to him. His afterlife has no influence ever on mr X and vice versa. In life Mr X was never effected at all by mr Z's sexual preference.

[tortdog]

First, Dug, I simply cannot comprehend why one would view judging as wrong. I see a God who requires us to judge our fellowman.

 

You bring to the fore the issue of homosexuality. My own belief is that homosexuality in itself is not a sin. The sin is when a person acts on such homosexual feelings.

 

If it is wrong to judge someone for acting on his homosexual feelings, then why would the God of Abraham and Moses command that judges be set apart for the purpose of passing judgment on those who broke God's law? Why would that same God command that those judges pass judgment to execute those who engaged in homosexual activities?

 

Further, even in our own day our founding fathers had passed legislation that required the execution of those engaged in homosexual activities. In today's world, that sounds harsh but when viewed in the context of historical laws it was closer to the norm than we are today.

 

Now, you say that a person's homosexuality does not harm any other person. I disagree. First, from my view homosexual activities are a perversion. They serve no purpose other than self-gratification. That being the case, if society begins to accept homosexual activities, it brings down society. It says to our children that homosexual activity is okay (even normal). That is direct harm to our children, just as a society accepting pornography as normal harms our children. I see that harm as very real, and something to be prevented.

[DugNevius]

In what way does what a homosexual couple does in the privacy of their bedroom brind down society, and in what way does what a homosexual couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom any different then what a heterosexual couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom in terms of directly harming children?

 

Sorry to say but children are just as effected by witnessing strait sex as they are gay sex at a young age. The same as seeing strait porn and gay porn.

 

So, if homosexuality was accepted, how are children bieng harmed? ...more so then they are today? Since pornographic material IS legal, how is its existance hurting young children if the young children are being PROPERLY supervised?

 

 

In the 60's, im sure a few people said that if "negros" were allowed to go to the same schools and bathrooms, then it would hurt the minds of children.

 

Also, there are many stupid laws on the books across the country. Doesnt make them anything but stupid laws.

[gavvin]

 

Scoutingagain: Thanks for the welcome! btw, it is g a v v i n. Some fonts run the v's together and make them look like a w.

 

Eagledad: "Your writtings reinforce my theory that morality without God is what the guy with the biggest stick says it is."

 

Are you actually saying that people who don't believe and worship your God are immoral? That non-believers only live by a might-makes-right code? OR are you saying that there is no morality without a grounding in SOME kind of religion, be it Judeo-Christian or other?

[tortdog]

>In what way does what a homosexual couple does in the privacy of their bedroom brind down society, and in what way does what a homosexual couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom any different then what a heterosexual couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom in terms of directly harming children?

 

It introduces sexual perversion as normalcy.

 

In what way does incestuous sexual conduct in the privacy of the bedroom between a man and his adult daughter bring down society and harm children?

 

In what way does sexual conduct between a man and an animal in the privacy of his bedroom bring down society and harm children?

 

Reality is that society has the right to determine legal behavior. There is nothing "magic" about the bedroom. Show me where the People passed a constitutional right for private conduct within the bedroom.

 

We have laws that prohibit various activities, whether in the "privacy of one's bedroom" or not. You need a medical license to perform surgery. Should we allow any person to conduct surgery so long as it is in the "privacy of one's bedroom"? In Germany, a man willingly consented to sex including being killed and eaten by a male partner. Both people consented. Should society allow these acts because they were with consent of the involved parties and in the "privacy of the bedroom"?

 

If you use your standards, you cannot logically prevent the conduct I mentioned above. I simply disagree. Society has the right to regulate the behavior of its citizens. The Constitution gives us certain restraints on how far the law can go, but I am unaware of any clause in the Constitution that provides that any sexual conduct in the bedroom is constitutionally protected.

 

>Sorry to say but children are just as effected by witnessing strait sex as they are gay sex at a young age. The same as seeing strait porn and gay porn.

 

Both harm children. But what further harms society is by normalizing homosexual behavior, it puts traditional norms on the defensive. Churches that continue to teach that homosexual activity is immoral are attacked as bigoted and hateful, for no other reason than refusing to bend to the latest perversion of right and wrong. The degradation of society's morals make it harder for children to be raised in a moral manner.

 

>Since pornographic material IS legal, how is its existance hurting young children if the young children are being PROPERLY supervised?

 

First, there was a time when pornographic material was illegal across the board. As a result of the degradation of society's morals, in the 70's society legalized pornography WITH RESTRICTIONS. Why are those restrictions legitimate if we accept your view? Who is society to restrict the viewing of pornography by children, if the parents believe it is moral?

