PDA

View Full Version : Deceased: The Boy Scouts of America



elder999
19th November 2003, 19:21
Born: 1910
Died: June 2000
Cause of death: Christian Dogma


So, Mitch’s and Tony’s arguments on other threads notwithstanding, I thought I’d weigh in wiyh a separate thread about the Boy Scouts.

First, some news items:

Philadelphia, June 2003-Gregory Lattera, a Boy Scout and camp counselor for the previous seven yeas, was informed that he is banned from scouting because he admitted publicly that he is gay. Upon reading the letter, Lattera said, "It broke my heart.”

Port Orchard, Washington, June, 2002-Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert, who had provided more than 1,000 hours of community service as a Scout, was informed by the regional Boy Scouts of America executive that he had one week “to declare his belief in a supreme being” or quit the scouts.

Washington, D.C., June 2000-The U.S. Supreme court, in a 5-to-4 vote, backed the BSA’s right to exclude homosexuals. Justice William Rehnquist explained that gays violate the Scout directive to be “clean” and “morally straight.”

Dallas, Texas, January 2003- Following a raid of the local Boy Scout office by federal agents, a grand jury began investigating whether the Dallas BSA franchise fraudulently inflated its membership to boost donations from non-profits.

I’m a Scout -I’m 43, but you’re always a Scout, like you’re always “Mr. President,”though it's really a"always an Eagle," something I didn't have a chance for...
Hudson Valley Council, Troop 134, Order of the Arrow, Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader, camp staff member, Scoutmaster’s son, Scoutmaster, and former Cub Scout and Webelo. I had a subscription to Boys’ Life for ten years, and I still remember Morse Code. I learned how to use a compass, start a fire, wrap a tourniquet, lash a log, shoot a gun and bow and arrow, paddle a canoe, sail, pitch a tent, tie flies and swim while carrying a panicked drowning victim.

Steenking Badges? I had ‘em all: sash with 23 merit badges, Scout shirts, Scout pants, Scout socks, Scout hats, Scout neckerchiefs out the wazoo. Be prepared. A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, etcetera (I absolutely still know it by heart). Philmont. Baden Powell-words and names that only Scouting survivors would know.

When I became a Scout in Peekskill, N.Y., Nixon had just become President. I didn’t know what marijuana was, or what homosexuals were. Troop 134 was sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, just a little ways from St. Columbanus Catholic Church and School. There was an American flag on St. Columbanus’s altar, just as there was at my father’s Episcopal church. Because I went to the public school, I was one of the few Scouts who did not attend St. Columbanus, and, with the exception of my father- an Episcopal priest-the Scoutmasters were all Knights. And, with the later short exception of my brother, I was the only non-white scout-though no one ever diod anything but make me feel welcome.

Although the “KC Hall” was practically on the same property as the church and the school, it had a full bar upstairs. Downstairs was where Troop 134 met every Tuesday night. The meeting always started with everyone lined up in military drill, while the scoutmasters strutted back and forth making announcements. There was one year when a young, crew-cutted National Guard member served as an assistant scoutmaster. He had the scouts marchin’, salutin’ and about-facin’ up a storm for months. He inspected the troops like a drill sergeant, busting chops for shirttails, blue jeans, and uncombed hair or missing badges. We made fun of him behind his back, until he went to Viet Nam, never to return.

Otherwise I remember Scouting was mostly all our dads’ best efforts at creating a Man Apprenticeship for their young sons. And it was a reason besides huntin’ and fishin’ for everybody to go out and play in the woods. I remember the really fun stuff like the time Michael Peck-who time would prove to be more than a little crazy- brought three bottles of gasoline to light campfires with, or the time that herpetologist Bill Haas came from Florida, with several cobras to show us! Or the time my best friend Michael Van den Berg and I were in a canoe and almost got sucked into the intake at Kensico Dam, and the time we put salt into the coffee at the KC dinner.

In fact, it was a lot like Jackass, only better.

When I went to boarding school, I had to pretty much give up scouting, and I found new diversions, but the Scout life had undeniable impact on my socialization.

So I was a little taken aback one day when my chess coach, as we drove past a Boy Scout car wash, muttered something about “brownshirts.” It’s true-a pack of Boy Scouts in uniform bears no small resemblance to the old newsreels of Hitler Youth congregations. We didn’t go around smashing windows and assaulting Jews, but I certainly knew that a major intention of Scouting had always been to promote the military virtues of loyalty, obedience, and patriotism, I realized that, to my chess coach-and German teacher, a sophisticated Kennedy Democrat andbarely former leftist hippie-the BSA was part of the conservative establishment. It would have been inconceivable for a kid in the KC hall to cop to being a homosexual or an atheist, but, in 1974, American culture as a whole was over the crest of a wave of change that went from free speech and civil rights to hippies, and Watergate.

Back in Peekskill, I never thought of the Scouts as a fundamentalist Christian boys club or a junior ROTC. I expected the BSA would grow and mature with America, but it seems to be losing touch-I suspect there aren’t very many Hip Hop troops in the hood these days-though I met Scouts from what was the equivalent back then. It will be a sad day if the Scouts prove my chess coach right and become a dull, thuggish cadre of brown shirts. America in the 21st century deserves better. America deserves volunteer based youth groups that work in an atmosphere of tolerance and diversity, not a private club devoted to enforcing rigid, suburban conformity. We now live in a time where many children are neglected on a Dickensian scale: While the grownups argue over the principles of Christianity and capitalism, many kids go without food, care, tutoring, mentoring or love. I was happy to be a Scoutmaster for my son, angered and saddened by what scouting had become, and relieved when he said he was no longer interested in Scouting, and would rather just go camping and hunting with me and my friends; it was he who got me back into hunting, after I had given it up since the death of my father .

I am not alone in my outrage. A cursory search on the net reveals “Scouting for All,” an organization composed of ex-Scouts like myself and devoted to reforming the Boy Scouts. Scouting for All has an impressive website and several regional headquarters. The BSA’s funding from government and non-profit sources is now under legal attack, based upon the principles of the First amendment and nondiscrimination policies.

Ironically, Baden-Powell- a real military scout in the Boer War, founded the Scouts when he found boys were reading the military manual he had written. He thought he was creating “peace scouts.”

Meanwhile, I [B]still[B] have my Order of the Arrow badge, as well as a few others, and I still get flashbacks when I spot old scout uniforms in thrift stores. And I laughed my a$$ off when I saw that episode on South Park-a show I normally despise- about the gay Scoutmaster.

Starkjudo
19th November 2003, 20:38
A cursory viewing of Scouting for All's website appears to show that all of their problems are tied up in the BSA's prohibiting gays or atheists to become members.

Sorry. I'll continue to support the BSA. And as for the tedious exhaltations from the atheists that Baden-Powell would be appalled by what scouting has become, a GIS brought me this link:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scouting/rec.scouting.issues/section-11.html
http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/st_simons/cr9402.htm

I think he'd be proud that the BSA has stood their ground on the issue and not caved to become an all-inclusive group that in reality, does no one any good. How could it? Accepting everything in the world just leads to a world where nothing means anything.

The more we try to strip God and morality out of the world, the poorer that world becomes. - Me

"No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His
laws. So every Scout should have a religion....Religion seems
a very simple thing: First: Love and serve God. Second: Love
and serve your neighbour." Lord Baden-Powell

Shitoryu Dude
19th November 2003, 21:01
Sounds like I'm not the only one who has grown disgusted with the BSA. It has changed over the past two or three decades, and not for the better. To start with, the new uniforms look pretty pansya$$ to me :D

:beer:

Shitoryu Dude
19th November 2003, 21:06
Sigh, still no end to christian interpretation of things to mean what they want them to. :rolleyes:

Gene Williams
20th November 2003, 00:37
I don't think homosexuality should be encouraged or condoned in BSA, either. It is, after all, an anomaly. There is room in the constitution for such anomalies to be protected, but not promoted. Homosexuality is not normal if for no other reason than that it is based upon a biological falsehood. We, at our liberal best, have spent so much energy re-defining language and "normality" that no one knows what it is anymore. Well, lets start with what ain't normal, and homosexuality isn't. Hey, if they want to play on the mustard trail in the privacy of their own homes, fine. They can pack all the fudge they like as long as they stay out of the streets and quit trying to make everybody believe that what they do is normal.

Shitoryu Dude
20th November 2003, 02:59
I can make a very good case for homosexuality being a statistical normality. The genes and conditions that create the biological condition of homosexuality are quite well distributed througout all gene pools worldwide - it appears to consistantly appear about 2% of the time in all races, cultures, ethnicities, etc. It is a fact of life. Only in certain puritanical religious societies is it looked at as immoral or deviant. Most cultures just accept it.

While certain aspects of homosexual behavior will always be the butt of heterosexual jokes (and trust me, even gay men laugh at it), it certainly passes for normal within the general framework of human behavioral norms. If you are concerned with other aspects of modern gay life, then perhaps better role models and acceptance by society will modify the self-destructive aspects of it. I fail to see how the BSA ostracising gay men and boys serves to help anybody. It merely creates the impression that anyone who is gay is automatically unfit to associate with.

In other words, homosexuality is a naturally occuring condition. Discriminating against gays is the same thing as being racist. Or do you think people choose to be gay, or black, or white, or asian, or male, or female, or whatever?

:beer:

Gene Williams
20th November 2003, 03:37
An anomaly is a naturally occurring condition. Though occurring in a small percentage of many species, it is not widely selected for because it is a recessive trait. I think in many it is also a learned behavior, especially in adolescents whose ego boundaries are in flux, anyway, and who may choose the lifestyle for social reasons. I do not think that should be encouraged. However, if you like queers and feel the need to promote and defend them, enjoy;)

Julian Gerhart
20th November 2003, 03:56
It makes me very upset when people associate atheism and homosexuality with immorality. people who do that are bigots.

Shitoryu Dude
20th November 2003, 04:05
I'm not buying the outright line of BS that being gay is a "learned" behavior. That would meant that being straight is also learned. Nobody goes out and recruits adolescents to be gay, they were already gay to begin with. The recruitment scenario and argument is so 50's as to be pathetic.

I homosexuality were truly an anomaly it would fall outside the three standard deviations rule of statistics - as it does not by any stretch of the imagination, then it is a normal and statistically expected part of the human gene pool. If homosexuality were perhaps one in 10,000 you might have a case. Just because it theoretically doesn't breed, nor is it proven to be a recessive by any stretch of the imagination, does not mean that it has no value or survival traits. Many gay men have children, just as many lesbian women do, your theories do not hold up to scrutiny very well.

You can, however argue for freedom of association. If the BSA wishes to become a totally private organization and not take any tax money then they are certainly free to exclude homosexuals from their organization much as any other group selects its own members.

Starkjudo
20th November 2003, 05:13
Originally posted by Julian Gerhart
It makes me very upset when people associate atheism and homosexuality with immorality. people who do that are bigots.

Then by your definition, i'm a bigot. Does it bother me? Nope.

Shitoryu Dude
20th November 2003, 05:22
Yeah, but that also makes you stupid, or at the very least so ignorant that your opinions are meaningless.

:beer:

Starkjudo
20th November 2003, 06:33
Hardly. What he, and you, see as bigoted, I see as standing by principles, and there's plenty who agree with me.

n2shotokai
20th November 2003, 06:33
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
You can, however argue for freedom of association. If the BSA wishes to become a totally private organization and not take any tax money then they are certainly free to exclude homosexuals from their organization much as any other group selects its own members.
I wonder how many organizations are out there that accept "tax money" but would not welcome me, a white middle-aged male. Fair is fair, let's be consistent.


Yeah, but that also makes you stupid, or at the very least so ignorant that your opinions are meaningless.
I find these types of posts so helpfull
:rolleyes:

Julian Gerhart
20th November 2003, 07:50
Originally posted by n2shotokai
I wonder how many organizations are out there that accept "tax money" but would not welcome me, a white middle-aged male. Fair is fair, let's be consistent.

two wrongs don't make a right.:D

larsen_huw
20th November 2003, 09:48
Originally posted by Julian Gerhart
two wrongs don't make a right.:D

but 3 right's make a left! :D

As long as everyone involved is consenting, what goes on in private is cool, and it shouldn't make a difference to how they are as people .... unless they're politicians, in which case feel free to whip up a media storm! :rolleyes:

TimoS
20th November 2003, 10:32
Port Orchard, Washington, June, 2002-Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert, who had provided more than 1,000 hours of community service as a Scout, was informed by the regional Boy Scouts of America executive that he had one week “to declare his belief in a supreme being” or quit the scouts.


How about if he declared that he believed in the almighty dollar ? :D

txhapkido
20th November 2003, 11:40
I got kicked out of the Boy Scouts for eating a Brownie! Go figure?:D

Gene Williams
20th November 2003, 12:00
Harvey, You didn't read my post very closely. I do not believe that all homosexuality is learned, but some is. I spent 18 years as a psychologist and know what I am talking about. Yes, much homosexuality is genetically based, but that does not make it good for the culture or society in general. It needs to be tolerated but not promoted and defended.

Iain
20th November 2003, 13:53
So why is homosexuality bad for society? Gene, you suggest that it needs to be tolerated, but not defended because it's traits somehow make it 'not good' for society. If it's not good, it's bad. Why is it bad?

kage110
20th November 2003, 14:17
Harvey, You didn't read my post very closely. I do not believe that all homosexuality is learned, but some is. I spent 18 years as a psychologist and know what I am talking about. Yes, much homosexuality is genetically based, but that does not make it good for the culture or society in general. It needs to be tolerated but not promoted and defended.
Gene,

First time I heard that homosexuality was a a 'psychological' issue. I know people have psychologocal problems and some of those might be because they are homosexual (a friend of mine has had to face that) but being homosexual has, itself, not been proven to be a psychological issue. For those people the choose homosexuality over heterosexuality it is probably because they occupy the middle ground of bisexuality and could swing both ways, hence they can choose which way to swing. Seems to me that you should see a psychologist about your obvious hang-ups about sex. How Freudian is that?

Someone in a recent thread wrote something the the effect that homosexuals should be allowed to feel what they feel but not flaunt it in the face of everyone else. I am not sure how one 'flaunts' ones sexuality but if that means holding hands or kissing (you know, a nice kiss goodbye on the lips that you wouldn't think twice about giving your heterosexual other half) in public then I guess we had better ban that for heterosexuals as well.

Why will it hurt young boys to be faced with the fact that some people like men and some men like men? I seem to remember meeting a few gay couples during my childhood and none of them tried to 'recruit' me or even looked at me like I was anything other than the child of their friend, my mother.

Why doesn't everyone just 'chill' about the issue of sex in general? We are far too up tight about sex in any of its guises. To paraphrase a well known saying, 'sex happens'! Live with it.

glad2bhere
20th November 2003, 15:11
I am not surpised to see the old "nature vs nurture" arguement come up regarding Homosexuality. It comes up with so many things in our society including drug-use, alcoholism, violence-- domestic and societal--- crime and so forth. It also crops up when folks start tossing around the idea of eugenics and wanting a smart kid, fastest runner, toughest fighter and so forth.

If you mix into that the instinctive response human beings have to activities associated with bodily discharges and fluids ---- every thing from a runny nose to orgasms and bowel movements its no wonder that we make such a big thing about Homosexuality. We don't know how much of it is nature and how much of it is nurture. It is certainly associate with sexual things so there is the involvement of body fluids and also atypical behaviors which in and of themselves scare a lot of us. And if that is not bad enough there does not seem to be any clear delineation in peoples minds where homosexual behavior (hugging a buddy, kissing your father on the mouth) ends and Homosexual lifestyle (hugging a buddy, kissing your father on the mouth) begins.

As MA maybe it bugs us that Homosexuality plays/played no small part in many modern and historical martial contexts. Its no fun to find out that someone that we feel special about in the military, sports or political arena is a homosexual. Might begin to make us wonder about ourselves---like, how is it that I found myself admiring THAT person? Maybe,---- no--- not me!!!

I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next person, but I AM a little concerned about some of the fear I am hearing concerning Homosexuals and homosexual behavior. Or maybe people are a little nervous about those experimental events they repress from their childhood. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Gene Williams
20th November 2003, 23:31
Hugh, It has nothing to do with being hung up about sex. Again, homosexuality should be tolerated but not promoted or encouraged. That seems simple enough and a reasonable stance for society to take.

kirigirisu
21st November 2003, 00:12
Nor should it be suppressed or subjected to idiot bible thumpers trying to "convert" them in order to fill their ranks with future tithe-generators who may or may not carry the same (former) traits of their parents due to genetics and probability or vilified to such an extent that it produces such self-loathing closeted abominations like J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, most of the Middle Eastern male population, and Adolph Hitler, all of whom probably wouldn't have gone on to spread such misery and suffering if they were allowed to diddle and bugger other consenting adult men and occaisionally take a pearl necklace or two.

Plus, more homos means more women for the straight guys :D

Gene Williams
21st November 2003, 00:18
William, all of your points are well taken, especially the last one:D

shotofan
21st November 2003, 01:07
I could care less. Stright or not, oh well. Deal with it. Homosexuality was have been around for ever. Someone brought up the Greeks. Even the samurai were involed in homosexual activity. When the samurai were at battle, many times they would use their (for lack of a better word) squrie for sexual pessure.

If you are agsnt gays, just don't talk to anybody. All for what you know, that new friend of yours could be gay.. That is why I say deal with it, and move on. You might not like it, but you have to live with it.

wab25
21st November 2003, 02:02
First off, I am an Eagle Scout, and I am now a brand new scoutmaster. I have done the camp staff thing and the Philmont thing. In fact my whole family is involved with BSA.

Lets first discuss the idea of having an "open mind" and what it means to be "accepting." Two VERY misunderstood ideas. Having an "open mind" means that everyones ideas are of value and worth consideration upon their merits. Having an "open mind" is not the same as being politically correct. In fact, having an "open mind" is very much not politically correct, because it gives equal weight to everyone's ideas and does not have a predetermined outcome, nor should all "open minded" people always agree. In fact their disagreement is what pushes them to continue searching.

To be "accepting" is to allow other people to come to their own conclusions. This would extend to respecting peoples culture, even though different from our own and even to respecting peoples different religions.

It seems to me that if a person were truly "open minded," and "accepting," then they should be able to tolerate someone who has a different religion, even if that religion happens to be christian. As far as BSA goes, they tolerate and even accept people of all religions. Yes, freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. But your being aethist shouldn't stop me from being christian or jewish or muslum or buddist...... BSA supports more religions than most people can name. They even have made provisions to support your religion if they don't already yet support it. If you are so aethiest that you can not "do your duty to god," go somewhere else. But don't take away my organization. Don't try to change my organization. Make your own, just as Powell did, there you can do your duty to what ever you want. If your idea really is "more enlightened" and "less ignorant" then people will come and join. But don't impose your religion or rather lack of it on me, and the many BSA members. We have the same right as you do, to believe what we want.

