Gay parents influence on kids

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster and Ed, all of your posts about homosexuality only serve to confirm that the BSA policy is based on religion, and specifically on one religious viewpoint which is not shared by all BSA members. You want to believe in a particular book as being the word of God? You want to believe in a particular translation that condemns people for following their orientation, even when they aren't hurting anybody else? Go ahead, it's your choice (there's that word again.) But when the BSA national leadership makes your book and your interpretation the basis of a policy about which there is substantial disagreement, they have violated a basic principle of the organization, non-sectarianism.

 

And Rooster, I again notice that you call the BSA a "they," while I call it "we." It is the current, temporary, principle-ignoring national leadership of the BSA that is a "they." But the BSA itself is us. Well, maybe not you, the last time you said anything about it you weren't really involved with the BSA anymore.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Rooster,

 

Please don't misunderstand. It's not my intent to try and crack anyone's "shield of faith"; I doubt that I could do that, anyway. Faith is a wonderful thing. I think many of the concepts in the Bible are shared across a wide variety of religious sects and their respective beliefs. It forms a warm blanket that covers them all and gives a feeling of collective well being. I won't dispute the possibility that some sort of "higher intervention" was a part of the writings that make up these faiths; it's as possible as anything else. The problems start when man gets involved, picking which writings became part of the Bible and which ones didn't, choosing how to first translate and then interpret the writings to fit the needs of their respective faiths. That was my point in quoting The Onion. Things like "Don't kill" are pretty simple, but we humans spin that all sorts of ways to fit our needs. I happen to be one that thinks that the condemnation of gays is a result of such an interpretation. That's what I believe, along with a strong belief that groups shouldn't be judged together, but rather as individuals. Satan (whoever he is) wins when he is successful in dividing us and getting us to use our beliefs against each other.

[GernBlansten]

Hunt, your last post was excellent.

The problem with using sins to decide who may join and who must be expelled, is that sins are not universally agreed on.

 

Just for the record,

 

I have...

eaten pork and shellfish.

played the stock market, therefore gamble.

drank adult beverages.

danced, see above.

had sex before marriage, see above.

used birth control, see above.

worked Saturdays, Sundays and even Christmas.

lent money at interest.

Watching television or movies

Used buttons on clothing

Played cards

Read Harry Potter books

Bought insurance

Sweared oaths

Damaged the environment

Called another person a fool

 

I have never...

divorced

Had more than one wife

demonstrated Homosexual behavior

demonstrated Racism

Made carved images of Jesus or Mary

 

Statistically from your list, I'm not fit to be a scout leader.

 

Who's sins are we to be judged by? The Jehovah's Witnesses? The LDS? The Catholics? The Lutheran's? The HASIDIC JEWS? The Born again movement?

 

BSA needs to establish a policy that members conform to legal behaviors. This keeps the pediphiles and criminals out. Removes them from the tar pit they wandered into.

 

CO's should be allowed to determine non-criminal discrimination as they see fit. Let the LDS have their "official youth program" and exclude female leadership, let the UU church run a scout troop with gay leadership. Let my Methodist CO determine who they see fit as leadership. If they think my day trading in stock options is not in harmony with their values, they can exclude me. I will find another troop that does.

 

[evmori]

1. Drinking alcohol

2. Smoking

3. Getting divorced

4. Lending money at interest

5. Dancing

6. Watching television or movies

7. Using buttons on clothing

8. Playing cards

9. Reading Harry Potter books

10. Having more than one wife

11. Having sex before marriage

12. Using birth control, even during marriage

13. Working on Sunday

14. Working on Saturday

15. Buying insurance

16. Swearing oaths

17. Homosexual behavior

18. Racism

19. Damaging the environment

20. Making carved images of Jesus or Mary

21. Calling another person a fool

22. Gambling

 

I need a better explanation on #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16 & 20. How are these condemned in the Bible? Especially #20?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[GernBlansten]

Not a Biblical scholar here, but let me take a swing at some of these...

 

1. Drinking alcohol

(The Methodist minister who lived across my street said "Lips that touch wine, shall never touch mine")

4. Lending money at interest

(I think this goes to borrowing more than lending, Jewish thing I think)

5. Dancing

(Southern Baptists don't like dancing. Ask Ashcroft.)