 

The presence of pornography in society hurts our young women, more than any other class. They are demeaned and men come to view women as objects, as opposed to people with feelings. There is direct harm to our society via pornography (including children). If there is any doubt, look to the increasing problem of child pornography. Also, studies have shown that the abuse of children is often accompanied by pornography. Pornography is certainly a heavy factor in the sexual abuse of children. Can you doubt that?

 

>In the 60's, im sure a few people said that if "negros" were allowed to go to the same schools and bathrooms, then it would hurt the minds of children.

 

While that may be, this form of discrimination is unconstitutional. The PEOPLE of the United States agreed to make it unconstitutional. I can point you to words in the Constitution that prohibit this behavior. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit laws against homosexual activity?

 

To even argue the point is absurd, when the very founders who WROTE the Constitution also criminalized homosexual activity imposing capital punishment. If the founders meant to protect homosexual activity, you would think they would not be passing laws to execute those who engaged in it, no?

 

>Also, there are many stupid laws on the books across the country. Doesnt make them anything but stupid laws.

 

The people are allowed to make stupid laws. It comes with liberty and freedom.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

[tortdog]

Answering the original question:

 

>With this hypothetical, my questions is...What would you do? Would you continue in scouting? Would you quit? Would you 'wait and see'?

 

If the BSA removed God from the scout oath, and accepted homosexual activity as moral, I would reluctantly leave the BSA.

 

I think that makes the poll:

 

Stay: 11

Leave: 8

 

I would do so as I would see the BSA turning from long established norms and traditions of what it means to be morally straight. Having abandoned morality in the desire to be accepted by all parts of society (whether moral or not), the BSA would represent nothing more than another group of people doing outdoors activities.

 

I would also expect/hope that the LDS (Mormon) Church, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Jews and the United Methodist Church* would join together to maintain a youth program that maintained honor, duty to God and morality as an eternal standard.

 

(Did I surprise anyone?)

 

*I mention these churches as they joined in filing amicus briefs in support of the BSA in Dale.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

[Prairie_Scouter]

Just a coupla things,

 

Saying that acceptance of gays means that we are "introducing sexual perversion as normalcy" is just an opinion, although it's stated as if it were a well known fact. It's not. Trying to connect homosexual behavior to incest just seems to be an effort to stir the pot. Incest is illegal because it is an act of power and violence, just like rape. Trying to tie homosexual behavior to, I don't what to call it, "consentual cannibalism?", is equally provoking.

 

In regards to the whole line of reasoning about the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't cover all eventualities; it provides a construct under which legislation can be created that further details the broad brushstrokes of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Laws have been written that prohibit discrimination against a variety of groups, including prohibitions based on sex, race, etc., as well as "sexual preference". In a sense, then, the PEOPLE, speaking through their representatives, have said that such discriminations do not meet societal norms. And, through history, laws change, and in some cases, so does the Constitution, through amendments, to meet what is hopefully our better understanding of each other and the world we live in.

 

As I've said other times, within the context of their own religious beliefs, people can rightfully believe what they want. What is wrong is when they try to legislate their religious beliefs into law to impose their belief system on everyone else.

 

Regards what the Founders thought when writing these documents, many of them thought that slavery was a swell idea, too. We have hopefully learned a thing or two in the intervening years since the Founders did their original work. It's all stood up pretty well, all things considered, although that doesn't make it perfect.

 

BSA has taken the subjective view that homosexuality does not meet their interpretation of "morally straight". If they were to change that view, I would happily stay in an organization that would then be interested in getting the best possible leaders without regard for particular religious beliefs.

 

But, I'm not going to hold my breath while I'm waiting

[tortdog]

I am not making the argument that homosexual behavior = (i) incest or (ii) sexual cannibalism. Note that my example was of a father and a daughter, which is not homoseuxal.

 

A standard was put forward of consensual sexual conduct within the private bedroom as being protected. I argue that this standard is NOT protected (and never has been).

 

I brought you many examples of where I think a vast majority of the People would agree on legislation in the bedroom: (i) incest, (ii) sexual cannibalism and (iii) surgery (not sexual but still conduct in the bedroom).

 

I'm asking you to reconcile YOUR view with those examples, and whether you think it's okay for society to criminalize the three types of conduct I mentioned.

 

>Saying that acceptance of gays means that we are "introducing sexual perversion as normalcy" is just an opinion, although it's stated as if it were a well known fact. It's not.

 

Of course it's opinion. Laws are based on opinion (majority = statutory; supermajority = constitutional).

 

>Incest is illegal because it is an act of power and violence, just like rape.