Yes, BSA does get money from the government. But so do many Black groups, and Native American groups and Hispanic groups, and Latino groups and womens groups..... Being a white male I have little chance of ever getting in on those groups. My race is something I can't choose. Religion is a little easier to change. ( by the way, BSA supports ALL races of people. Boy Scouting has spread around the world into many more countries than you can imagine )

As far as homosexuality goes, that is something we don't want to subject our youth to. That is a common sentiment of most of the BSA membership. If you want that to be apart of your organization, fine, more power to you. But, our organization does not want to deal with those problems any more than it has to. And yes homosexuals do cause problems in BSA. Yes, the same problems everyone has used since the 50's. But recruting does take place, especially with young boys. Unfortunately, I have seen it happen, as camp staff we busted many people, adult and child a like, as a direct result of seeing it happen. Even more sadly, we had to help the victim afterwards when we were not there in time to stop it. I realize that there are many homosexuals who are not like this, who are appalled by this, some of them are even friends of mine. But there are enough that are engaged in this recrutment process that there is validity for people to be concerned about it. BSA was formed to be a place were your kids could go and feel comfortable and safe. If you or your child feels uncomfortable due to this restriction, start your own group. But don't take away my place of comfort and safety.

I do believe that people can have whatever culture, religion or sexual preference that they want. I also believe that it should be a persons free choice, not imposed on them or stripped away from them. Seeing another persons religious custum imposes no threat to your own choice, its kind of like being "open minded," or even "accepting," to allow them to do so in your presence. It is the intolerant and truely ignorant people who would strip away all religious, cultural or morality practices. Even stripping away one religion, is dangerous. It limits peoples freedom. If you can take away one religion, you can take away them all. Right now Christians are under attack. In Canada Christian preachers are jailed for preaching out of the Bible, under hate speach laws, the same ones coming here from the Kennedys. As a school teacher you cannot where a cross, though Jewish teachers can wear there little cap( sorry I don't know the name of it ), Muslims and Islamics can wear there religious pieces as well. Even if you are not Christian, you should be on their side, because your religion is next. Even your aethism may be taken from you, depending upon the religion of those in charge. Taking away the freedom of speech, or religion from even one group, takes it away from all. In the end it will come back and bite those who supported taking it away in the first place, it always does. These freedoms were paid for by the blood of many millions of people. Once they are lost, they can only be regained through the shedding of more blood. I hope that we can all be truely open minded enough and accepting enough to allow and support all groups of people. Those damn god fearing people with christian morals have a good thing going in the BSA, well they started it. They built it from the ground up. Just because you don't have one, don't take ours away, build your own. In fact model it after the BSA, it has been very successful. Change only the parts you don't agree with. Many BSA members will probably help you out in doing so, teaching you what they know, helping you to organize and set it up. In taking freedom from one group, however distasteful they may be to you, also takes freedom from you as well.

Shitoryu Dude
21st November 2003, 03:01
Odd, then, that for so many years the BSA had no opinion about atheists needing to be sent away. I know, because I was a public and vocal atheist when I earned my Eagle Scout in 1979. Nobody cared - the references to god were better understood to NOT mean "non-atheist" and people understood better that morality did not flow from the church (as history shows, that is where it is usually excluded from).

As far as the anti-gay speech goes, 30 years ago it was stated in no uncertain terms that the reason that homosexuals could not be Scoutmasters is because the BSA was protecting those young boys from being molested by the Michael Jacksons of the world. Child molesters is what the ban was for, and it seemed to be "common knowledge" that all faggots were just waiting for a chance to sodomize those little boys. That line of reasoning has since been proven to be asinine, yet the ban still exists. Why? Because the BSA is a pack of hyper-evangelicals who believe that the bible tells them that gays are immoral sinners of the worst sort and deserve to die and go straight to hell.

The anecdotes of those who have been "outed" for being either gay or atheist while working for the BSA in either a professional or volunteer basis show that the morality that the BSA espouses publicly does not actually exist within the BSA itself. It is a lie and propaganda. If you think the boys themselves don't know this, then you underestimate them greatly. While I expect that there are still good troops out there being run by men who know better than to involve themselves in the petty religous crusades of the BSA upper echelons, they pretty much have to operate in private and bite their tongue.

And as for the BSA accepting tax dollars and being an exclusionary organization, "just like others". Who cares? None of them deserve a penny that they do not raise themselves.

:beer:

wab25
21st November 2003, 05:36
============================
Odd, then, that for so many years the BSA had no opinion about atheists needing to be sent away. I know, because I was a public and vocal atheist when I earned my Eagle Scout in 1979. Nobody cared - the references to god were better understood to NOT mean "non-atheist" and people understood better that morality did not flow from the church (as history shows, that is where it is usually excluded from).
============================

I agree completely. To my knowledge the only atheists turned away are those who have a problem with the oath "to do my duty to god." That really is about all the God the put in the scouts, other than the optional religious award. And of coarse they do allow prayer if the members so desire. In fact, there are no prayers in any of the Round Table meetings or training meetings that I have been to, and they meet in a mormon church.

==========================
Child molesters is what the ban was for, and it seemed to be "common knowledge" that all faggots were just waiting for a chance to sodomize those little boys. That line of reasoning has since been proven to be asinine, yet the ban still exists.
==========================

I realize it is asinine to have to deal with people who do recruit boys to be gay. Sometimes these people are adults, the child molesters, other times these people are the boys themselves. They use peer pressure, many times on the very young boys who are unsecure with themselves. They are pressured to fit in with the group. A person should be able to make such sexual decisions without all the peer pressure. Do all gays try to recruit? no, probably only a minority of them. But, it happens a lot more than is politically correct to say.

But the real point is, that the BSA is a group of people who do not want gays in their membership. That is every bit their right. Just like veterins can have vet only groups, blacks can have black only groups, hispanics can have hispanic only groups, plumbers can have only plumbers groups, there is the whole messanic lodge thing, Martial Artists can have martial artist groups. There are martial arts schools here for lesbians only. To join, you must be female and lesbian. Why cannot the BSA have the same priviledge? Each group can be as open or as closed as it wants. But it is the groups decision, not anyone elses.

=========================
The anecdotes of those who have been "outed" for being either gay or atheist while working for the BSA in either a professional or volunteer basis show that the morality that the BSA espouses publicly does not actually exist within the BSA itself. It is a lie and propaganda.
=========================

The fact that the BSA outs people for not adhereing to the standards laid out is in no way immoral. If I can't tell you what your morality should be, how can you judge mine? You complain about the BSA is defining the publics morality, and then you define BSA's morality. I don't want to say hypocritical, but I do want to point out if something is wrong for one group to do it is wrong for the other to do it as well.

The fact that the BSA stands by their set standards, regardless of the persons rank or position, should say something about there morality, in that they are who they say they are. How many groups or even people, for that matter can say that? Certainly not the politicians lobbying for votes and certainly the lawyers out to sue everybody.

The boys in my troop are worried about learning to be men, learning to be leaders, learning to a productive asset to their community. They will find their sexual identity, and even their religious identity. But at 12 years old, being pressured by the older boys or their leaders, is not the time to make that decision.

Shitoryu Dude
21st November 2003, 06:03
Odd how my words got twisted around to mean something else entirely.

wab25
21st November 2003, 06:23
I merely replied to your arguements. Which did I twist? They are direct quotes from your post. A little logic sure makes short work of these arguements, which is probably why you should never use logic in discussions of politics or religion.

kirigirisu
21st November 2003, 06:25
Methinks evil-fundie William doth protest a wee-bit muchly about the evil, evil limpwristed cocksucker faggots ofay what wants to corrupt his smooth, tender, hairless charges.

Didn't you know, Harvey, that all fags are actually members of NAMBLA? The BSA thinks it's true, so it must be! That utter closeted skid-mark of on humanity and curse upon all Christiandom, so-called "Apostle" Saul, er, Paul said so in Romans, man!

Be careful, man. These nancy-boys work in groups. They're out to convert everyone, man.

Shitoryu Dude
21st November 2003, 06:51
You REALLY want to get into a logic war with me? I eat up dolts like you for breakfast.

Not only did you add to what I said in your "analysis" you seem to not know what the hell you are talking about. But then, you seem to have a bible up your butt, so obviously LOGIC is the last thing you ever really studied. Your obvious bias and logic loops are big gaping holes in your thought processes.

oh yes, what god? Please provide proof of said diety. What's that? None exists? Too bad, you must have your head up your butt alongside that bible.

dolt.

:beer:

Soulend
21st November 2003, 11:07
Wow, that turned ugly quick.

I seem to recall reading that the overwhelming majority of convicted child molesters are otherwise heterosexual. And if an atheist or agnostic can't be a scout, then they shouldn't get one damn dime of public funding.

kage110
21st November 2003, 11:23
I seem to recall reading that the overwhelming majority of convicted child molesters are otherwise heterosexual.

Don't you read the popular press, David? Don't you know that all gays are just out to get the freshest, youngest 'meat' they can find? Well it must be true, I have seen it in the newspapers!:rolleyes: :mad:

There is so much garbage talked about the links with homosexuality and paedophilia and the general public just lap it up without pausing to think. If the TV reports here are anything to go by, any man walking in a park is a potential paedophile just waiting to snatch some woman's child away the moment she turns her back. Never mind that the statistics show that the vast majority of paedophiles are known to their victims and are trusted by the parents. But, oh no, 'stranger danger' makes for much 'sexier' news!

Linking homosexuality to paedophilia is sick and nasty. Most adult gay men are no more interested in young boys than most adult straight men are interested in young girls. While we are getting all worried about gays being near our children we had better remove all men from contact with all girls groups. In fact, no man should have any contact with any child whatsoever. Am I starting to sound like a 'feminazi'? What a way to bring a child up with a balanced view of the world. Is it any wonder young people end up being disfunctional and unable to have any knid of normal relationship with anyone?

Frankly, any 'scientific' views on homosexuality expressed by the majority of people are just methods of making their prejudice more acceptable.:mad:

Gene Williams
21st November 2003, 11:40
The linking of child molestation to homosexuality is not supported statistically or clinically.

wab25
21st November 2003, 17:08
Harvey Moul, please point out my flaws in logic. But do remember that no one here is arguing the existance of god. Merely the right to have a group that agrees to believe that there may be one. If we are to get rid of all such groups that have a belief in god, then you must also include religious groups and churches. Last time I studied history, this country was founded upon religious freedom, the idea that everyone could worship who or what they felt like worshipping.

============================
Linking homosexuality to paedophilia is sick and nasty. Most adult gay men are no more interested in young boys than most adult straight men are interested in young girls.
============================

This is true. The real problem is not so much with the adult leaders molesting the young boys, but the boys themselves recruiting more boys and using peer pressure to do so. All kids in that age group, gay and straight alike, experiment with sexuality. I bet most people are guilty of trying to go a little farther on a date during their highschool years. Any good parent trys to know what kind of situation their kids are getting into. They approve of the situations they agree with and disapprove of the situations they don't. That is their right as a parent. You want me to tell you what to do with your kid? Then don't tell me what to do with mine. The cases I have seen, are from personal experience, not out of a news paper or off the internet.

===========================
Methinks evil-fundie William doth protest a wee-bit muchly about the evil, evil limpwristed cocksucker faggots ofay what wants to corrupt his smooth, tender, hairless charges.
===========================

I never said that gays are evil. I am friends with quite a few. They are great people. However, the fact still remains that if you can have a group which only accepts homosexuals, then by the same token you can have a group that accepts only heterosexuals. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, not more rights.

The real problem here is that everyone only wants to tear down. No one wants to build up. One group, long ago, wanted a group to teach and raise boys with a particular morality and set of standards. They created the BSA, which has provided many benefits to its members as well as the comunities around them. If you feel that you want your kids to learn a different morality or have different standards, then create a group that has those standards and that morality. Don't tear down what exists already. Besides, don't you have the upper hand anyway? Since your morality and your standards are so much better and more progressive, wouldn't you attract more people to your group than BSA?

If you can have the government decide what a groups morals are, that is only good for you for a while. Sooner or later, someone will come into power who has a set of standards that you don't agree with. But since you already gave them the power to control what you believe, you are stuck with it. If you give the government the right to force the BSA to accept gays and people who don't believe in a god, what happens when someone like Bush is elected? If the government has the right to control who is accepted and what their beliefs are, then couldn't he use the same power to force gays out of all groups and impose the old testament on everyone? That kind of control is never given all at once. It is taken a bit at a time. The government takes away the rights of people you don't agree with, which makes you happy, until you realize that you also lost the same rights. If this really is going to be a country where everyone is treated equally, then everyone needs to have the same rights. The right that you have to say "I don't believe in God," is the same right I have to say "I believe in God." By taking away my right to say that "I believe in God," you are also taking away your right to say "I don't believe in God." The time to stop it is before the have enough power to enforce it. Lets build up, not tear down. Build up a new group of scouts. Have the BSA show you how to do it. Since your morals and values are the "right" ones, BSA will die out on its own. But don't take away your right to have such a group with your morality, standards and values.

elder999
21st November 2003, 17:18
Originally posted by wab25

I never said that gays are evil. I am friends with quite a few. They are great people.

How many of them were Scouts? How many of the boys you were a Scout with grew up to be be gay men?

Shitoryu Dude
21st November 2003, 17:23
You seem to be missing the point (as well as "revising" earlier statements - either that or you need to take writing lessons). The BSA accepts tax dollars - as such it has no right to discriminate against people. I'm all for free association; you want to belong to a an organization that is only for straight christians then go ahead. Just don't be asking for government money or facilities to run your group from. Nor do I think the BSA needs to recruiting membership from school classrooms and using schools for meeting areas - as a religious organization is has no business at these places.

Furthermore, it has been well established that the BSA did not always have this stick up its butt, particularly about needing to be non-atheist (which is my main grudge against what used to be a good organization). The BSA was founded for "all boys", not just the ones that worshipped dieties. It has fallen far, and it has fallen quickly. The BSA is now little more than a church club for campers.

:beer:

elder999
21st November 2003, 17:33
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Furthermore, it has been well established that the BSA did not always have this stick up its butt, particularly about needing to be non-atheist (which is my main grudge against what used to be a good organization). The BSA was founded for "all boys", not just the ones that worshipped dieties. It has fallen far, and it has fallen quickly. The BSA is now little more than a church club for campers.

:beer:

And this was the point of my original post: though we were spnsored by a religious organization, as many troops are, there was no prostletyzing or pressure:religion was between the Scout, his parents and GOD.One of the things that came with having a "man of the cloth" for a father, was having my dad called upon to give benedictions or say grace at various social gatherings-not just Scouting. Dad, to his credit, had several non-denominational prayers in his repetoire, due to his work with prisoners, of all things. At any rate, no one was compelled to pray, or even bow their heads-and certainly no one was compelled to "acknowledge a supreme deity" or quit scouting-the sort of thing one would expect from Hitler Youth, and not the Boy Scouts of America.

wab25
21st November 2003, 17:47
=========================
You seem to be missing the point (as well as "revising" earlier statements - either that or you need to take writing lessons). The BSA accepts tax dollars - as such it has no right to discriminate against people.
==========================

Black groups accept tax dollars, and they can discriminate against people. Hispanic groups accept tax dollars and they can discriminate. Latino groups get tax dollars and they can discriminate. Homosexual groups get tax dollars and they can discrimate. Many religious groups get tax dollars and they can discriminate. Environmental groups get tax dollars and they can discriminate. BSA gets tax dollars but are not allowed the same right as the other groups. Explain how that makes sense if you really believe everyone should be treated the same. If the BSA can be singled out and stripped of its rights that every other group has, then any other group can also have there rights stripped. What you don't realize is that I support all these groups. If the government can take away the rights of any of these or other groups, it is wrong. Even though I may not agree with their morals or standards, I defend their right to have them.

=====================
I'm all for free association; you want to belong to a an organization that is only for straight christians then go ahead.
=====================

We already did that with the exception of the christian part. BSA accepts jews, mulims, islamics, buddists, all native american religions as well as any other religion you can think of.

====================
Just don't be asking for government money or facilities to run your group from. Nor do I think the BSA needs to recruiting membership from school classrooms and using schools for meeting areas - as a religious organization is has no business at these places.
====================

As mentioned above many other groups are afforded these same rights. And yes religious organizations do have a right to be on school property before or after public school is in. Many seminaries exist which teach kids religion either before or after school. They have the same right as any atheist group to meet before or after school.

======================
It has fallen far, and it has fallen quickly. The BSA is now little more than a church club for campers.
======================

So, why take it from the church going people who enjoy it? Because they get the same money as other far more discriminating groups get?

glad2bhere
21st November 2003, 17:48
Not to interrupt the flow of things but how is it that we keep bouncing back and forth between God and Homosexuality? I am not sure I am understanding the connection. Are people who believe in God suppose to be Homosexual as in the case the reports on ministers and priests? Are they mutually exclusive? Are people who are Homosexual not suppose to believe in God? I hear people alluding to a connection but it seems like more a matter of interpretaion, preference or inference from some non-specific source. A little clarity here would be helpful.Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

elder999
21st November 2003, 17:52
Originally posted by glad2bhere
Not to interrupt the flow of things but how is it that we keep bouncing back and forth between God and Homosexuality? I am not sure I am understanding the connection. Are people who believe in God suppose to be Homosexual as in the case the reports on ministers and priests? Are they mutually exclusive? Are people who are Homosexual not suppose to believe in God? I hear people alluding to a connection but it seems like more a matter of interpretaion, preference or inference from some non-specific source. A little clarity here would be helpful.Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Well, read it all again-to some of the more fundamentally inclined Christians, God forbids homosexuality; it is a mortal sin to Catholics. As for it being a matter of interpetation, no less than William Rehnquist has said that homosexuality is contrary to Scouting's moral requirements. A Scout was also told he would have to proclaim that he bnelieved in a Supreme Deity or quit Scouting.