6. Watching television or movies

(Really don't know, but I'm sure there is something sinful about it, especially Jerry Springer)

7. Using buttons on clothing

(Well, those Quakers are a little queer)

8. Playing cards

(My grandma from the old country said it was the Devil's Picturebook)

9. Reading Harry Potter books

(Read today's paper. All that witchcraft and sorcery)

15. Buying insurance

(Haven't a clue, but it must be true since its on the internets.)

16. Swearing oaths

(Jehovah's Witnesses will not say the Pledge of Allegiance.)

20. Making carved images of Jesus or Mary

(Don't have a clue. Must be Catholic deal since they are the only ones hooked on Mary)

 

 

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

A local option will only be invoked when the policy makers decide that is what they want to do. So yes, I do not consider myself to be a BSA policy maker...only an inactive adult volunteer. In the meantime, I do not believe the BSAs support of Judeo-Christian values constitutes the "narrow-minded following of a particular faith" a.k.a. sectarianism. Their policies reflect the traditional values that this country once embraced. If you dont see it that way, thats finebut thats just your opinion, like many others.

 

To me, the idea of a national organization with universal standards makes sense. The BSAs mantra of building character in boys would ring hallow if they allowed local units to pick and choose their own standards.

 

Biblically rooted or not, I am free to embrace any set of values which I deem appropriate. Furthermore, I am free to promote those values as I please. Labeling them as religiously inspired does not nullify them. In short, the fact that I believe in God, that doesnt make my values less worthy of consideration even in a so-called non-sectarian organization, if indeed that is how the BSA would describe itself.

 

Lastly, if you want to bring this discussion back to the local option, then please refer to my first paragraph.

 

[evmori]

Gern,

Funny stuff, but nothing Biblical about it. Thanks for trying.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

This is kind of a diversion, but I want to respond to Ed's question about my list. Some of these things AREN'T specifically condemned in the Bible, but various Christian groups have condemned them based on their interpretations of the Bible. I'll annotate the list, but I'm not going to look up Biblical references or church doctrines--this is going on memory, and others can feel free to correct me.

 

1. Drinking alcohol

Bible condemns drunkenness, but does not call for abstinence from alcohol. Several Christian sects call for total abstinence.

 

2. Smoking--Bible says nothing about it, condemned by some churches as defiling the body (as a temple of the Lord)

 

3. Getting divorced--pretty clearly condemned by Jesus himself (with modest exceptions), condemned by some churches.

 

4. Lending money at interest--prohibited in the Old Testament, condemned by a few groups

 

5. Dancing--not really mentioned in the Bible (at least not social dancing), but condemned as leading to lust by some churches

 

6. Watching television or movies--obviously not in the Bible, but condemned as "worldly" by some groups

 

7. Using buttons on clothing--don't know if it's in the Bible, but condemned by the Amish (the Bible does prohibit joining two different kinds of cloth together)

 

8. Playing cards--obviously not in the Bible, but condemned as frivolous (and also I've read some arguments that the cards have some kind of evil symbolism as well)

 

9. Reading Harry Potter books--The Bible condemns witchcraft, and the Potter books promote it (say some)

 

10. Having more than one wife. Old Testament obviously allows this, New Testament states one wife only. Most churches agree with NT, except for some splinters from LDS.

 

11. Having sex before marriage. Bible says "flee fornication."

 

12. Using birth control, even during marriage. Bible not clear, Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation only.

 

13. Working on Sunday

14. Working on Saturday

 

Bible says don't work on the Sabbath--churches disagree as to which day is the Sabbath.

 

15. Buying insurance--not aware of Biblical prohibition--some churches say trust in God

 

16. Swearing oaths--Bible clearly says don't swear by anything, and some churches take this seriously.

 

17. Homosexual behavior--pretty clearly condemned in both Old and New Testament.

 

18. Racism--not explicitly addressed in Bible, but can be derived from statements about unity in church.

 

19. Damaging the environment--man to be steward of creation.

 

20. Making carved images of Jesus or Mary--This is the easiest of them all--these are "graven images" violating the Second Commandment. This view is what caused "iconoclasm."

 

21. Calling another person a fool--the Bible says that he who calls another fool is in danger of hellfire.

 

22. Gambling--I really don't know if the Bible condemns this or not, but it's been condemned by lots of churches.

 

Again, my point here is that BSA should be neutral where there is significant religious disagreement about whether a particular activity is moral or not.