 

I meant to give you an example of consensual incest - not some violent rape of a daughter. Think of the story of Lot, where the daughters seduced the father. With those facts, your view of legislation would permit consensual incest between a man and an adult daughter, correct?

 

>The Constitution doesn't cover all eventualities; it provides a construct under which legislation can be created that further details the broad brushstrokes of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

Correct.

 

>Laws have been written that prohibit discrimination against a variety of groups, including prohibitions based on sex, race, etc., as well as "sexual preference".

 

Incorrect. The People have never passed constitutional language that protected gender or sexual preference. Congress passed an amendment to provide for equal treatment of men and women, but the states did not ratify the amendment. The unelected judges have written in this protection, but even that does not rise to the level of protection from discrimination based on race (which was debated, passed and ratified by the states).

 

Congress has never debated protecting sexual preference via the Constitution. When it has addressed the issue, it has come down against gay marriage. Most of the states are strongly opposed to protection of sexual preference as some form of right, and when the people vote it is roundly rejected.

 

>In a sense, then, the PEOPLE, speaking through their representatives, have said that such discriminations do not meet societal norms.

 

Incorrect. The People have spoken at times but not against all discrimination.

 

>And, through history, laws change, and in some cases, so does the Constitution, through amendments, to meet what is hopefully our better understanding of each other and the world we live in.

 

Exactly. And if we want to protect sexual preference as a protected class, let's have the People amend the Constitution. Do you think it would muster 2/3s of the House/Senate and 3/4s of the states?

 

Um...no.

 

>As I've said other times, within the context of their own religious beliefs, people can rightfully believe what they want. What is wrong is when they try to legislate their religious beliefs into law to impose their belief system on everyone else.

 

Incorrect. People with religious beliefs are not foreclosed from legislating their viewpoints, and the laws we have reflect our morals. We believe it is wrong to murder, so we write a law. We believe incest is wrong, so we write a law.

 

That's how it works.

 

>Regards what the Founders thought when writing these documents, many of them thought that slavery was a swell idea, too. We have hopefully learned a thing or two in the intervening years since the Founders did their original work. It's all stood up pretty well, all things considered, although that doesn't make it perfect.

 

Beautiful example. The Constitution allowed for slavery. That law was upheld. Then, a wonderful thing happened, and the People amended the Constitution to prohibit it. Please show me where the People amended the Constitution to protect sexual preference or homosexual activities.

 

>BSA has taken the subjective view that homosexuality does not meet their interpretation of "morally straight". If they were to change that view, I would happily stay in an organization that would then be interested in getting the best possible leaders without regard for particular religious beliefs.

 

Yes, I gathered that. I am pretty sure I counted you in the "stay" category.(This message has been edited by tortdog)(This message has been edited by tortdog)

[Hunt]

Hey, what's the big idea get this thread back on the original topic?

 

"I would also expect/hope that the LDS (Mormon) Church, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Jews and the United Methodist Church* would join together to maintain a youth program that maintained honor, duty to God and morality as an eternal standard."

 

I think that many of these organizations would not sever ties with BSA as long as they could still set membership and leadership requirements for the units they charter. If BSA said they HAD to accept atheists and gay leaders in order to get charters, I think at least some of them would drop out. Remember, realistically BSA is not likely to say that homosexuality is "moral" or change "reverent" to "thoughtful." What it could do is say that the question of whether gay leaders and members are allowed is up to the chartering organization, and/or that it is also up to the chartering organization to set its own definition of "reverent." (I think the first is more likely than the second.)

 

It's interesting that you mention the United Methodist Church, because it has been dealing with the possibility of a schism over gay clergy for some time now. The last time the issue came up, I think the more liberal national church leaders wanted to change the policy, but backed off when it became clear that many pastors and whole congregations would leave the church if they did. But the UMC doesn't really have the same "local option" option that the BSA would have.

 

[tortdog]

If I remember right, the Orthodox Jews and the LDS Church have taken official stances that they would leave the BSA if the BSA accepted those engaged in homosexual activities as being morally straight. I suppose the argument is that the BSA is tacitly agreeing that homosexual activity IS morally straight, by allowing organizations to define it that way. For example, if an organization defined "morally straight" to include theft, I assume the BSA would not allow that organization to sponsor a BSA unit (picturing the mafia as a BSA sponsor).

 

Regarding the United Methodists, I recall the stark difference between the brief by the UM organization in charge of the youth program (in favor of the BSA) and the UM organization in charge of societal affairs (against the BSA). There was a split then, and I would be interested in how the UM Church is dealing with the issue today.