The two issues are linked by those who control BSA, not necessarily by anyone else.

wab25
21st November 2003, 17:53
========================
And this was the point of my original post: though we were spnsored by a religious organization, as many troops are, there was no prostletyzing or pressure:religion was between the Scout, his parents and GOD.One of the things that came with having a "man of the cloth" for a father, was having my dad called upon to give benedictions or say grace at various social gatherings-not just Scouting. Dad, to his credit, had several non-denominational prayers in his repetoire, due to his work with prisoners, of all things. At any rate, no one was compelled to pray, or even bow their heads-and certainly no one was compelled to "acknowledge a supreme deity" or quit scouting-the sort of thing one would expect from Hitler Youth, and not the Boy Scouts of America.
========================

There is no prostletyzing or pressure. Prayers are said only when the boys want them. Most meetings I go to outside our troop meetings have no prayer. When prayers are said, all prayers are accepted equally, be they christian, jewish, muslim, buddist...... But certainly, no one is compelled to pray. In fact, to my knowledge the only place you have to acknowledge god is in the oath, "to do my duty to God." If you are a true atheist, why is that so hard to say? Why should it bother you? Are you going to ban swearing as well?

elder999
21st November 2003, 17:58
Originally posted by wab25


Black groups accept tax dollars, and they can discriminate against people. Hispanic groups accept tax dollars and they can discriminate. Latino groups get tax dollars and they can discriminate. Homosexual groups get tax dollars and they can discrimate. Many religious groups get tax dollars and they can discriminate. Environmental groups get tax dollars and they can discriminate. BSA gets tax dollars but are not allowed the same right as the other groups. Explain how that makes sense if you really believe everyone should be treated the same. If the BSA can be singled out and stripped of its rights that every other group has, then any other group can also have there rights stripped. What you don't realize is that I support all these groups. If the government can take away the rights of any of these or other groups, it is wrong. Even though I may not agree with their morals or standards, I defend their right to have them.


Dude, you are so wrong.If you want to join the NAACP, they'll be glad to have you. Same with a lot of other ethnic organizations that receive tax dollars. I don't know of any homosexual groups that receive tax dollars in G.W. Bush's and J. Ashcroft's America, but if they do, well, they're some of the least discriminating people I know: if you know such a group, I'm sure they'll be glad to have you.





For nearly a century now
Socially conscious individuals
from all walks of life,
From all parts of the political spectrum,
Of all races and religions,
Have done something wonderful.
They have dared to speak out
for that which is right
And against that which is wrong.
They've all believed
that civil rights are for everyone,
that democracy is for everyone,
and not just for some.
They are unafraid to speak the truth.
They've all been members of the NAACP.
Now you can make a difference, too.
from the NAACP web page

http://www.naacp.org/part/index.html

If religious groups receive tax-dollars it's for programs like Head Start, where they can't discriminate, and not for religious programs, as that would be unconstitutional-like the Boy Scouts' exclusion of gays and atheists.

glad2bhere
21st November 2003, 18:04
Dear Aaron:

".....Well, read it all again-to some of the more fundamentally inclined Christians, God forbids homosexuality; it is a mortal sin to Catholics. As for it being a matter of interpetation, no less than William Rehnquist has said that homosexuality is contrary to Scouting's moral requirements. A Scout was also told he would have to proclaim that he bnelieved in a Supreme Deity or quit Scouting.

The two issues are linked by those who control BSA, not necessarily by anyone else....."

OK. NOW I see where this is going. Sorry I'm a little slow on the uptake. If I am reading your response correctly someone--- apparently the folks who run BSA---- have determined that when a person acts a particular way, a way they don't like, they are empowered to form a judgement and characterize the person in a particular way. My personal experience over the years is that Christians are characteristicly an intolerant and inflexible lot. I think I can see that it would be important for them to inculcate this quality among the young. Keeping things in black-&-white certainly helps to get rid of all the inconvenient grey in this world. I DO get a little concerned regarding the validity and integrity of the leadership to set the standards and rules for making these judgements but then I don't subscribe to that belief system so maybe there is some special bond among the preponderance of males that make these decisions-- some very close, special, bond that no one but they might understand. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

elder999
21st November 2003, 19:46
I guess the various "Bi, gay, lesbian, transgendered.."whatever clubs at state-universities receive tax-dollar funding via their sponsoring schools-again, you can feel free to join, whatever your sexual orientation, but, wouldja want to?

When I was going to school for my engineering degree there was a black fratenity on campus that had two white members......:p

rinpoche
21st November 2003, 20:11
Again, homosexuality should be tolerated but not promoted or encouraged. That seems simple enough and a reasonable stance for society to take.

Let me ask a few questions to get to the bottom of this statement by our 18 year psychologist from Georgia who is so enlightened as to call homosexuals "queers".

According to whom, and how do you know that to be true?

How do you define promotion and encourgement and how is that different from tolerance?

Define reasonable?

I find people who are homophobes to generally be braindead idiots. Oh sweet lord Jesus please save us from people who are different from us.

You know what? Nature didn't intend us to wear clothes, drive cars, and eat pizza - so they must all be sins against god right? And didn't Jesus wear a dress, have long hair and hang out with men all the time?

And people that fall outside the statistical curve of society should be shunned - goodbye Salvador Dali, Beethoven, Einstein, hollywood entertainers - and yes martial artists.

When greater than 50% of marriages are ending in divorce these days and more than 40% of all married people admit to affairs - I hardly think we straight people have the market cornered on morality.

Every time I flip on the news I see some 19 year old mother leaving her baby in the car for two hours to go smoke crack. I see kids carrying guns to school, and sometimes using them. I see 15 year olds getting busted at sex and drinking parties.

Oh but lets save our kids from the dirty gays- they might start dressing well.

Homophobes need a slap. And yes you can justify any bull$$$t you want with all kinds of ridiculous arguments. You aren't making the world better.

wab25
21st November 2003, 20:16
======================
My personal experience over the years is that Christians are characteristicly an intolerant and inflexible lot.
======================

"Intolerant" is another very misunderstood word. The Christians seem to tolerate every other group, regardless of whether the group agrees with them or not. Don't forget that those "intolerant" Christians died to give you the right not to be Christian. The only "intolerance" I see here is intolerance for Christians and intolerance for BSA.

"We have to accept everyone for what ever they are so long as they think like me." That is what is being said here. You people can't stand that BSA actually has a different view point. One that you feel intolerant of. BSA accepts all people who feel the same way as they do. Would the NAACP or a black fraternity take me when I am opposed to affirmative action? Probably not. Yet I don't feel this need to eliminate such groups because I find their view point to be different to my own. In fact I actually tolerate them. The idea of tolerance suggests that you can allow people to have other opinions and other ideas. But, just because you feel that one way of life is right, does mean that other people should find their own way of life. A truely tolerant and open minded person would allow all people to live as they see fit. There are a lot of people who believe in God, they have that right. There are a lot of people who disagree with homosexuality. They also have that right.

Why don't all you people, who hate the BSA so much, get together to create a better group? No one here has even ventured a reason for not doing this. It would solve everyones problems. You don't have to tear down BSA, just create your own organization and build it up. When people see the "light," they will leave BSA of their own accord for the better group. Why not build up a better group than to tear down the one that exists?

wab25
21st November 2003, 20:25
====================
Every time I flip on the news I see some 19 year old mother leaving her baby in the car for two hours to go smoke crack. I see kids carrying guns to school, and sometimes using them. I see 15 year olds getting busted at sex and drinking parties.

Oh but lets save our kids from the dirty gays- they might start dressing well.
====================

These are the very problems that BSA addresses. It addresses them by giving the kids something else to do besides drugs, drinking and sex, sort of like those expensive afterschool programs. However, it also teaches them leadership skills, and group management skills along with all that camping stuff. They even learn to dress well, those uniforms must be washed and ironed.

Again, why not start a new group with the "correct" morals? I will keep asking this till someone answers. I think the reason no one answers this is that we all love to tear something down, but building something is not so much fun.

elder999
21st November 2003, 20:28
Originally posted by wab25
======================

Would the NAACP or a black fraternity take me when I am opposed to affirmative action? Probably not. Yet I don't feel this need to eliminate such groups because I find their view point to be different to my own. In fact I actually tolerate them.

Actually, there are any number of NAACP members that do oppose affirmative action-I certainly haven't needed any, though I'm sure I've been used as credit for such.



Why don't all you people, who hate the BSA so much, get together to create a better group? No one here has even ventured a reason for not doing this. It would solve everyones problems. You don't have to tear down BSA, just create your own organization and build it up. When people see the "light," they will leave BSA of their own accord for the better group. Why not build up a better group than to tear down the one that exists?

Read my first post: I gave up Scouting the year you were born. Harvey is an Eagle Scout. Harvey's an atheist;I'm notoriously religious. We both miss the BSA of our youths, and regret what it has become. I fear what's becoming of my country-which I love very much-and feel that what has happened and is happening in the BSA is symptomatic of these larger problems. The fact that an organization like that-that was "for all boys," when I was a boy-can now exclude boys on the basis of sexual orientation or atheism-for Chrisssakes- is wrong, and I'm clearly not alone in thinking that-in spite of my being a parent, a heterosexual and raised a Christian. While homosexual scoutmasters might remain another issue, it is only because of small-mindedness and misconceptions about the relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia-a loathsome and misunderstood word in itself, by the way.

There are people doing just what you've asked for- in the end, they will start receiving the tax-dollars that the BSA now manages, and then things will start to change, or the new organization will become the Boy Scouts of America.

The exclusion of boys from the Boy Scouts of America, for any reason,short of commission of a felony, is wrong.

glad2bhere
21st November 2003, 20:36
Dear William:

"......"Intolerant" is another very misunderstood word. The Christians seem to tolerate every other group, regardless of whether the group agrees with them or not. Don't forget that those "intolerant" Christians died to give you the right not to be Christian. The only "intolerance" I see here is intolerance for Christians and intolerance for BSA......"

I have not picked-up on any intolerance for Christians. In fact I think that contributed to my confusion over how God relates to discussing Homosexuality. I would have thought that most Christians--- especially fundamentalist Christians would have easily understood and made room for Homosexuals. To my mind it is quite plain that Jesus being a male and keeping the company of 12 very close and personal male associates had what would rightfully be called a Homosexual relationship with those men even if it did not include a physical sex act. In like manner, each guy who professes to love Jesus is arguably entering into a Homosexual relationship with a personality he idealizes. Taken yet a step farther, many of the Christian organizations and congregations are managed by groups of intimately related males and commonly to the exclusion of females. Am I to understand that this does NOT constitute Homosexual practice? I understand that I could be wrong and that maybe organizational Homosexuality is OK with you albeit sharply divided from whatever other kind of Homosexuality you are decrying. I just don't know where you are drawing the line when a bunch of guys prefer the company of other males to that of women and empower themselves strictly because they are male and inviolate for being so. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Shitoryu Dude
21st November 2003, 20:36
Has wab25 commented on anything other that this thread? Showed up out of nowhere the day it started and has basically argued the biggest line of xtian propaganda BS I've seen in quite some time.

Ladies and gents, we have an Agenda Troll!!

:beer:

elder999
21st November 2003, 20:45
Naah, he's posted elsewhere before; he posted to my "welfare/gun-control" thread, and mostly agreed with me-though, from what i could tell, for all the wrong reasons.

By the way, Rinpoche-good post!

Mr. Bohan, you never did answer my questions: How many of your gay friends were Boy Scouts? How many of the boys you were a Scout with (you were a Scout, weren't you? Pretty silly argument to be involved with if you weren't.) grew up to be gay men?

Mitch Saret
21st November 2003, 21:12
Well, back after a few days.

All this on scouting has caused quite a furor lately. Let me just say, that as a 27 year old, I wore a 20 year veteran pin over my left chest pocket. From the age of 7 I was consistently enrolled in scouting. Cubs, Webelos, Scouts, and Sea Explorers. I was order of the Arrow, too. Didn't make Eagle because my troop was not involved in earning rank, which is odd. I had to get to Life on my own. That's why I left the troop and found Sea Scouts/Explorers. Even in the army, I maintaned my explorer membership, as you could be an explorer til age 21. My last trip before basic training was Philmont, and yes, I went over the Tooth of Time! When I got out I was a leader with my ship. I left scouts for several reasons, not the least of which is I moved 200 miles away from Chicago, and was too busy to be involved down here.

As to the scouts being a religious organization, I think that is disputable. As Aaron has said, the most you ever get is saying the word god in the oath. Religious awards, and practicing your religion is optional. I think I was the one referred to as having said as long as you don't flaunt your sexuality....
Have you seen the portion of the gay pride parade that always makes the news? That's what I mean. Now, are all gays like that? Of course not. Are all gays pedophiles? Also, of course not. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that, at least not on this forum.

There are many problems in scouting these days, and it is much different than the scouting of my youth, as others have mentioned. And I am a bit dissapointed in some things. But I am pleased with some others. The question has been asked of Mr. Bohan how many scouts he grew up with were gay, or grew up to be gay men. That question, kind of, was asked of me on another thread. In my case the answer is I don't know, and I don't care. I was never approached by anyone in a homosexual manner, so it didn't matter. If someone had, I probably would have reported it, if it made me feel uncomfortable. If I could tell it was a joke or a test, I would have probably let it go, I don't know.

And Harvey is an atheist, and an Eagle Scout. He must not have had a problem making the references to god back then, or his opinion has changed since then. If he was an atheist back then, he must have kept it to himself. Is this right? I certainly don't fault him for it, but then the question begs to be asked...how many of scouting age are really atheists? Or know the difference?

I don't know where this post is really headed, so I'll just stop now.

Shitoryu Dude
21st November 2003, 21:17
Not only did I not keep it to myself, I made sure they knew that fact when I went up in front of my Eagle Board. I was raised in an atheist family - my opinions of religion have not changed over time in any significant way.

:beer:

rinpoche
21st November 2003, 22:09
The divorces rates in the US have to do with allocation of time... Pecuniary (= market) reasons...

I beg to differ, and would like to know exactly where you got that data.

Nonetheless.. the intent of my post is the idea that straight people are promoting family values while gays promote immorality is bogus. The nuclear family is a rarity.

I have gay friends that are wonderful, extremely ethical, caring, family-oriented people. I don't know what they do in their bedroom, and I don't tell them what I do in the bedroom with my wife. When we go out they bring the person they love and I bring the person I love (yes my wife). We get along just fine, and my life would be poorer if I chose to exclude them just because they prefer the same sex.

Here is my rule: Fundamentalists of all types suck.

wab25
21st November 2003, 22:16
======================
Mr. Bohan, you never did answer my questions: How many of your gay friends were Boy Scouts? How many of the boys you were a Scout with (you were a Scout, weren't you? Pretty silly argument to be involved with if you weren't.) grew up to be gay men?
======================

Sorry for not answering it earlier. I only knew 1 gay friend while I was scouting age. No he was not in the troop, but did come to my Eagle Court of Honor. It wasn't a problem for him, as he wasn't into scouting, he was into sports. I am pretty sure that none of the boys in my troop grew up to be gay. Yes I realize it is because of the indoctrination of BSA that caused this phenomonon. A Boy Scout meeting for an hour once a week and a campout a month can indoctrinate someone so much more than their parents, their school, and their community combined.

=======================
Has wab25 commented on anything other that this thread? Showed up out of nowhere the day it started and has basically argued the biggest line of xtian propaganda BS I've seen in quite some time.

Ladies and gents, we have an Agenda Troll!!
========================
Shitoryu Dude, I thought you said you would argue logically. You don't argue any points but slip into using falacies. Does this mean you can't argue the points?


Here are the points as I see them.
1. BSA has the right to believe in god to the extent that they include a single phrase "duty to God" in their oath. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion sort of gives the BSA the right to have that in their oath.

2. BSA does not try to indoctrinate people into the christian faith. BSA supports all religions, jewish, buddist, islamic, muslim....... All faiths are welcome. BSA does not go out of its way to throw out atheists. Shitoryu Dude is an Eagle Scout and an atheist. I have heard of no one being thrown out of BSA for that reason and that reason alone. Those of you who are so sure that BSA is pushing a christian agenda need to attend a troop meeting. They are too busy learning knots and planning trips to Philmont. I have never seen or heard of any scout being required to "declare their belief in a supreme being." I have heard rumors of it from people on forums like this, but then you don't believe everything you read here do you?

3. BSA also has the right to exclude gays. Gay groups have the same right to exclude heterosexuals. Womens groups have the right to exclude men. The few of these groups I have come into contact with do exclude heterosexuals in a much more aggrressive manor then the BSA ever would.

Please show me where I am wrong in any of these points. But stop making BSA the cover for christian indoctrination. It simply is not. It is also not a gay-hate group either, so stop making it out to be such. BSA is simply a group of like minded people getting together to do what they enjoy doing and to improve their community.

elder999
21st November 2003, 22:21
Originally posted by wab25
======================
2. BSA does not try to indoctrinate people into the christian faith. BSA supports all religions, jewish, buddist, islamic, muslim....... All faiths are welcome. BSA does not go out of its way to throw out atheists. Shitoryu Dude is an Eagle Scout and an atheist. I have heard of no one being thrown out of BSA for that reason and that reason alone. Those of you who are so sure that BSA is pushing a christian agenda need to attend a troop meeting. They are too busy learning knots and planning trips to Philmont. I have never seen or heard of any scout being required to "declare their belief in a supreme being." I have heard rumors of it from people on forums like this, but then you don't believe everything you read here do you?


Port Orchard, Washington, June, 2002-Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert, who had provided more than 1,000 hours of community service as a Scout, was informed by the regional Boy Scouts of America executive that he had one week “to declare his belief in a supreme being” or quit the scouts.

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/lambert/

You're also wrong about gay groups-if a group receives federal funding, it can't exclude anyone. While the BSA is a private organization it does receive federal funding and protection in various forms. It can't exclude anyone where no equal and kind organization exists-that's from a Supreme Court ruling that allowed girls to be Boy Scouts where there was no Girl Scout troop, or even where the Girl Scouts don't do the things Boy Scouts do.

You are just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Soulend
21st November 2003, 22:28
Originally posted by wab25
In fact, to my knowledge the only place you have to acknowledge god is in the oath, "to do my duty to God." If you are a true atheist, why is that so hard to say?

Because it's false. Don't the Scouts stress honesty? Why should an atheist have to say it? I don't quite understand how the inclusion of an atheist is somehow infringing on the rest's freedom of religion. Just because some don't believe doesn't mean everyone else can't. If you are a Christian, and the Scout next to you is a Muslim, then by default you must believe that his beliefs are wrong -otherwise you would be a Muslim too. So, why not an atheist? Will the inclusion of them somehow undermine the value of scouting to the boys and the community?

BTW, morality does not have to stem from belief in a higher power.

Extra credit question: Can a practicing Satanist be a Scout? All faiths, right?

elder999
21st November 2003, 22:48
Originally posted by Soulend

Extra credit question: Can a practicing Satanist be a Scout? All faiths, right?

Yes.


On January 9, 1988 Thomas Sullivan, a fourteen year old Boy Scout and outstanding student and athlete from Jefferson County, New Jersey committed suicide after stabbing his mother two dozen times with his Boy Scout knife and then trying to kill the rest of his family by setting the house on fire. According to County Prosecutor Lee S. Trumbull, young Sullivan had begun reading books on the "occult" and "Satan worship" a month previous to the incident.

While I agree with the rest of your post, let's leave the Satanists out of it for the time being-I grew up with more than a few around, and I'll admit that I have major issues with them.