[evmori]

Hunt,

Thanks. But ya gotta explain #16. If you are referring to James 5:12 I think your interpretation is off. And #20. I don't think making statues of Jesus would be considered a "graven image". Now Mary is a different story.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

On oaths: Some Christians believe that any oath at all, or even a promise, violates Jesus' (and James')injunction to let yes be yes and no be no. See http://www.thefaithfulword.org/oaths.html. If you follow this guy's logic, repeating the Scout Oath (even if you call it a Promise) is a sin. Please note: I'm not saying this is my interpretation.

 

And although I don't have a reference right now I do believe that certain Protestant sects would consider a statue of Jesus as a graven image (which is one reason they tend to have an "empty cross"--although even that could be a "graven image" to some.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you don't believe that there are different interpretations of the Christian Bible, try the following exercises: 1. Go to a book store that carries Bibles and look at the many versions-compare and contrast some of them and then ask yourself about the validity of your King James edition; 2. Drive down any street in any city USA and look at the different denominations, visit several over the next few weeks and try to understand some of the beliefs that you think are wrong; 3. Look in the phone book under churches and ask yourself how many you feel would be acceptable to your personal beliefs, then call a few of the ministers and see if your beliefs would fit in; 4. Attend a church conference and try to get a unanimous vote on the use of buttons or dancing or graven images (*buttons was thrown in to give you a head start); 5. Hold a discussion in your own Sunday School class over the specific use(s) of alcohol or if birth control should even be a consideration, then point out the size of everyone's families; 6. Visit the home of three Scouters that do not belong to your denomination and peruse their book shelves-hold a discussion on acceptable books that has Christian values in them.

 

By the way, it is not lending money that is considered biblically wrong but it is lending money at an excessive interest rate that is condemned. Yes, it has been thought of long ago and used by many over the centuries. An example of this would be charging someone a 21% interest rate. This would invite servitude instead of brotherhood, depending on one's understanding of servitude of course. Try discussing this principle with your local banker or a credit card company. See if any are willing to change their ways based on this evil.

 

[Rooster7]

No doubt there are many different interpretations of the Bible. However, there are probably countless interpretations of the U.S. Constitution as well. Do we ignore the entire document because some folks cannot grasp the simplest concepts? We take our Supreme Court very seriously, as we should - because we understand the courts interpretation will have long term consequences for our lives. Christians should consider the Bible with the same seriousness as we do our Constitution; how we receive and understand Gods Word has eternal consequences for our lives. Dismissing the Bible as controversial or subject to human error is a huge mistake.

 

In short, there will always be people who will attempt to hide the Truth this fact does not stripe us of the responsibility to seek it.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Rooster,

I don't think anyone here is necessarily dismissing the Bible. However, just as a discussion point, I think it's valid to discuss the idea of the Bible, or other similarly religious texts, as the basis for social policy, such as the issue of gays in Scouting. Every major Christian religion claims that their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation. They all think that their interpretation is the one that was guided by a divine hand. You have chosen a particular interpretation as your Truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What I'd question is the BSA using a particular interpretation to develop a policy on gays while at the same time saying that they are absolutely non-sectarian in their views. I don't think you can have it both ways.

[stlscouter]

All of the BIBLE quotes and misquotes are interesting. But, among other reasons heard, with reference to why no homosexuals in Scouts are:

1. Scouts will be a great recruiting ground for the next generation of gays since they are not able to reproduce of themselves, thus not being able to contribute boys to the program.

2. The difference between the actions of a a pedophile and a gay adult is 17 years 364 days 23 hours and 59 seconds.

 

[Rooster7]

Excerpted: from Adult Registration Application B.S.A. No. 28-501K

 

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely non-sectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

 

non-sectarian in its attitude toward that religious training

 

How can one interpret that to mean that the BSA will not embrace values which may have a particular religious origin? It only says - they will remain neutral in regard how one receives religious training. The BSA is free to embrace any value of their choosing. Their right to do so, does not conflict with their policy which is, to allow Scouts to pursue their religious training independent of Scouting.

 

Those who claim it does, are simply fishing to find a reason to condemn the policy which is fair and reasonable. So what if one of the values embraced by the BSA is also a value of the Jewish and Christian faiths? No one is being forced to follow the Jewish or Christian faiths. The fact is - any value embraced by the BSA need not be neutral in terms of its religious origin. No matter the origin, Scouts are free to pursue their religious training through the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected. If it pleased the BSA organization to do so, they could embrace every value of a particular Christian denomination, and still remain true the declaration of religious principle (which only speaks to religious training).

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)