Yes, some of them were Boy Scouts.Good ones, too.

wab25
21st November 2003, 22:51
=======================
Port Orchard, Washington, June, 2002-Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert, who had provided more than 1,000 hours of community service as a Scout, was informed by the regional Boy Scouts of America executive that he had one week “to declare his belief in a supreme being” or quit the scouts.
=======================

My mistake, I assumed we were talking about the boys not the leaders. Mr Darrell Lambert was registering as an adult leader, not as a boy. But here also, BSA has the right to choose their leaders. Note also that the BSA assumes responsibility for each and every leader they have. They are held accountable by law for anything their leaders do. Therefore it makes perfect sense to screen your leaders much closer and have a high standard for them. If they don't want an atheist as a leader, they have the right not to have him as a leader.

========================
Why should an atheist have to say it? I don't quite understand how the inclusion of an atheist is somehow infringing on the rest's freedom of religion. Just because some don't believe doesn't mean everyone else can't. If you are a Christian, and the Scout next to you is a Muslim, then by default you must believe that his beliefs are wrong -otherwise you would be a Muslim too. So, why not an atheist?
========================

It is the Boy Scout Oath. In order to be a Boy Scout you must take the Oath. The BSA has clearly laid out what it wants to teach the boys, the scout oath is a big part of that goal. If you don't agree with that goal, why should you be a part of the organization?

No it is not being dishonest to include those words if you are an atheist. If you believe there is no God, then it should be pretty easy to keep that part.

This is the great part about the BSA, a christian can stand next to a muslim or jew or buddist without infringing on their religion. No one goes into the Boy Scouts to prove their religion is right. They go there to learn leadership skills, camping skills, lifesaving skills... They go there because it is a safe environment where you can worship as you like, without people being offended. This is one of the few places where so many different religions can get together, can work together and realize that they are all trying to accomplish the same thing, perfection of character. Can an athiest have and accomplish these same things, yes. And so long as he does not infringe on anyone elses religion, and he can take the Oath, he can be a member.

shotofan
21st November 2003, 22:58
Of course you can be a scout if you are a sant anist. Wab said that they let all reglions in the scouts. Just not homosexuals or people who don't belive in a super power.

Shitoryu Dude
21st November 2003, 23:02
Shitoryu Dude, I thought you said you would argue logically. You don't argue any points but slip into using falacies. Does this mean you can't argue the points?

No, it means I have dismissed you as not worth bothering with. You are an agenda troll, here with the specific mission of defending the bigoted positions of the BSA. As such, you are ranked right up there with raw sewage, only raw sewage doesn't try to tell everyone that it really smells like jasmine and roses instead of lots of decomposing turds.

Had you bothered to do anything at this site other than defend the rightousness of the BSA, you might have discovered that I, along with a few others, have spent a great amount of time dissecting and slamming uppity little trolls such as you. So far you haven't even brought anything original to the table, so I refer you to the various threads and their hundreds of posts to find the responses to your xtian propaganda and bigoty. Reinventing the wheel every time a dolt such as yourself surfaces to proclaim the "truth" is not only boring, but a waste of time.

No go back to your little life of praying feverishly for all those horrible faggots to die so you don't have to wonder if perhaps that football coach who swatted your butt really wanted to bugger it instead.

:beer:

:beer:

shotofan
21st November 2003, 23:18
From what I remember from my church days mr wab. Is that the chrisyin god said don't have no false idols before me, for I am the true god. So you saying that BSA lets other religons in as scouts his saying that you don't belive your gods teachings are right.

Also god said don't judge for you shall be judged. To love your fellow man. When you kick out someone for their belif, it is judging them. So if you are judging you are no better than that boy you kicked out because he was gay.

Soulend
21st November 2003, 23:21
Originally posted by wab25
It is the Boy Scout Oath. In order to be a Boy Scout you must take the Oath. The BSA has clearly laid out what it wants to teach the boys, the scout oath is a big part of that goal.
I realize that. It also says in the Boy Scout Creed to be 'reverent'. Why?


If you don't agree with that goal, why should you be a part of the organization?
And why should I support it with my tax dollars?


No it is not being dishonest to include those words if you are an atheist. If you believe there is no God, then it should be pretty easy to keep that part.
Of course it is. How can you swear to do your duty to what you believe to be an imaginary being?


This is the great part about the BSA, a christian can stand next to a muslim or jew or buddist without infringing on their religion.
And how is an atheist standing next to them infringing on their religion?


No one goes into the Boy Scouts to prove their religion is right.
I never said they did. I said that a Christian believes de facto that the other religions are wrong..or else he would be one of the others. What you believe is either correct or it's not. Therefore, some scouts are wrong. So why can't an atheist be a scout?


They go there to learn leadership skills, camping skills, lifesaving skills...
An atheist or agnostic can't learn these? I've been to some of the most rigorous leadership, survival, and lifesaving courses out there and it never hampered my ability to complete them in the slightest, nor has it prevented me from being an honest, moral person.


and he can take the Oath, he can be a member. [/B]
Then the oath should be changed, or an alternate one written.


Of course you can be a scout if you are a sant anist. Wab said that they let all reglions in the scouts. Just not homosexuals or people who don't belive in a super power.
OK, this does not strike you as odd that one can worship Evil Incarnate but not nothing at all?

If that's what the BSA dictates, so be it. That's their prerogative. But not one Federal or state dime for a religious organization - regardless of how little or innocuous.

glad2bhere
21st November 2003, 23:21
Dear Mitch:

".....I don't know where this post is really headed, so I'll just stop now....."

Actually, I'm pretty much with you except I have no idea where this STRING is headed!!

Apparently we started with the Boy Scouts and people took exception to the organizations' policies. Since then there seems to be an inconsistent blending of Theism, Homosexuality, government policy and economics. The only thing that I can tease out consistently is that there is a strong objection by a number of participants about being Right or Wrong, maybe even Good or Bad.

In my university days intellectuals would get off by themselves over a few too many beers and go round-d-round like this, always coming back to Faith and Belief vs Knowledge and Science. I would call it what it is-- "mental masturbation"--- except I am sure that someone would take some sort of exception to auto-eroticism, perhaps on the basis of ---well--- Theism, Homosexuality, government policy or economics. :-)

I KNEW there was a reason I usually steer clear of this forum. My bad.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

wab25
22nd November 2003, 00:32
Soulend, thanks for addressing points that I have made. This is the way to actually discuss an issue, not name calling and ranting about past conquests in other arguements.

=============
I realize that. It also says in the Boy Scout Creed to be 'reverent'. Why?
=============

Being reverent is usually associated with religion, but does not always have to be. I take being reverent to mean respecting anothers belief, even though different from my own.

=============
And why should I support it with my tax dollars?
=============

For the same reason I must support many other groups which I don't agree with. All groups who meet the criteria for receiving support from the government need to be supported, whether we agree with them or not. To do otherwize, gives power to the government to decide who can have groups and who can not. If those in power do not support your group, should they be able to take it away? or change it? If it can happen to BSA, it can happen to any group.

=============
And how is an atheist standing next to them infringing on their religion?
=============

An atheist standing next to them does not infringe on their religion. If you read my previous posts, you would have read that the boys are fine so long as the take the oath and do not infringe on someone elses right to religion. I have seen christians thrown out of the BSA for mocking another boys jewish religion. It is only the leaders that BSA is adament about, and since they are legally and financially responsible for the actions of the leaders, it makes sense that they pick only the ones they want.

===============
An atheist or agnostic can't learn these? I've been to some of the most rigorous leadership, survival, and lifesaving courses out there and it never hampered my ability to complete them in the slightest, nor has it prevented me from being an honest, moral person.
===============

In my post, I did admit that all people can and even should learn these same skills. Also, all people can be good and moral. There is no arguement of that fact.

I think we also agree that people can have different ideas about what is moral. But when a group of like minded people get together, with a moral standard different than our own, why are we threatened? Why do we have the need to tear it down, to change it? Why not use all that energy to create a new group with your standard of morality? Why not build up something positive to help people? Thats what BSA has done. What they built, they built with the idea of helping people to become better. To that end, they clearly outline what they think will make people better, and then they live up to what they state. If you have a different idea of what morality people should have, build another group. BSA has done a lot of good in this world and continues to do so. I think it would be great to create an alternative to BSA that has your morality and standards. Two groups with similar goals of service and leadership training are better than one. But if you can control the BSA to be something it does not want to be, it means that you can control any group in the same fashion. I would rather have different groups with different ideas than one state mandated idea of right and wrong. Political Correctness is on its way to being state mandated ideals of right and wrong. Once the hate-speech laws are passed, anyone can be thrown in jail for mere uterances of nonpolitically correct statements. These laws have been used in Canada to jail ministers whose only crime is preaching from the Bible in sunday worship service. That begins to be a lot like statemandated religion. I know this doesn't threaten you non christian types, but what happens when someone like bush comes into power? Then christian doctrine becomes politically correrct and you are the ones thrown in jail for speaking otherwize. In protecting BSA, we are protecting your rights as well, your right to have a group with whatever standards you deem appropriate, with no outside power to control you. Take that right away from BSA and you also take that right away from yourself.

heatMiser
22nd November 2003, 01:11
In my post, I did admit that all people can and even should learn these same skills. Also, all people can be good and moral. There is no arguement of that fact.

You had to ADMIT this????

You don't see that as a problem in itself? I'd have said it was so self evident as to be unquestionable.



"You can't learn that: You're a Jew!"

"Oh, you learned it."

"I suppose Jews _can_ be taught to tie knots. Who could have known?"




GRRRRRRRR.

Soulend
22nd November 2003, 01:26
Originally posted by wab25
Being reverent is usually associated with religion, but does not always have to be. I take being reverent to mean respecting anothers belief, even though different from my own.
But not a lack of belief, Mr. Bohan?


For the same reason I must support many other groups which I don't agree with. All groups who meet the criteria for receiving support from the government need to be supported, whether we agree with them or not. To do otherwize, gives power to the government to decide who can have groups and who can not. If those in power do not support your group, should they be able to take it away? or change it? If it can happen to BSA, it can happen to any group.
It isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing, Mr. Bohan. It is a matter of public funds and tax breaks going to a discriminatory group - which is illegal, I believe. See Bob Jones University vs. the United States, 1983. An atheist has the same rights under the law as a Muslim, Christian, or Hindu.



An atheist standing next to them does not infringe on their religion. If you read my previous posts, you would have read that the boys are fine so long as the take the oath
Why the insistence on the oath? If it is simply a matter of saying words, and one may simply disregard those parts that are meaningless within one's personal belief system, then why can the oath not be changed, or an alternate oath be taken by those that do not believe in God?


In my post, I did admit that all people can and even should learn these same skills. Also, all people can be good and moral. There is no arguement of that fact.
Yes, you did. Touche. Although if the above is true, then I do not understand the BSA's insistance on deism.


I think we also agree that people can have different ideas about what is moral. But when a group of like minded people get together, with a moral standard different than our own, why are we threatened?
Absolutely! So why is the BSA threatened by atheists?

Re: the rest of your post..
I have no problem with the BSA running their organization exactly as they see fit, and having a membership comprised of precisely who they want. And I have no problem with religion of any sort, or the practice of same. But, the BSA should be considered under the law as a wholly private institution, taxable as any other and inelible for federal funding if they pursue this exclusivist policy. Personally, I think tax-exempt status for churches is a load of crap too..but that's another story. I'm not talking about persecution of religion, or mandating any sort of state faith or lack thereof. I am only saying that any organization which is federally funded to any extent should not be able to discriminate against prospective members for any reason whatsoever.

Julian Gerhart
22nd November 2003, 03:42
Mr. Bohan, I am deeply offended by your constant implications that atheism is immoral. please don't insult me further by telling me that you have no made any such insinuations.

Soulend
22nd November 2003, 03:46
1. Why can’t you go form your own Scouting group?

There are several reasons why its impossible to form another Scout association:
1) Congress in 1916 chartered the BSA as the sole Boy Scout organization in the USA. The BSA has won every case against groups who tried to have another Scout organization.
2) Any such organization would foster a different kind of discrimination, which would be equallly wrong.
3) Any other organization that formed could not possibly be real Scouting if it could't work with Scouters and other Scout units who are in the BSA.
4) The costs of forming such a separate organization are prohibitive.
5) Our purpose is not to split the BSA, it is to strengthen it and save it from those who would turn it into a narrow organization

DCP
22nd November 2003, 06:43
Sorry, but this is my first post on e-budo. Hope I'm not considered any kind of agenda troll or anything (I promise to post on budo topics in the future if I think my POV has any merit).

Scouting was an incredibly important part of my youth. Eagle Scout, National Jamboree, Philmont, Sea Base, OA Conventions, you name it. I became a teacher because of the spirit of service I obtained from Scouts.

But here's my take on things: BSA should simply not take any kind of public funding and do what they want as a purely private institution. And all other public funding for anything else that isn't constitutional should be eliminated (and politicians should be required to read, understand, and FOLLOW the Constitution of this land). This will cause my taxes to decrease and I will have more money to donate to the causes I believe worthy (slightly off-topic, but others already opened the door to politics and economics).

I don't want to sound mean-spirited, but atheists should not be able to earn the highest award in an organization that has "do my duty to God . . . " in its oath. It's simply dishonest to even utter it, let alone be rewarded for saying it.

(And I am a public school teacher that wears the crucifix on a chain EVERY DAY. Don't you dare ask me to take it off. What's that all about, anyway?)

As far as the homosexuality issue: The Scout Oath doesn't have " . . . and not be homosexual" and the Scout law doesn't include "A Scout is hetero." I know gays that are the epitome of "trustworthy, loyal, helpful . . . "

I guess the only point I'm trying to make is that people have to stick to their principles. Say what you mean, and mean what you say (oh, and follow the Constitution, just in case a politician happens to be reading this . . .)

Anyway, these are my pitiful opinions. I'm glad I found this bulletin the other day. Kudos to the Webmaster and the moderators.

Kinteki
24th November 2003, 07:20
I agree, if you support them durn liberals that only leaves two options for you...

"Son, you must either be a communist or a Faggot"

There, i've summed up the entire religious right statement for just about any argument you will ever have with a conservative!!!

BOO YAH (lets kick the maturity up a notch fellas)

KICK IT UP A NOTCH

Kinteki
24th November 2003, 07:26
Hey, I have another one!!!!


morally STRAIGHT? Eh guys?? eh?
notice how they dont say morally GAY?
or morally COMMUNIST?
morally ATHEIST?
i mean, we all know that gay=communist=atheist
and straight=moral=chrsitian
perhaps i'm turning this into one of those communist math problems?
damn commies and their math

Soulend
24th November 2003, 10:52
To be fair, I don't think 'straight' is used there in the sexual sense.

So many CAPS and exclamation marks - and a 'Boo Yaa' even! Yes, by all means lets kick up the maturity a notch.

wab25
24th November 2003, 16:45
========================
It isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing, Mr. Bohan. It is a matter of public funds and tax breaks going to a discriminatory group - which is illegal, I believe. See Bob Jones University vs. the United States, 1983. An atheist has the same rights under the law as a Muslim, Christian, or Hindu.
========================

True. These people can all form groups to recieve public funds and tax breaks. Their groups can be discriminatory. Why does BSA lose that right as opposed to these other groups?

========================
Why the insistence on the oath? If it is simply a matter of saying words, and one may simply disregard those parts that are meaningless within one's personal belief system, then why can the oath not be changed, or an alternate oath be taken by those that do not believe in God?
========================

As I stated before, BSA has specific goals it wants to teach its members. These goals are defined in the scout oath and law. To change the oath, would be to change the very nature of the BSA. Once the government is allowed to change one group, it can then change all other groups much easier.


========================
There are several reasons why its impossible to form another Scout association:
1) Congress in 1916 chartered the BSA as the sole Boy Scout organization in the USA. The BSA has won every case against groups who tried to have another Scout organization.
2) Any such organization would foster a different kind of discrimination, which would be equallly wrong.
3) Any other organization that formed could not possibly be real Scouting if it could't work with Scouters and other Scout units who are in the BSA.
4) The costs of forming such a separate organization are prohibitive.
5) Our purpose is not to split the BSA, it is to strengthen it and save it from those who would turn it into a narrow organization
====================

First, no you can't start another Boy Scout program, you would actually have to come up with a name for it. Since you are creating it, it would only foster the kind of discrimination you wanted it too. First, why would you want to work with those racist evil scouters in the first place? Second, why do you think those racist evil scouters would not want to work with you. Many, myself included would work with you and help you out all I could. The costs of forming such a group are much lower than you would think, if you model it after the Boy Scouts. You start with a few troops, maybe even one. Do lots of public service and get you name out there. Slowly, more and more troops pop up. The BSA of today didn't just suddenly come into being. Those in the BSA do not feel it needs to be saved. They happen to like the goals it has and the results it gets. If the BSA does get "saved" or forced to change, the BSA will disappear immediately, as most of its members and financial supporters would leave. Then you would see how easy it is to set up another youth group, with the same values and code as BSA.

Shitoryu Dude
24th November 2003, 17:26
Troll.

Not even a very good one; rather divorced from reality and spouting the party line of the "christian = good, everything else = bad".

Go troll someplace else.

:beer:

shotofan
24th November 2003, 22:56
Answer honsetly. If a child or teenager who was a scout came out and said he was guy or atheist, would he be kicked out? If the answer is yes, than here is the problem we are having.

If you kick him out, you are teaching him it is ok to discrmant agisnt people who are differant or who don't think like you. This are kids. They all ready have enough people teaching them to be that way. The BSA is for teaching how to be responable adults. Not adult who are predjuce agisnt people. When they are in school they have peer pressure from other kids, to hate those who are differnt.

And that is why we have a proplem with our taxes going to the BSA. I don't want my public funds going to a group who teaches to hate those who are differnt. With adult it is diffent issue. But discrmenating agisnt kids is just wrong. If the BSA wants to kick out adults it is fine with me.

Teaching kids things like that, is the same as teaching them to discrmante agisnt a kids for being of a differnt color.

Sorry about the spelling..

wab25
24th November 2003, 23:12
====================
Teaching kids things like that, is the same as teaching them to discrmante agisnt a kids for being of a differnt color.
====================

One cannot choose ones color. Atheism is a choice. Homosexuality is also a choice. Yes, I know a bunch of people will get mad over that statement, however, none of the studies have yet panned out proving that homosexuality is a trait. It would seem logical that that particular trait would have disappeared long ago, even if it were recessive. Please show me conclusive proof that there is a link between homosexuality and a persons genes. None exists yet and I doubt it ever will.

shotofan
24th November 2003, 23:26
You didn't answer my question....

Soulend
25th November 2003, 00:09
One cannot choose ones color. Atheism is a choice. Homosexuality is also a choice.

Then by the same token, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism are also choices - yet all these are accepted.

This debate is going in circles. Why is atheism not considered a valid "choice" and yet any of these disparate and contradictory (to each other) ones are? I can't follow the logic. I honestly would understand it better if the BSA limited their membership to Christians only - at least that way they would be consistent.

If an atheist can be moral(Sir Alfred Julius Ayer), a good citizen(Benjamin Franklin), honest(Abraham Lincoln), capable of learning(Carl Sagan), and a good leader(Simon Bolivar), then...

What is the REASON an atheist or agnostic cannot be a Boy Scout?

And how about a straight answer this time - not: "Take the oath", "start your own scouting program", "cause the BSA can do what it wants", or "all these other organizations get tax money - why not us?" A legitimate, actual, reason.

To Aaron Young - check out http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/ - the BSA kicks them out regularly.

wab25
25th November 2003, 00:23
=======================
What is the REASON an atheist or agnostic cannot be a Boy Scout?

And how about a straight answer this time - not: "Take the oath", "start your own scouting program", "cause the BSA can do what it wants", or "all these other organizations get tax money - why not us?"
=======================

Because time and time again, atheists and agnostics infringe on the other boys ability to practice their religion. Atheists and agnostics by definition have no value for diety, while most religions do value diety. With a mix of religions, religion keeps its value. When atheists or agnostics are introduced, they devalue religion in general. The boys feel peer pressure not to pray, or practice any religion at all. The members of BSA want their boys to be in a group where religion is understood and valued by all.

Kinteki
25th November 2003, 00:34
I admit, sarcasm is hard to sense on internet boards...
I was
Being
Sarcastic

you are all good fellows GOOD FELLOWs

Soulend
25th November 2003, 00:38
If there is any peer pressure in society, it is that exerted by theists. How many Conquistadors and 'missionaries' have atheists and agnostics sent to force their beliefs down someone else's throats under threat of force? How many people have atheists burned at the stake, tortured, and hanged for believing in a god? How many atheists ring your doorbell and try to talk you out of going to church?

What a crock of crap. It is the atheist that is generally shunned and embarrassed by the other children, who have inherited the meme from their parents, and generally outnumber the atheist 20 to 1.

BTW, how many religious wars have been waged by atheists? How many native cultures ruined? Yeah, theists are such a tolerant lot.

Soulend
25th November 2003, 00:49
while most religions do value diety

No, most religions value their deity. Have you ever bothered to read a history book, or watch the news, Mr. Bohan?

kirigirisu
25th November 2003, 00:53
Originally posted by wab25
Because time and time again, atheists and agnostics infringe on the other boys ability to practice their religion. Atheists and agnostics by definition have no value for diety, while most religions do value diety. With a mix of religions, religion keeps its value. When atheists or agnostics are introduced, they devalue religion in general. The boys feel peer pressure not to pray, or practice any religion at all. The members of BSA want their boys to be in a group where religion is understood and valued by all.

This is, without a doubt, the biggest steaming pile of shyte ever to issue forth from the cakehole of an Xpian soldier, so-called "elder" person included.

And to think I have to share a state with you two jackholes and the shotokan dude. Thank GHU for president Ahnold...

And by the bye, we young and/or old whippersnapper heathen ofay don't infringe upon the rights of those who choose to believe in a hypothetical deity of their choice. What we do have a problem with is having that hypothetical deity of your choice being forced upon US.

Not that I'm expecting this little tidbit to penetrate that thick shield of dogma that issueth forth from said cakehole.

shotofan
25th November 2003, 00:59
Are you talking to me Mr. Tai?

Soulend
25th November 2003, 01:03
With a mix of religions, religion keeps its value.

Yessir, the mix of religions sure "kept it's value" here:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/gujarat.htm

and here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1532639.stm

and all these places:
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/jan_feb98/violence.html

Just shiny, happy people holding hands.

kirigirisu
25th November 2003, 01:03
You DO train in Shotokan, do you not, Mr. Young?

I do have to admit, though, I do you a slight injustice lumping you in with so-called "elder" and this twit. Chalk it to just coming out of a rather irritating production meeting.

You've made some decent points as of late, spelling and slight ignorance on certain issues aside.

shotofan
25th November 2003, 01:12
I just belive that they are just as bad as a group kicking out people for their color. It is just like a nother form of racism.

Soulend
25th November 2003, 01:20
I couldn't agree more, Aaron.

shotofan
25th November 2003, 01:28
Sorry my spelling sucks. My wife, she can spell. I just think Wab is just avoding the true issue. These kids who are getting kicked out because of there way of is learning to discramente.

Shitoryu Dude
25th November 2003, 02:03
Well, wab25 proved that he has ZERO understanding of genetics or statistics. As it can be shown quite easily and without any refutation that homosexuality occurs within the bell curve of expected human traits, it is in essence no more unusual or unexpected than blue eyes, male pattern baldness, or being 6' tall. It occurs far less often than any of those things, but certainly often enough to be regularly accounted for and expected in defined quantities. In other words, homosexuality is a normal and expected condition to occur within the human genome. As to say it does not reproduce, how do you explain the huge numbers of children that gay men and women have? Or perhaps the gay children of straight parents? Genetics is far more complex than what you studied in high school.

As for "choosing" to be gay - that is merely the mouthing off of an evangelical idiot. I know gay men and women, it is no more a "choice" to them than being straight is to you, or perhaps BREATHING would be a better analogy, as anyone who talks about "choosing" to be gay is most likely in denial and in the closet.

Is that your story? You have nice little straight relationships that hold no interest to you while you lust after men? If that makes it all better in the eyes of you and your church, well then, good for you, but it's all a lie. That is not "choosing" to be gay, that is choosing to engage in homosexual activity or not. It is the desire, not the actions, that define sexuality. Or do you think that perhaps the victims of prison rape are gay merely because of what happened to them?

:beer:

Mekugi
25th November 2003, 02:36
Hey Harvey,

If this is true, then in the distant future through genetic research we could put an end to homosexuality (or heterosexuality) before it occured. Uhoh......

-R



Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Well, wab25 proved that he has ZERO understanding of genetics or statistics. As it can be shown quite easily and without any refutation that homosexuality occurs within the bell curve of expected human traits, it is in essence no more unusual or unexpected than blue eyes, male pattern baldness, or being 6' tall. It occurs far less often than any of those things, but certainly often enough to be regularly accounted for and expected in defined quantities. In other words, homosexuality is a normal and expected condition to occur within the human genome. As to say it does not reproduce, how do you explain the huge numbers of children that gay men and women have? Or perhaps the gay children of straight parents? Genetics is far more complex than what you studied in high school.

As for "choosing" to be gay - that is merely the mouthing off of an evangelical idiot. I know gay men and women, it is no more a "choice" to them than being straight is to you, or perhaps BREATHING would be a better analogy, as anyone who talks about "choosing" to be gay is most likely in denial and in the closet.

Is that your story? You have nice little straight relationships that hold no interest to you while you lust after men? If that makes it all better in the eyes of you and your church, well then, good for you, but it's all a lie. That is not "choosing" to be gay, that is choosing to engage in homosexual activity or not. It is the desire, not the actions, that define sexuality. Or do you think that perhaps the victims of prison rape are gay merely because of what happened to them?

:beer:

kirigirisu
25th November 2003, 09:55
Well, we could also possibly do the same exact effing thing if we:

1. Left the homos alone instead of trying to "turn them on to the right choice/path/whatever" as evil-fundie William would have you believe. If it is a matter of genetics, by coercing the gay to procreate you merely create more of that which you as an ignorant bible-thumping idiot given to finger-diddling their siblings hate. Leave 'em to their own devices and they'll breed themselves out by default.

2. Didn't effing make more effing piss, poo, and puke machines that share half of your genetic code like there's enough effing food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and other such resources that bible-thumpers and effete liberals think that there is in an overwhelming over-abundance. Like homicide and disease, homosexuality is built-in to the self-correcting system to make sure we bipedal viruses don't overpopulate.

Simple, really.

Now try to get that through to a fundie as they're molesting their blood kin or buggering alter-boys in the rectory.

Jesus Uber Alles.

Amen!

(Heil!)

Soulend
25th November 2003, 11:11
Atheists and agnostics combined represent about 0.9% (http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/statstext.html) of the U.S. population. The average Boy Scout troop is 32 boys. (http://www.cfcbsa.org/council/iyos.pdf) So for every 3 troops you might have one atheist or agnostic.

Yeah, he's really going to exert a lot of "peer pressure".

Shitoryu Dude
25th November 2003, 14:27
In Seattle that figure is raised to about 25% if the last news report was even slightly accurate.

As for breeding it out -as our resident medical student pointed out to me over another subject, it would only take around 25,000 years to make a good start on that. If they ever do find out which genetic traits make a person gay there may well be people which test for that and then have abortions, but many people won't.

Homosexuality is pretty much here to stay for as long as we can care to think about.

:beer:

kage110
25th November 2003, 14:44
Why on earth would any sane person want to breed it out anyway? You know, when we find that gene for white Christian folk I think we should just breed 'em all out!:rolleyes:

elder999
25th November 2003, 16:16
http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/lambert/appeal.html


If the issue for BSA is the right to discriminate, then I question whether or not BSA truly knows what the Scouting movement is all about. Most of the world Scouting movement does not discriminate against anyone. In England, where Scouting was founded, Lord Baden Powell had three goals for Scouts: health, happiness, and helpfulness. He said if you conquered those three things you would be a great citizen.

When Lord Baden Powell saw that Boy Scouts was expanding to become a worldwide organization, he saw the need to accommodate different beliefs. America did not subscribe to the principle of having kings and queens, just as there were religions or belief systems that did not worship a deity. That is when the Outlanders' Promise was born. It could be said by whole groups, patrols, or just individuals. Because it said nothing about religion, it allowed every boy to be in Scouts. Even back in the early 1900s, our chief Scout recognized that Scouting is a great organization for every boy, regardless of his beliefs or background.

Everybody can be a good citizen; it doesn't matter if you are a Christian, a Buddhist, a spiritualist, or an atheist. Morals come from more then just a belief in God. They come from inside -- they are what makes you feel happy to help someone, to teach them, and to see them succeed. Scouting is about loyalty to one another, it is about being trustworthy and having trust in each other, it is about going camping and hiking and developing your skills out of doors, it is about becoming a leader and standing up for people that need help. It is about giving back to the community and society to make your country that much better. That is what Scouting is about for everyone. Religion is an individual choice and should be recognized as that by Scouts, but it should never be used to exclude boys from Scouts.

While the young man in this particular instance, an Eagle Scout, was an assistant scoutmaster and in the leadership program, he is only 19 years old, which, as per the BSA's charter, still makes him a boy.He's officially a boy until he's 21 years old. He's in leadership because that's all that's left.

poryu
25th November 2003, 16:32
HI

I worked for the Potawatomi Area council at BSA Camp Long Lake in Wisconsin in 1988 as an International scout. I hold the Queen Scout award which is the Uk verison of Eagle scout.

Its a shame that the BSA is still behaving like it did in the first days if its creation. Today we are supposed to be more open. I personally and 100% heterosexual, but I have worked with gays, and sociallised with them through friends. dont see why I should exlcude them just because I have a different sexual orientation to them.

I did find the BSA to be very much different to the scouts in the UK. at Long lake, I thought it was nothing more than a badge factory, the kids there were being treated like they were at school. regardless of that they had a excellent time.

What I did have an intense dislike was the obsession with the BSA for its obssession with making money all the time, People who were supposed to be members of the scourts trying to out do each other with cash to get a parking space. They were money makers not scouts.

These same people objected when they discovered that was going to be asked to join the order of the arrow lodge on camp and also be given an honorary eagle sciout for some of the old boys who frequented camp. al because I was not an American citizen. It was these same people who would however want to parade me before the rotary and roundtable dinners as an example of the internaitonal aspect of the camp. It wa sok to take me to dinners because I made them more money but I was to recieve nothing in return. They never did find out but the old guys handed me before I left the 3 different Order of the Arrow sashes and a lodge patch, and the Scout Exec (the big boss) gave me a full eagle scout kit as a gift for the work I had done. I still have all of these gifts safe at home

Maybe if the BSA has a problem with gays they should change there name to the Scout association as it is called in the UK. After all the Boy scouts does in todays society have a slightly paedo flavour to it.

In 2007 the Scouts will be 100 years old, its time for them to come up to date with the rest of the world and its open attitude.

wab25
25th November 2003, 16:39
========================
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Well, wab25 proved that he has ZERO understanding of genetics or statistics. As it can be shown quite easily and without any refutation that homosexuality occurs within the bell curve of expected human traits, it is in essence no more unusual or unexpected than blue eyes, male pattern baldness, or being 6' tall. It occurs far less often than any of those things, but certainly often enough to be regularly accounted for and expected in defined quantities. In other words, homosexuality is a normal and expected condition to occur within the human genome. As to say it does not reproduce, how do you explain the huge numbers of children that gay men and women have? Or perhaps the gay children of straight parents? Genetics is far more complex than what you studied in high school.
========================
Well, actually, what I exhibited was a ZERO understanding of statistics. Statistics will also tell you acurrately how many people will run a red light. Those people caught running it all had to choose. The statistics did not take away their right to choose, it was merely a prediction based on past patterns. Saying that you can statistically predict their numbers proves nothing as to whether it is choice or genetic. And I repeat, no gene has yet been found to prove conclusively that it is genetic. Even though there has been great effort put into the cause.

As far as wanting to breed out homosexuality, that is just another twist of my words. Yes it may take 25,000 years or so for it to disappear, but the human population has been evolving for how many millions of years? The earth was never in danger of over population until recently. It was individual species that were under the most danger, thus the genes to reproduce and survive to the age where you can reproduce, had most value. Given the millions of years that this evolution took place, the value of reproduction on the survival of a species, and the 25,000 years it would statistically take for it to disappear, it just seems like that would have disappeared by now.

And yes atheists are infringing on my right to worship. First step, get into BSA, second step change the oath ( which is one of the fundamental goals of BSA ) third step ban prayer from all BSA meetings. How many times has this happened? An owner of a store cannot say "Merry Christmas" for fear of lawsuit. Highschool football teams can not pray before a football game, even if they all want to. And coming soon I fear, will be censurship of sunday worship services. Before you tell me I am crazy, remember that in Canada they already have such censurship of sunday services. According to Rev Jerry Falwell, some ministers have been imprisoned in Canada for preaching from the Bible, under the hate speech laws.

elder999
25th November 2003, 16:46
Originally posted by wab25
========================
And yes atheists are infringing on my right to worship. First step, get into BSA, second step change the oath ( which is one of the fundamental goals of BSA ) third step ban prayer from all BSA meetings. How many times has this happened? An owner of a store cannot say "Merry Christmas" for fear of lawsuit. Highschool football teams can not pray before a football game, even if they all want to. And coming soon I fear, will be censurship of sunday worship services. Before you tell me I am crazy, remember that in Canada they already have such censurship of sunday services. According to Rev Jerry Falwell, some ministers have been imprisoned in Canada for preaching from the Bible, under the hate speech laws.

There's no need to change the oath-atheists are more than capable of using the word "God" as a metaphor for something else, or simply ignoring it, and have done so throughout opur nation's history, not just that of the BSA.It's also entirely possible to pray without reference to deity, which would be the proper non-denominational procedure for an organization like the Boy Scouts anyway-it's either that or include ALL gods, and that would take far too long.

Your reference to Jerry Falwell, of all people, tells us all we need to know about what sort of American Christian you are.:rolleyes:

Troll.:rolleyes:

Shitoryu Dude
25th November 2003, 16:51
So now we get to the heart of the matter. Dear wab25 hates atheists because he is no longer able to force them to comply with HIS religious practices. Oh, dear me, you can't organize a prayer for EVERYONE to participate in regardless of their beliefs and practices.

Here's a suggestion for you; go study the constitution and history, think about the concept of keeping your "prayers" to yourself for a change, and then go bugger yourself with a nice sharp splintery stick until you bleed to death.

Troll.

:toast:

wab25
25th November 2003, 16:51
=======================
Your reference to Jerry Falwell, of all people, tells us all we need to know about what sort of American Christian you are.
=======================

Actually all that tells you is who I listened to in a radio intervue. He is being censered in Canada and his ministers are being thrown in jail for preaching out of the Bible in a sunday service. That sounds great for all you atheists, a few less religious folk around. But it is an infringement on religious freedom and an infringement on free speech. If I lose my freedom of speech, you lost yours too. Hopefully, we won't then get a religious type president, who doesn't let you speak out against religion.

elder999
25th November 2003, 17:00
Originally posted by wab25
=======================
Your reference to Jerry Falwell, of all people, tells us all we need to know about what sort of American Christian you are.
=======================

Actually all that tells you is who I listened to in a radio intervue. He is being censered in Canada and his ministers are being thrown in jail for preaching out of the Bible in a sunday service. That sounds great for all you atheists, a few less religious folk around. But it is an infringement on religious freedom and an infringement on free speech. If I lose my freedom of speech, you lost yours too. Hopefully, we won't then get a religious type president, who doesn't let you speak out against religion.

I'M NOT AN ATHEIST.If you'd been here long enough, you'd know that. I'm probably notoriously religious.

I'm not exactly a Christian anymore.

I'm an American, though.

The arrest in Canada was for using a quote in from the BIble calling for the stoning of homosexuals in a print ad in the press. Under Canad's "Hate-speech" statute, this was illegal. No one, as far as I can tell, has been arrested for preaching in their church; this is merely another typical fundie exagerration. While I don't agree with the statute in question, it was never intended to be used against religion, nor has it been.

I wouldn't listen to Jerry Falwell-notorious moron- for anything except laughs:

If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell (source unknown)

This is probably as bad a day as the court has had on social issues since "Roe v. Wade."
-- Jerry Falwell, reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Texas sodomy case, "Lawrence v. Texas," wherein the high court upheld an individual's (or a couple's) right to privacy; "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, for the majority in an opinion "as broad in its constitutional vision as any ever issued by the court," wrote Charles Lane for The Washington Post; in his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, an extremist Evangelical Christian, complained that the justices voting to uphold the right to privacy were creating a new constitutional right, that they were not upholding the Constitution, quoted from "Planned Parenthood Federal Action Report" (July, 2003) ††

I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, citen in Cary McMullen, "Falwell: Now Is the Time for Gospel," in the Lakeland (Florida) Ledger (November 12, 2001), quoted from Randy Cassingham, This is True (18 November 2001). Falwell added: "We visit prisoners on death row, and some of them are saved, but we believe their sentences should be carried out because they have a debt to society."

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev. Pat Robertson agreed, quoted from John F. Harris, "God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)

The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.[B]
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev. Pat Robertson again agreed, quoted from AANEWS #958 by American Atheists (September 14, 2001)

[B]And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, quoted from John F. Harris, "God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)

I sincerely believe that the collective efforts of many secularists during the past generation, resulting in the expulsion from our schools and from the public square, has left us vulnerable.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, after the 700 Club broadcast wherein he had blamed civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, speaking to The New York Times, quoted from Dick Meyer, "Holy Smoke," CBS News (September 15, 2001)

I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist, [but America's] secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture ... the result is not good.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, backpedaling amidst criticism of his statement blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, quoted from John F. Harris, "God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)

Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged"? In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time -- calling upon God.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, justifying the breech of Constitutional Separation of Religion from Government while blaming civil libertarians for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev. Pat Robertson again agreed, quoted from AANEWS #958 by American Atheists (September 14, 2001)

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 pp. 52-53, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm

Soulend
25th November 2003, 17:06
Whined Fundie-boy wab25:
And yes atheists are infringing on my right to worship.

shotofan
25th November 2003, 23:07
You talk about freedom of reglion. But then you kick kids out for the reglion or lack there of. If you are aloud to discramte for there lack of faith or sexual orination, what will stop other groups from kicking a kid out because he is handicap? Or of another race or color?

If you allow some thing like what the BSA is doing is like opening a Pandoras box.

Julian Gerhart
25th November 2003, 23:26
being gay is a choice eh?

well I tried to be gay. I thought I could do it since it is a choice right? but for some reason not matter how much gay porn I stared at I just couldn't stop thinking about boobs. I wonder how those other guys manage to make that choice and keep boobs out of their minds. It's got me stumped.

shotofan
26th November 2003, 00:41
Do you have a response to my last post MR.Bohan????:confused: :idea:

wab25
26th November 2003, 01:21
=======================
You talk about freedom of reglion. But then you kick kids out for the reglion or lack there of. If you are aloud to discramte for there lack of faith or sexual orination, what will stop other groups from kicking a kid out because he is handicap? Or of another race or color?

If you allow some thing like what the BSA is doing is like opening a Pandoras box.
=======================

Every other group is allowed to discriminate against race, color, handicap, age, sex, religion and even color. BSA accepts all colors, all races, all religions, and even handicap. They don't accept people who do not have the same goals as BSA. Doing your duty to God is a fundamental goal of BSA. Creating a group for boys where they will not be pressured sexually is another fundamental goal of BSA.

If the question is "does BSA have the right to discriminate its membership?" the answer is yes they can, just like every other group has the right to discriminate their membership.

If the question is "do they deserve to receive the funds and tax breaks they get?" yes they do. They have met all the qualifications to receive such.

If the question is "do you agree with BSA's position on these issues?" well, obviously you do not. You have that right to disagree, which I also support.

If you think that the government or any other group has the right to change or abolish BSA, I strongly disagree here. If you can force one group to change political stance according to the governments decisions or according to another groups ideas, then all groups are open to the same type of changes. The government should not be allowed to change or abolish your group. Other groups also should not have such power. You have the right to disagree with, obstain from, create your own group, but not to take away from someone else. If you don't like BSA's teachings and goals, don't put your kids in BSA.

shotofan
26th November 2003, 01:28
You say gays force there sexual ways on others. The same goes for stright people to. You better kick them out to. So the kids will be free of sexual influence. Wait you can't do that. You would have no kids. And as a christan you are very jugding. Who are always saying that gays and athist force there ways. But mormans, christans and etc do the same. I never had a gay or athist come up to me on the street or my hose like other reglion grougs.

Remember, don't jugde or thou shall be jugded.

wab25
26th November 2003, 01:58
===========================
You say gays force there sexual ways on others. The same goes for stright people to. You better kick them out to. So the kids will be free of sexual influence. Wait you can't do that. You would have no kids. And as a christan you are very jugding. Who are always saying that gays and athist force there ways. But mormans, christans and etc do the same. I never had a gay or athist come up to me on the street or my hose like other reglion grougs.

Remember, don't jugde or thou shall be jugded.
===========================

I don't remember claiming to be christian, I think that is your judgement of me. Not all gays force their sexual ways on other people. But many of them do, especially at a young age. This is not repeating a stereotype, this is a result of personally having to deal with these situations. Any decent human being, gay or straight, condemns such activities the same. Part of protecting your kids from such abuse, is to put them in environments where that will not be an issue. There are also no girls in the Boy Scout troops. ( yes they are in venturing crews and such )So if you want your boy in a group where he will not be pressured sexually, you put him in a troop. If you want him to have the experience of being around girls then put him in a venturing crew or explorer post. If you want him to be around gays, put him in public. One hour a week and one campout a month will hardly shelter the boy from all other life styles.

Read my previous post. BSA has every right to do just as they are. You have every right to disagree. In the end, if you take away BSA's rights you take away everyones rights. That is the point that I am trying to make. Whatever rights you take from one group, get taken from every group. Whatever rights get taken from one person get taken from all. When you take away someone elses freedom of speech because you don't agree with him, its all great till you find out that you also lost your right of free speech.

Shitoryu Dude
26th November 2003, 03:07
So far I'd have to say you know nothing of Scouting. There are girls in Boy Scouts - I have met them. You listen to and quote Jerry Foulwell, yet claim you aren't a christian. You are a piss-poor liar, but you are a liar all the same. Nobody except a rabid, dyed in the wool evangelical babtist dimwit could stand to listen that bigoted, smug, hate-filled jackass for more than 10 seconds, much less have the balls to quote him as if he mattered at all or was respected.

Go away and troll your idiocy someplace else.

:beer:

Soulend
26th November 2003, 04:39
Originally posted by wab25
Whatever rights you take from one group, get taken from every group.
There is no "right" to discriminate against people, particularly at taxpayer's expense - why is it so difficult for you to understand this? What hypothetical "rights" would supposedly be "taken" from the BSA? The right to be a bunch of bigoted, homophobic, superstitious jackoffs? And whose freedom of speech would be infringed upon? You're grasping at straws and and talking in circles because you cannot come up with a single logical reason that supports your argument.

"Reverend" Jerry Falwell..what a joke. I'm surprised no one has yet done the world a favor by putting a hole in that idiot's skull.

Fess up, you're a member of this ministry (http://www.godhatesfags.com), aren't ya?

Julian Gerhart
26th November 2003, 04:41
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why I wasn't able to make the choice to be gay. I wasn't being sarcastic in my last post. I honestly tried to be gay and it just didn't work. WHY CAN'T I BE ATTRACTED TO MEN? its really frustrating me.

Soulend
26th November 2003, 04:47
Hell, I'm still waiting for him to support his moronic statement from two pages ago.

But instead..

Shitoryu Dude
26th November 2003, 04:49
You couldn't make the "choice" to be gay because it is hardwired into you to be excited by women. Sort of like asking you to choose between breathing air or water - you go with what you got. You can wish to be a fish all damned day long, but that doesn't make you one.

:beer:

Julian Gerhart
26th November 2003, 04:53
psst, Harvey, I wanted Trolly McTrollerson to answer the question.;)

kirigirisu
26th November 2003, 06:27
evil-fundie William can't, because it doesn't compute in that shyte-filled lump sitting on top of his neck. Must be all that moronic Xpian rhetoric pumped into his noggin from that hypocritical human sh1t-stain Falwell and his collegues.

I feel your pain, though.

As an experiment, I tried staring at a guy's bottocks for a while, hoping I could make the conscious "choice" to switch to the other team, but all I kept thinking about were luscious, luscious boobies.

And Salma Hayek. And her boobies.

And I still don't get the appeal of that big-nosed blowhard of a psychobitch they call "Streisand." Or even the chick from the "Wizard of Oz."

Didn't get the appeal of Madonna either until she sucked face with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera on the 2003 MTV Music Awards.

Her so-called "music" still sucks.

Why???? WHY???

Shitoryu Dude
26th November 2003, 14:25
Hey, I'm still working on the appeal of Paris Hilton. I've had far better looking women, with actual boobs and butt, do everything for the camera & me that she has done without nearly the fanfare.

So she shows off her crotch to the camera - I can find that behavior in nearly any bar within a couple miles of a college campus. She isn't really pretty at all, she is flat chested, and her butt has no shape. She is a swizzle stick with a vagina and blonde hair.

:beer:

wab25
26th November 2003, 16:36
====================
Hell, I'm still waiting for him to support his moronic statement from two pages ago.

But instead...
====================
which statement? I'll be glad to respond.

====================
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why I wasn't able to make the choice to be gay. I wasn't being sarcastic in my last post. I honestly tried to be gay and it just didn't work. WHY CAN'T I BE ATTRACTED TO MEN? its really frustrating me.
====================

Becuase you were trying to prove the point that you couldn't choose. When you are trying to force a particular outcome, don't be surprised when you get it.

====================
There is no "right" to discriminate against people, particularly at taxpayer's expense - why is it so difficult for you to understand this? What hypothetical "rights" would supposedly be "taken" from the BSA?
====================

The right to have a group of people all having the same beliefs and goals. Other groups receiving taxpayer money can and do discriminate against color, race, religion, political ideas, age, sex, sexuality, ..... All those gay and lesbien groups, all those black and hispanic groups, all those seniors groups and womens groups, while they are Politically Correct, many do discriminate against people not like them. Anybody has a right to create such a group that has whatever beliefs and goals they want. Heck we even have groups for illegal aliens that receive taxpayer money. Every member of the group is illegal, thus committing a crime, they discriminate against US citizens as well as blacks, whites, asians, indians all all other non-latino races.

==================
"Reverend" Jerry Falwell..what a joke. I'm surprised no one has yet done the world a favor by putting a hole in that idiot's skull.

Fess up, you're a member of this ministry, aren't ya?
==================

First off, BSA nor members of BSA ever call for killing someone just because their religion is a bit different than theirs. Want to talk about someone being intolerant, you just talked about how great it would be if someone were to kill this man, simply because you don't agree with what he says.

==================
So far I'd have to say you know nothing of Scouting. There are girls in Boy Scouts - I have met them. You listen to and quote Jerry Foulwell, yet claim you aren't a christian. You are a piss-poor liar, but you are a liar all the same. Nobody except a rabid, dyed in the wool evangelical babtist dimwit could stand to listen that bigoted, smug, hate-filled jackass for more than 10 seconds, much less have the balls to quote him as if he mattered at all or was respected.
==================

There are girls in BSA but not in troops, as I mentioned before, they are in venturing crews and in explorer posts. I listen to talk radio and watch the evening news on TV. That is where I heard interviews done with Jerry Falwell. I never said I supported what he says or what he believes. I only support his right to say it and believe it, but only because I want that same right. And one other thing I'll admit, I am not a babtist, not even close. I never said I wasn't christian, I just never said I was. You people just assumed that I was. But, for all you know, I could be jewish, or muslim, or buddist, or even christian.

elder999
26th November 2003, 16:45
Originally posted by wab25
====================

The right to have a group of people all having the same beliefs and goals. Other groups receiving taxpayer money can and do discriminate against color, race, religion, political ideas, age, sex, sexuality, ..... All those gay and lesbien groups, all those black and hispanic groups, all those seniors groups and womens groups, while they are Politically Correct, many do discriminate against people not like them. Anybody has a right to create such a group that has whatever beliefs and goals they want. Heck we even have groups for illegal aliens that receive taxpayer money. Every member of the group is illegal, thus committing a crime, they discriminate against US citizens as well as blacks, whites, asians, indians all all other non-latino races.

This is wrong, as I've said before. Name one group that receives tax dollars-like the NAACP-that discriminates in this fashion-besides the Boy Scouts.




There are girls in BSA but not in troops, as I mentioned before, they are in venturing crews and in explorer posts. I listen to talk radio and watch the evening news on TV. That is where I heard interviews done with Jerry Falwell. I never said I supported what he says or what he believes. I only support his right to say it and believe it, but only because I want that same right. And one other thing I'll admit, I am not a babtist, not even close. I never said I wasn't christian, I just never said I was. You people just assumed that I was. But, for all you know, I could be jewish, or muslim, or buddist, or even christian.

This is also not true. THe SUpreme COurt has ruled that girls can be "Boy Scouts" in areas where there is no similar group. There ARE girls in Boy Scouts who are not members of the programs that you mentioned:the first girl in Boy Scouts was from New York, and she became a Boy Scout in 1931.

I'm betting that you call yourself a Christian.

kage110
26th November 2003, 16:51
I never said I wasn't christian, I just never said I was. You people just assumed that I was. But, for all you know, I could be jewish, or muslim, or buddist, or even christian.

Maybe some people 'assumed' you were Christian but I 'deduced' you were Christian from the words you wrote. I have yet to meet, hear or read a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist - or member of any other religion for the matter - who are quite so religiously outspoken as a large number of Christians I have encountered. Until I do I will continue to 'deduce' that people who spout intolerance on religious grounds - in the places that I frequent - are likely to be Christian. Read into that what you will.

wab25
26th November 2003, 16:58
====================
This is also not true. THe SUpreme COurt has ruled that girls can be "Boy Scouts" in areas where there is no similar group. There ARE girls in Boy Scouts who are not members of the programs that you mentioned:the first girl in Boy Scouts was from New York, and she became a Boy Scout in 1931.
====================

This is however, not the norm. IN most areas where there is a troop there is also either a post or crew.

elder999
26th November 2003, 17:01
Originally posted by wab25
[B
This is however, not the norm. IN most areas where there is a troop there is also either a post or crew. [/B]

Gay is "not the norm."

Atheist-in America right now, at any rate-is "not the norm."

Neither of them is "handicapped," "psychotic," or "diseased," in any way, nor are any of those reasons to be excluded from the BSA-though one of them should be, and the other two could be.

wab25
26th November 2003, 17:16
====================
...but a constitution of government once changed from freedom can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever-John Adams,1775

There are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.-James Madison, 1788
====================

If you take away BSA's freedom to run their group as they see fit, then you also take that same freedom from every other group. I don't see why that is so hard to grasp. If BSA cannot have a group that is not politically correct, then neither can any other group exist which is not politically correct. Once we lose that freedom, then we really need to worry about who decides what is and is not politically correct.

elder999
26th November 2003, 17:24
Originally posted by wab25

If you take away BSA's freedom to run their group as they see fit, then you also take that same freedom from every other group. I don't see why that is so hard to grasp. If BSA cannot have a group that is not politically correct, then neither can any other group exist which is not politically correct. Once we lose that freedom, then we really need to worry about who decides what is and is not politically correct.

If, and only if, they stop receiving tax dollars and special government sipensation-I'm not even saying, as some do, that they should lose their NFP status.

More importantly, these actions are being driven by a few men, from the Txas headquarters of trhe corptorate entity that calls itself the Boy SCouts of America. Many troops are sponsored by religious organizations-as mine was-and have boys and leadership of many faiths, as well as atheists. here in Los Alamos, there is a troop sponsored by the Mormons-and the majority of its membership is probably comprised of saints. There is another troop in the state that is led by an atheist Eagle Scout. I think the majority of scoutings membership and leadership probably doesn't care if a boy or a leader is gay or atheist or both. I'm not going to say that they shouldn't, or their parents shouldn't be concerned, but I'm willing to bet they're not.

More American boys have been molested by clergymen than by gay scoutmasters.

Shitoryu Dude
26th November 2003, 17:31
Actually, on a statistical basis, atheism and homosexuality are part of the "norm". They are within the expected variations of human behavior and can be easily accounted for within a sufficiently large population.

:beer:

Shitoryu Dude
26th November 2003, 17:31
Actually, on a statistical basis, atheism and homosexuality are part of the "norm". They are within the expected variations of human behavior and can be easily accounted for within a sufficiently large population.

:beer:

elder999
26th November 2003, 17:34
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Actually, on a statistical basis, atheism and homosexuality are part of the "norm". They are within the expected variations of human behavior and can be easily accounted for within a sufficiently large population.

:beer:

Hence, the quotation marks......;)

Soulend
26th November 2003, 19:13
First off, BSA nor members of BSA ever call for killing someone just because their religion is a bit different than theirs. Want to talk about someone being intolerant, you just talked about how great it would be if someone were to kill this man, simply because you don't agree with what he says.

Yeah, right. The BSA is comprised entirely of saints, unlike the remainder of the unwashed masses. They only trash campsites, as they did to one belonging to my father's company; but never, ever say anything mean like that.

Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities, William. :cry:

FWIW, it has very little to do with what he says. It has to do with him being a fraud, and an idiotic one at that. I can't believe you quoted the 'teletubbies promote homosexuality' guy in an attempt to lend weight to your point!

Oh well, to the ol' ignore list you go, troll. Peace.

wab25
26th November 2003, 19:29
===================
Yeah, right. The BSA is comprised entirely of saints, unlike the remainder of the unwashed masses. They only trash campsites, as they did to one belonging to my father's company; but never, ever say anything mean like that.

Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities, William.
===================

It had nothing to do with my being offended. It had to do with pointing out the intolerable, unaccepting, prejugdiced attitude of some people who attack the BSA. BSA says we don't want you to join if you don't agree with us. You were calling for death because someone didn't agree with you. In actuality, if you value your right to believe what you want, you need to stand up for all people's right to believe as they want, even if you don't have the same religion.

While I am at it, your lumping of all BSA members into the christian faith, is just like calling all homosexuals pedofiles. Even generalizing all christian faiths as gay-haters, is just as ignorant of the facts. Many christian religions do welcome gays, even have gay preachers.

Soulend
26th November 2003, 19:35
Have a happy holiday season.

kirigirisu
26th November 2003, 19:54
Originally posted by wab25
It had nothing to do with my being offended. It had to do with pointing out the intolerable, unaccepting, prejugdiced attitude of some people who attack the BSA. BSA says we don't want you to join if you don't agree with us. You were calling for death because someone didn't agree with you. In actuality, if you value your right to believe what you want, you need to stand up for all people's right to believe as they want, even if you don't have the same religion.


It's such a shame when we as a society have gotten so tolerant that the intolerant use it to their advantage to exhort the "tolerant" to tolerate the intolerant? :D

You can "value" whoever the hell's right to believe whatever they want AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

And stop being so obtuse, evil Willie. David has every damn right to wish death or dismemberment or severe maiming or biblical misfortune or its secular equivalent upon and damn person he wants, just like bible-thumpers and fundies and the Klan can wish death et. al upon Jews, Aye-rabs, Nigras, Chinks, Gooks, Dot-heads, Wops, Micks, Heathens, Catholics, Blockheads, Homersekshals, the Purple Teletubbie, folks who don't molest their little sisters, whatever.

When he or they decide to act on said desire, it becomes an issue.


While I am at it, your lumping of all BSA members into the christian faith, is just like calling all homosexuals pedofiles.


Weren't that what you was trying to imply lo those many pages ago before you started your backpedaling?



Even generalizing all christian faiths as gay-haters, is just as ignorant of the facts. Many christian religions do welcome gays, even have gay preachers.

Isn't it wonderful when Jesus Freaks realize that a homo's tithe-money is just as good as a straight person's?

wab25
26th November 2003, 20:15
======================
And stop being so obtuse, evil Willie. David has every damn right to wish death or dismemberment or severe maiming or biblical misfortune or its secular equivalent upon and damn person he wants, just like bible-thumpers and fundies and the Klan can wish death et. al upon Jews, Aye-rabs, Nigras, Chinks, Gooks, Dot-heads, Wops, Micks, Heathens, Catholics, Blockheads, Homersekshals, the Purple Teletubbie, folks who don't molest their little sisters, whatever.
======================

I never said he didn't have the right to make his comments, or shouldn't have made such comments. I only pointed out his attitude. One wishes certain people won't join their group. One wishes people dead. Both for the same reason, they don't have the same religion. It was the difference in attitude I was pointing out.

======================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I am at it, your lumping of all BSA members into the christian faith, is just like calling all homosexuals pedofiles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Weren't that what you was trying to imply lo those many pages ago before you started your backpedaling?
========================

Actually, no it wasn't. Furthermore, I never backpedaled. If you reread my posts, I never said that all homosexuals were pedofiles. In fact, I never even said most. I did say that the number is higher than is politically correct to say.


=====================
Isn't it wonderful when Jesus Freaks realize that a homo's tithe-money is just as good as a straight person's?
=====================

Yes, actually it is wonderful. Especially since we are discussing who is tolerant of who, and who accepts who. ( before you go off on why doesn't BSA follow these churches, don't forget that these churches discriminate against atheists, agnostics, jews, islamics, muslims, buddist, jehovas witnesses, catholics.......)

kirigirisu
26th November 2003, 20:23
Originally posted by wab25

Yes, actually it is wonderful. Especially since we are discussing who is tolerant of who, and who accepts who. ( before you go off on why doesn't BSA follow these churches, don't forget that these churches discriminate against atheists, agnostics, jews, islamics, muslims, buddist, jehovas witnesses, catholics.......)

Don't really care if the BSA "follows" the less barbaric institutions of worship or not.

Said institutions of worship are funded by the tithe moneys of their parishioners, gay, straight, bi, celibate, vegetarian, or whatever, NOT government tax dollars, so they're welcomed to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't involve trying to recruit ME into the fold.

Once the BSA stops suckling at the government's teat it can do whatever the hell it wants, too.

Shitoryu Dude
26th November 2003, 20:32
Cripes, are you ever so full of BS!! To think that Brucie the Dim left us only to be replaced by such a mealy-mouthed bat turd such as you.

While you have demonstrated a distinct lack of knowledge on nearly every subject you have espoused upon, you just keep coming back with more evangelical, self-rightous platitudes. You appear to be totally devoid of rational thought, instead relying on whatever pap has been injected between your ears to help you regurgitate inane "woe is me, the poor persecuted christian" lies.

Ah, where is Tony to deal with such impudent dorks as this?

:beer:

wab25
26th November 2003, 21:12
=========================
Said institutions of worship are funded by the tithe moneys of their parishioners, gay, straight, bi, celibate, vegetarian, or whatever, NOT government tax dollars, so they're welcomed to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't involve trying to recruit ME into the fold.

Once the BSA stops suckling at the government's teat it can do whatever the hell it wants, too.
==========================

Many such groups are NFP just like BSA, and are thus tax exempt. Many also receive the same type of grants when the meet the requirements for such grants.


==========================
Cripes, are you ever so full of BS!! To think that Brucie the Dim left us only to be replaced by such a mealy-mouthed bat turd such as you.

While you have demonstrated a distinct lack of knowledge on nearly every subject you have espoused upon, you just keep coming back with more evangelical, self-rightous platitudes. You appear to be totally devoid of rational thought, instead relying on whatever pap has been injected between your ears to help you regurgitate inane "woe is me, the poor persecuted christian" lies.

Ah, where is Tony to deal with such impudent dorks as this?
==========================

Rational arguments are based upon facts and the conclusions drawn from such facts. To argue rationally one either proves the fact to be false, or the conclusion not to follow from the given fact. Name calling, trash talk, going off on, whatever you want to call your rants like this, do not present any rational argument either for or against my argument. They do however provide facts for another argument which could be had on whether or not you can argue logically. Usually, when people begin to lose an arguement, because they cannot disprove the other party, the resort to name calling. You claim that I have a distinct lack of knowledge in all subjects. Please support this with examples of my knowledge in a particular area and proof of how that knowledge is wrong. elder999 did point out one error that I made, in saying that girls were not allowed in a Boy Scout Troop under any circumstance. He gave the reason why and an example which proved that I was wrong in such a statement. I attempted to correct my statement, by pointing out that girls are only allowed into a troop when a crew or post is not available in an area, which is very rare these days. ( far below what would be considered with in the norm statistically ) Rational arguement gets far more accomplished than mindless name calling.

Shitoryu Dude
26th November 2003, 22:03
Yes, but you forget one fact - you haven't done any rational discussion, only the circular logic and presentation of "facts" that have been discredited.

Please just go away and quit using this site for your trolling. You have only one reason to be here, and that is to promote your anti-gay, anti-fag, BSA position.

TROLL!!

Time to add another dork to my ignore list.

:beer:

kirigirisu
26th November 2003, 22:22
Originally posted by wab25
=========================
Rational arguments are based upon facts and the conclusions drawn from such facts.


Neither of which you've been able to demonstrate on a consistent basis, unless you consider your particular opinion on the (allegedly) large percentage of pedophiles within the gay population and whatever issueth forth from Jerry Falwell's hypocritical cakehole to be "fact."



To argue rationally one either proves the fact to be false, or the conclusion not to follow from the given fact.


Which most people have done until it became evident that you've demonstrated an uncanny immunity to "logic" when it doesn't suit whatever sensibility you seem to present for public consumption.



Name calling, trash talk, going off on, whatever you want to call your rants like this, do not present any rational argument either for or against my argument. They do however provide facts for another argument which could be had on whether or not you can argue logically. Usually, when people begin to lose an arguement, because they cannot disprove the other party, the resort to name calling. You claim that I have a distinct lack of knowledge in all subjects.


Not necessarily all, just the ones of concern here. Based on the obtuseness you've displayed online (plus that idiotic "young fags work in groups to pressure tender hairless young boys to suck cock" statement and using an evangelist divorced from anything resembling reality to support your claims of the oppression of Xpianity by the evil, evil atheists) several people, myself included, have extrapolated that ignorance to other "subjects."


Please support this with examples of my knowledge in a particular area and proof of how that knowledge is wrong.


The whole "gay scoutmasters are more likely to bugger your son than Father Rod is" argument and the "you damn dirty atheists is oppressing me! Hate Crime! HATE CRIME!!!" rant a page or two back. Plus using the words of Pharisee Falwell to back up said silliness.



elder999 did point out one error that I made, in saying that girls were not allowed in a Boy Scout Troop under any circumstance. He gave the reason why and an example which proved that I was wrong in such a statement. I attempted to correct my statement, by pointing out that girls are only allowed into a troop when a crew or post is not available in an area, which is very rare these days. ( far below what would be considered with in the norm statistically )

Ah, the backpedalling spin-doctor approach. Face it, you dropped the ball on that one. Among many others.


Rational arguement gets far more accomplished than mindless name calling.

One, the name-calling isn't mindless. I'm willing to bet it took much thought and consideration on the part of the people in question to lovingly craft the perjoratives and epithets used to describe the the extrapolated persona responsible for the sometimes wildly inaccurate and often silly and inflammatory statements that are motivated either by a deep conviction in said statements or a desire to purposely bait and enrage those who feel strongly about the issue at hand.

Two, I don't see anything being accomplished here besides a great big circular argument. The name calling makes it more fun, though.

Carry on...

shotofan
26th November 2003, 22:24
The problem I have is BSAs way of treating of children. This are kids, you are supose to teach this kids to be tolant of each other. Not , if they are differant thanm you you can ignore them/ hate them.

That is what the BSA is teaching children. Not leadership skills. If the BSA is for regliish children they sure are not teaching to be very forgiving like god teaches.

Julian Gerhart
26th November 2003, 22:24
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
You have only one reason to be here, and that is to promote your anti-gay, anti-fag, BSA position.

wow, anti-gay AND anti-fag, that is pretty extreme

Shitoryu Dude
26th November 2003, 23:07
Damn! I really need to check my posts better when I get torqued off.

Amend that to be anti-atheist & anti-fag.

Just for the record, based on the public behavior presented, there is a big difference between being a faggot and being gay. One of my wife's coworkers is a real lisping flamer. He's a total hoot to listen to when he starts to gossip, but no way do any of our other gay friends and aquaintances act like him. They actually seem to take more offense at stereotypical gay behavior than straight people do.

:beer:

Gene Williams
26th November 2003, 23:17
Did you know that fags lie in state face down so their friends will recognize them?

wab25
26th November 2003, 23:19
====================
Originally posted by wab25
Rational arguments are based upon facts and the conclusions drawn from such facts.
----------------------
Neither of which you've been able to demonstrate on a consistent basis, unless you consider your particular opinion on the (allegedly) large percentage of pedophiles within the gay population and whatever issueth forth from Jerry Falwell's hypocritical cakehole to be "fact."

========================

Fact 1. BSA is not the only group to recieve tax exempt status. Other groups also receive the same status.

Fact 2. Other groups, which receive tax exempt status, discriminate against people on the basis of religion, sex, sexuality, color, race, age, political views....

Conclusion: BSA can have tax exempt status in the same way as the other groups, and can also discriminate by their own criteria, just as the other groups also discriminate by their own set of criteria.

Fact 3. The government has set requirements to receive grants. Any group who meets the requirements is entitled to receive the money.

Fact 4. BSA has met all the requirements to receive such grants.

Conclusion: BSA is therefore entitled to receive the grant money.

Fact 5. In this country, we are given the right to hold whatever beliefs we want.

Fact 6. In this country, we are given the right to say whatever we want.

Fact 7. In this country, we have the right to organize a group of people for a common goal.

Conclusion: BSA has a right to organise a group for youth. BSA has the right to hold any belief it wants. BSA has the right to say whatever it wants. BSA is entitled to the grant money for the grants which it has met all requirements for. BSA has the right to be exempt from taxes because it has also met those requirements. BSA has the same right to discriminate as the other groups which also have the right to organize, have their own goals, have their own beliefs, meet the requirements for tax exemption and meet the requirements to receive grants.

Fact 8. All people in this country are considered equal, under the law. All groups in this country are considered equal, under the law.

Conclusion: If the law is changed such that one person or one group loses their freedom, then all people or groups lose that same freedom. In this particular case, we are talking about a group holding a different set of standards and goals. If their standards and goals can be changed by outside influence, so can the standards and goals of every other group.

Show me where that is circular. Show me what is not a true fact. Show how I arrived at an improper conclusion.


==========================
One, the name-calling isn't mindless. I'm willing to bet it took much thought and consideration on the part of the people in question to lovingly craft the perjoratives and epithets used to describe the the extrapolated persona responsible for the sometimes wildly inaccurate and often silly and inflammatory statements that are motivated either by a deep conviction in said statements or a desire to purposely bait and enrage those who feel strongly about the issue at hand.
==========================

I apologize for classifying name-calling as mindless. I admit that many people have waxed eloquent in concocting new and more offensive names for me. I should feel honored. My purpose for speaking out about this subject is 1 because I support BSA and 2 because want to point out that the more controls you give the government over BSA, the more control you give the government over every other group in the country, including those groups who happen to be politically correct. When the government has such power to control the standards, values and goals of the groups formed in this country, then we the citizens of this country start to lose rights which we cherish. Freedom of speech and freedom of/from religion. Finally, I wish to propose a way for those who do not agree with BSA to accomplish their goal of creating a youth group with the values, standards and goals which they hold dear. The way I propose, is to create a new group. This may sound callous, but it is not. It keeps the government from taking our rights as citizens. It establishes a group with the values, standards and goals that you agree with. In tearing down BSA, you also tear down any group for youth which has your values, standards and goals.

shotofan
26th November 2003, 23:36
You didn't answer my last post. Why? Because you know I'm right.

Soulend
26th November 2003, 23:50
You were calling for death because someone didn't agree with you.

I didn't "call for anyone's death". I said that I was surprised no one had not yet done so. Your reading comprehension is the equal of your logic.

wab25
27th November 2003, 00:12
==================
You didn't answer my last post. Why? Because you know I'm right.
==================

Your last post was on whether BSA was teaching correct principles. If you read my last post, it points out that one does not need to be right to have freedom of speech or religion. Merely being a citizen of this country gives you the right to say and believe what you want. If you don't agree, thats great too. There are many other groups to teach your kids the correct principles. Your belief of what is right or wrong has no bearing on BSA, just as my belief of right or wrong has no bearing for you. If you have the right to impose your belief of right and wrong on BSA, then I have the right to impose my belief of right and wrong on you. Both coarses of action are wrong.

kirigirisu
27th November 2003, 00:19
Originally posted by wab25
Conclusion: BSA has a right to organise a group for youth. BSA has the right to hold any belief it wants. BSA has the right to say whatever it wants. BSA is entitled to the grant money for the grants which it has met all requirements for. BSA has the right to be exempt from taxes because it has also met those requirements. BSA has the same right to discriminate as the other groups which also have the right to organize, have their own goals, have their own beliefs, meet the requirements for tax exemption and meet the requirements to receive grants.

Fact 8. All people in this country are considered equal, under the law. All groups in this country are considered equal, under the law.

Conclusion: If the law is changed such that one person or one group loses their freedom, then all people or groups lose that same freedom. In this particular case, we are talking about a group holding a different set of standards and goals. If their standards and goals can be changed by outside influence, so can the standards and goals of every other group.

Show me where that is circular. Show me what is not a true fact. Show how I arrived at an improper conclusion.


Okay, evil Willie: I've got six words for ya:

Bob Jones University v. United States

and just to refresh your memory:


italics mine
This Court has long held the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to be an absolute prohibition against governmental regulation of religious beliefs, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 219 (1972); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940). As interpreted by this Court, moreover, the Free Exercise Clause provides substantial protection for lawful conduct grounded in religious belief, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 220; Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981); Sherbert v. Verner, supra, at 402-403. However, "[n]ot all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. . . . The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest." United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257 -258 (1982). See, e. g., McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 628 , and n. 8 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 215; Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).

On occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct. In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), for example, the Court held that neutrally cast child labor laws prohibiting sale of printed materials on public streets could be applied to prohibit children from dispensing religious literature. The Court found no constitutional infirmity in "excluding [Jehovah's Witness children] from doing there what no other children may do." Id., at 171. See also Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879); United States v. Lee, supra; Gillette v. United States, supra. Denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a substantial [461 U.S. 574, 604] impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets.

The governmental interest at stake here is compelling. As discussed in Part II-B, supra, the Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education 29 - discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation's constitutional history. That governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. The interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, see United States v. Lee, supra, at 259-260; and no "less restrictive means," see Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, at 718, are available to achieve the governmental interest. 30 [461 U.S. 574, 605]


Based upon the religiously-based discriminatory practices of the BSA, the gub'ment is well within its rights to revoke the tax-exempt status of the BSA.

So your entire premise is based upon fallacy, thus negating your rather cleverly postulated argument.

And please, name ONE other group receiving gub'ment cheese what also blatantly and openly discriminates.

And before you start crying foul about the damn dirty liberals in da gub'ment, keep in mind this all occured back in the Reagan era.

Shitoryu Dude
27th November 2003, 01:40
This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Ah, they joys of ignoring the troll over a nice glass of Italian wine......

:toast:

Soulend
27th November 2003, 01:50
You too, Harvey? I'm currently ignoring him while enjoying a smooth California Riesling.

Shitoryu Dude
27th November 2003, 02:04
Late Harvest? I have a half case of a butt-kicker of a Late Harvest Reisling that I picked up a few months back from my friend who owns a wine store here in Seattle.

And I have a bottle of Johanesburg Reisling for tomorrow's turkey day festivities. After that it is a trip to Costco to pick up another two-pack of Chateau Ste. Michelle - you always need a bottle or two of Reisling on your wine rack.

:toast:

wab25
27th November 2003, 02:16
kirigirisu, finally, someone to discuss my argument instead of the beliefs they attribute to me. Your source was enlightening, however I found a few flaws with relating it to BSA.

=======================
The Court found no constitutional infirmity in "excluding [Jehovah's Witness children] from doing there what no other children may do." Id., at 171. See also Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879);
=======================
Here the court is treating all children the same. Jehovah's Witness children are being treated the same as other children, not given special rights. BSA is doing what any group may do. They are not taking special liberties not afforded other groups.

=======================
Denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a substantial [461 U.S. 574, 604] impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets.
=======================
This denial of tax benefits is for private religious schools. BSA is not a public or private school so it should not be treated as such.

=======================
The governmental interest at stake here is compelling. As discussed in Part II-B, supra, the Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education 29 - discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation's constitutional history. That governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. The interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, see United States v. Lee, supra, at 259-260; and no "less restrictive means," see Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, at 718, are available to achieve the governmental interest. 30 [461 U.S. 574, 605]
======================
The key word here "racial." BSA does not racially discriminate.

Furthermore, this whole discision seems to be pertaining to private religious schools, which BSA is not. Therefore, BSA does not fall under this ruling at all. BSA is not doing anything special that no one else is allowed to do. BSA is not a private religious school. BSA does not racially discriminate.

Soulend
27th November 2003, 04:31
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Late Harvest? I have a half case of a butt-kicker of a Late Harvest Reisling that I picked up a few months back from my friend who owns a wine store here in Seattle.


Yep, Herzog..very tasty. Got it in San Diego. If you haven't tried this one, pick up a bottle if you see it. Very clean flavor.

Julian Gerhart
27th November 2003, 04:46
I'm not allowed to drink wine:cry: but this is the best damn apple juice I ever tasted. cheers:toast:

kirigirisu
27th November 2003, 05:01
Originally posted by wab25
BSA does not racially discriminate.

Furthermore, this whole discision seems to be pertaining to private religious schools, which BSA is not. Therefore, BSA does not fall under this ruling at all. BSA is not doing anything special that no one else is allowed to do. BSA is not a private religious school.

First of all, Bob Jones v United States has nothing to do with whether or not an organization is public or private, but whether or not it has petitioned for tax exempt status.

That whole "reading comprehension" thing isn't your strong suit, is it?


Originally posted by wabwhatever
BSA does not racially discriminate.



But do you admit that the BSA does discriminate?

If so, I present to you the following:


Originally posted by evil Willie
Fact 8. All people in this country are considered equal, under the law. All groups in this country are considered equal, under the law.


So by your own statements, it leads one to believe that:

1. All people are considered equal under the law.

2. If all people are considered equal under the law, than discrimination against one group of people is necessarily legally "equal" to discrimination against any other group of people, since they are equal under the law.

3. Therefore, discriminating against a person based upon color is legally equal to discriminating against a person based upon belief, sexual orientation, gender, et. al.

3. Since Bob Jones University v. United States states that tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates and by your statement that "all people are considered equal under the law," then religious and gender and orientation discrimination are legally equal to racial discrimination, the BSA falls under said jurisdiction because


The interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest

because the Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination in "education," all discrimination being legally equal by your statements.

Or are you saying that some people are more "equal" than others?

Thought so.

kirigirisu
27th November 2003, 05:11
Originally posted by Soulend
Yep, Herzog..very tasty. Got it in San Diego. If you haven't tried this one, pick up a bottle if you see it. Very clean flavor.

Sigh... and here I am with an '82 Chateau Mouton and a case of '97 Silver Oak Cabernet I managed to inherit recently with nary the heart to partake (I looked up the prices and it nearly drew the twins into my abdominal cavity).

Gots to save it for a special occaision, I'm thinking...

So it's a bottle of The Fifteen for me, I guess. Nice go-to red.

Don't know whites to save my life.

Rieslings are good, though.

Much better than Chardonnay.

Julian Gerhart
27th November 2003, 06:35
Originally posted by kirigirisu
Or are you saying that some people are more "equal" than others?

As I have said on numerous occasions, I am the most equal of all.

wab25
27th November 2003, 06:40
===========================
First of all, Bob Jones v United States has nothing to do with whether or not an organization is public or private, but whether or not it has petitioned for tax exempt status.
============================

In the quote posted, this case was about tax exempt status of private religious schools, not organizations or clubs. Thus, BSA is not covered by this ruling.

===============
Fact 8. All people in this country are considered equal, under the law. All groups in this country are considered equal, under the law.
===============
This is true.

==============
So by your own statements, it leads one to believe that:

1. All people are considered equal under the law.

2. If all people are considered equal under the law, than discrimination against one group of people is necessarily legally "equal" to discrimination against any other group of people, since they are equal under the law.

3. Therefore, discriminating against a person based upon color is legally equal to discriminating against a person based upon belief, sexual orientation, gender, et. al.
===============
Points 1,2, and 3 here is true.

================
3. Since Bob Jones University v. United States states that tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates and by your statement that "all people are considered equal under the law," then religious and gender and orientation discrimination are legally equal to racial discrimination, the BSA falls under said jurisdiction because


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



because the Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination in "education," all discrimination being legally equal by your statements.

Or are you saying that some people are more "equal" than others?

Thought so.
===================
First, I assume you meant this to be point 4. Math must not be your strong point.

This statement "Since Bob Jones University v. United States states that tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates" is not true. No where in that ruling does it use the language "tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates." The distinction is that private religious schools may have their tax exempt status revoked. The jump from "private religious school" to "any tax-exempt instituion" is never made in the ruling, only in the mind of the reader. The petitioners in this ruling are the "private religious schools," not any group that wants tax exempt status. Furthermore, BSA's tax exempt status has been held up in court. I guess I need to look that up and post it here.

=====================
then religious and gender and orientation discrimination are legally equal to racial discrimination,
=====================
This may be but, discrimination is only illegal in a some places. Many groups have the right to discriminate for all of the above reasons and more. Men and women, are different groups. Men can have their shirt off in public, women are charged with indecent exposer. Men and women cannot use each others public restrooms. Also, black groups have the right to discriminate against other races. I missed out on many college scholarships offered by such groups because I was the wrong color. Other groups can discriminate based on your lineage. Since I have no proof that my ancesters fought in the revolutionary war, I may not join certain groups and receive their benefits. Womens groups also discriminate against men, yes they do empower women, but they still discriminate against men. Church groups, who also receive tax exemp status, also have the right to discriminate based on religious belief. Each person is equal. Each person has just as much right to say and believe whatever they want, so long as they do not take away anyone elses right. Each group is equal, in that they can run themselves and discriminate against whoever they want. Name a group that does not discriminate in some fashion.

Julian Gerhart
27th November 2003, 06:47
Originally posted by wab25
===========================
First of all, Bob Jones v United States has nothing to do with whether or not an organization is public or private, but whether or not it has petitioned for tax exempt status.
============================

In the quote posted, this case was about tax exempt status of private religious schools, not organizations or clubs. Thus, BSA is not covered by this ruling.

===============
Fact 8. All people in this country are considered equal, under the law. All groups in this country are considered equal, under the law.
===============
This is true.

==============
So by your own statements, it leads one to believe that:

1. All people are considered equal under the law.

2. If all people are considered equal under the law, than discrimination against one group of people is necessarily legally "equal" to discrimination against any other group of people, since they are equal under the law.

3. Therefore, discriminating against a person based upon color is legally equal to discriminating against a person based upon belief, sexual orientation, gender, et. al.
===============
Points 1,2, and 3 here is true.

================
3. Since Bob Jones University v. United States states that tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates and by your statement that "all people are considered equal under the law," then religious and gender and orientation discrimination are legally equal to racial discrimination, the BSA falls under said jurisdiction because


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



because the Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination in "education," all discrimination being legally equal by your statements.

Or are you saying that some people are more "equal" than others?

Thought so.
===================
First, I assume you meant this to be point 4. Math must not be your strong point.

This statement "Since Bob Jones University v. United States states that tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates" is not true. No where in that ruling does it use the language "tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates." The distinction is that private religious schools may have their tax exempt status revoked. The jump from "private religious school" to "any tax-exempt instituion" is never made in the ruling, only in the mind of the reader. The petitioners in this ruling are the "private religious schools," not any group that wants tax exempt status. Furthermore, BSA's tax exempt status has been held up in court. I guess I need to look that up and post it here.

=====================
then religious and gender and orientation discrimination are legally equal to racial discrimination,
=====================
This may be but, discrimination is only illegal in a some places. Many groups have the right to discriminate for all of the above reasons and more. Men and women, are different groups. Men can have their shirt off in public, women are charged with indecent exposer. Men and women cannot use each others public restrooms. Also, black groups have the right to discriminate against other races. I missed out on many college scholarships offered by such groups because I was the wrong color. Other groups can discriminate based on your lineage. Since I have no proof that my ancesters fought in the revolutionary war, I may not join certain groups and receive their benefits. Womens groups also discriminate against men, yes they do empower women, but they still discriminate against men. Church groups, who also receive tax exemp status, also have the right to discriminate based on religious belief. Each person is equal. Each person has just as much right to say and believe whatever they want, so long as they do not take away anyone elses right. Each group is equal, in that they can run themselves and discriminate against whoever they want. Name a group that does not discriminate in some fashion.
I miss Tony

Iain
27th November 2003, 08:52
I'm pretty sure he's the only guy with the stomach to persistently and thoroughly trounce this guy. I really don't give enough of a crap to put up much of a fight. If he wants to waste his time postulating lengthy arguments defending his legal right to be uninformed, that's his buisness...

ok. I lied. I'm going to say something.

You're still running around the crux of the argument. Why should homosexuals be excluded from your organization? What justification can you provide? Are homosexuals dangerous in some way? Just forget about what is legal or not for a second, and think about what's just. I mean a guy sitting in his room wanking off whilst thinking about molesting children isn't technically doing anything illegal, but it's still repugnant. Just because your organization isn't breaking the law doesn't make what it's doing morally acceptable. If you can't come up with a rational and reasonable argument for the exclusion of homosexuals, you must be excluding them on the basis of some unfounded prejudice. It's not illegal to be prejudiced or set up prejudiced organizations, but it's still morally questionable.

In addition, if you're going to set yourself up as the only Boy Scout organization, you should have an inclusive membership. If you want to be an organization with a narrow membership that promotes particular interests, you should open up the playing field for people who are willing to be more inclusive. Ethnic and gender based organizations don't generally make claims to universality.

So, if you want to politicize your organization, narrow its membership and enact exclusive policies, go ahead, but do it knowing that you're damaging the reputation of a valuable national treasure in the eyes of many people, and doing away with what was once a progressive, egalitarian, and open-minded organization. Go ahead and do whatever you want, but don't expect people to praise you for it, and don't be surprised if you loose a lot of respect in the process.

kirigirisu
27th November 2003, 10:28
Alright, since Tony isn't here (pining away for some militant feminist yenta from New England or a not-so-militant not-so-feminist not-so-yenta from Minesota, no doubt), it's left to me to split hairs with evil Willie what wants to split hair just so's he can keep the fags out of the Boy Scouts (Amen! (Heil!))

Okay, since I'd rather be talking wines with Harvey and David than whining about rabbi Yeshua with evil Willie, here goes:


Originally posted by wab25
===========================
First of all, Bob Jones v United States has nothing to do with whether or not an organization is public or private, but whether or not it has petitioned for tax exempt status.
============================

In the quote posted, this case was about tax exempt status of private religious schools, not organizations or clubs. Thus, BSA is not covered by this ruling.


Er... WRONG.

Check this out:


Majority Opinion: (Chief Justice Burger), brackets mine

The Internal Revenue correctly interpreted the law prohibiting tax exempt status to schools with racially discriminatory policies. The purpose behind relieving schools from paying taxes is that they serve a charitable function. However, racially [and by extrapolation based upon your own statements, gender-based, creed-based, and orientation based] discriminatory policies offset these benefits. Therefore, the IRS did not exceed its authority, because the government has an "overriding, fundamental interest in eradicating discrimination".



So, if'n the BSA don't "serve a charitable function," what the motherfu(k do they "do "to warrant relief from having to pay taxes?




Fact 8. All people in this country are considered equal, under the law. All groups in this country are considered equal, under the law.

This is true


So by your own statements, it leads one to believe that:

1. All people are considered equal under the law.

2. If all people are considered equal under the law, than discrimination against one group of people is necessarily legally "equal" to discrimination against any other group of people, since they are equal under the law.

3. Therefore, discriminating against a person based upon color is legally equal to discriminating against a person based upon belief, sexual orientation, gender, et. al.

Points 1,2, and 3 here is true.


Glad you aren't completely immune to logic. By the bye, learn to use the effing "quote function if'n you're gonna use quotes on the effin' forum. Makes for easier reading.

That is, if you're not purposely trying to irritate others for your own amusement and/or mental masturbatory purposes.



First, I assume you meant this to be point 4. Math must not be your strong point.


No, typing isn't my strong point.

Nice attempt at a jab, though. Not quite catty enough to warrant a bitch-slap but I'll give you an "A-" for effort and a "B-" for execution.



This statement "Since Bob Jones University v. United States states that tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates" is not true. No where in that ruling does it use the language "tax exempt status may be revoked from any tax-exempt institution that racially discriminates." The distinction is that private religious schools may have their tax exempt status revoked. The jump from "private religious school" to "any tax-exempt instituion" is never made in the ruling, only in the mind of the reader. The petitioners in this ruling are the "private religious schools," not any group that wants tax exempt status. Furthermore, BSA's tax exempt status has been held up in court. I guess I need to look that up and post it here.


Sigh... again, you've failed to read the entire judgement, only the bits I've presented. Quite shoddy, I must say.

I quote:


BOB JONES UNIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)

Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization under 501(c)(3). Pp. 585-605.


(a) An examination of the IRC's framework and the background of congressional purposes reveals unmistakable evidence that underlying all relevant parts of the IRC is the intent that entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity - namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.


Quite clear in the language, I must say. Of course, your obtuse iteration of so-called "logic" would either completely ignore or conveniently overlook this.



This may be but, discrimination is only illegal in a some places.

Thus, some people are more "equal" than others in "some" places.



Many groups have the right to discriminate for all of the above reasons and more. Men and women, are different groups. Men can have their shirt off in public, women are charged with indecent exposer.

Besides not spelling "exposure" correctly, You seem to have confused the terms "discrimination" and "distinction".


Men and women cannot use each others public restrooms.

That has less to do with so-called "discrimination" than it has to do with preventative so-called "public decency laws" designed in theory to prevent certain legal problems that might arise from putting men and women raise in a sexually segregated and repressive environment in the same area.

Silly, yes. "Right," certainly the eff not.


Also, black groups have the right to discriminate against other races. I missed out on many college scholarships offered by such groups because I was the wrong color.

Ah, yes, another example of the Nigra keepin' the po' white man down.

Boo mothereffing Hoo.

Pray tell, were THOSE scholarships also tax-exempt and/or under the aegis of tax-exempt institutions?



Other groups can discriminate based on your lineage. Since I have no proof that my ancesters fought in the revolutionary war, I may not join certain groups and receive their benefits.

Pray tell, despite your ancestors not killing them damn dirty Brits over taxation without representation and what not, are THOSE groups funded through gub'ment dollars?


Womens groups also discriminate against men, yes they do empower women, but they still discriminate against men.

Again, Boo mothereffin Hoo. The only way some Feminazi extremist can "disempower" you is if'n you let them. Go to The Men's Room sometime and take a look-see. That is, if your bull-sh1t contrarian impulses don't lead you to some sit-down-to-pee feminist apologist position taken purely out of Kaufmanian impulses.


Church groups, who also receive tax exemp status, also have the right to discriminate based on religious belief.

You seem to have your semantics all twisted up like your panties, evil Willie. Churches don't have the right to "discriminate."

I again quote from Bob Jones University v. United States:



an institution must fall within a category specified in that section and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest

I don't see where "discrimination" fits into the whole "public interest" thing.


Each person is equal. Each person has just as much right to say and believe whatever they want, so long as they do not take away anyone elses right. Each group is equal, in that they can run themselves and discriminate against whoever they want.

Again, according to Bob Jones University v. United States, they're free to do so as long as they don't claim tax-exempt status, unlike what the BSA is hoping to accomplish.

...And I'm done splitting hairs.

And keeping with the "un-Christian," "uncharitable" attitude first proposed by David, I say unto you the following:

I wish unimaginably painful and terminal rectal cancer upon you and all those you hold dear, and hope you and yours endure a lifetime of suffering and misery in the fashion you bring upon yourself through your continued spreading of so-called "Christian" ill-will and asinine dismissiveness and divisiveness. You have truly proven yourself a sh1t-stain upon the knickers of humanity, and those decent and honorable men among us will take comfort in the knowledge that you and yours are but an insignificant fart on human history and geological time, and if our far-flung future progeny even makes the slightest effort to remember the likes of you at all, it will be with overwhelming distain and a great sense of relief that people like you are less than decomposed rotting meat and are no longer a plague upon the human race.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Soulend
27th November 2003, 10:55
LOL..I just read that last paragraph (betweem guffaws) to my wife. She said 'Is that (Sharp) Phil?' :laugh:

:nw:

kirigirisu
27th November 2003, 11:02
I suppose inspiration from Elmore Sensei had a wee bit to do with both content and composition.

Gonna start a thread on wines now. Been looking over my collection and I'm curious to see what others have and how I might round my own stash out...

n2shotokai
28th November 2003, 16:34
William Bohan,

I trust you are enjoying yourself. While I certainly do not agree with all your viewpoints, it is amusing to read your posts where you have been very clear in your communication, only to have the angry pack of rabid dogs completely twist reality to fuel their hate.

When people lose their cool and start swearing, they have lost the argument and you have won. Congratulations!

FYI, some of the people you are communicating with are not what they seem. The vision of a pimply faced young boy passing himself off as a tough guy is the most amusing. You know who you are feel free to throw insults and childish profanity.

When the discussion gets this heated all logic goes out the window. Sure, the NAACP will let anyone in who will contribute money. I am not sure of other areas of the country, but here in SoCal, the NAACP is full of people who live in hatred of whites and are without a doubt the biggest racists I have run into in this region. They are just as disgusting as the KKK. And my tax money goes there! Just wunerfull!

More rabid dogs!

Soulend
28th November 2003, 16:55
'Rabid dogs' thing aside, Mr. Bohan's points have been adequately rebutted, and yet he does not address these issues, merely repeats the mantra, and brings up such irrelevent issues such as 'hate speech' laws, etc.

It is obvious to me, at least, that both statistically and logically the inclusion of atheists will not infringe on anyone's rights whatsoever. I'm not saying the Boy Scouts cannot pray or give thanks to whatever god they choose...even in sanctioned BSA events. Those who do not wish to pray can sit quietly and respect the beliefs of the others. I have done precisely this for years. Unlike Tony Kehoe, I have little desire to berate or belittle the beliefs of another, but this respect must also extend to those who do not choose to believe in anything.

Tomorrow, I am going to have my marriage blessed by a Catholic priest. I have already been legally married almost 14 years, so this seems a bit silly to me. But, it means something to my wife, so out of respect for her beliefs I go. She similarly respects my scepticism.

I probably got out of hand on this thread, and for that I apologize. Tack-changing and bringing up of non-issues tends to irritate me. And, I have no idea how to 'prove' that I am not a pimply-faced kid, but if you think of something I will be happy to provide it. Meanwhile, contact Big Tony, Sekko, Carl McClafferty or Guy Power. All have met me and can affirm that I am neither a young boy nor pimply. :)

Anyway, do what you want, BSA. No skin off my backside anyway.

n2shotokai
28th November 2003, 22:46
ROTFLMAO

Mr. Craik,

you are the last person I would visualize as a "pimply young keyboard wannabe warrior". This person knows the lie he is living. He protests way too much about the young uns!

Sincerely!

Gene Williams
29th November 2003, 00:51
ROTFLMAO:D None of the Gunnery Sgts I met in the Marine Corps
were pimply faced or kids...In my day, no one would dare look them in the eye for too long, much less call them a pimply faced kid. I would have liked to have seen that, though:D

Soulend
29th November 2003, 01:02
Hehe..yeah, I've been called a few things, but that would be a new one. Have a good one guys, and Semper Fi, Gene.

kirigirisu
29th November 2003, 01:24
Originally posted by n2shotokai
When people lose their cool and start swearing, they have lost the argument and you have won. Congratulations!

FYI, some of the people you are communicating with are not what they seem. The vision of a pimply faced young boy passing himself off as a tough guy is the most amusing. You know who you are feel free to throw insults and childish profanity.


Not what you would call a convincing argument coming from someone who's accused me of being a "Boldfaced Liar" without having any proof to back up this accusation or his wildly inaccurate claims that I am:

1. Still a college student. I happen to be a member of the Class of '94 (university, and even if it were high-school, I'd still be older than what you've been trying fruitlessly to convince others of), don't quite make me an old fart like you but I ain't no spring chicken no more.

2. Only 22. If I were a chick, maybe I'd be flattered, but I'm not and you've still failed miserably to back up your claims. Twit.

3. Po'. Granted, I may not be as affluent as Gene, but I can afford the some of the finer things in life as a result of forgoing marriage and procreation and other such fundamentalist silliness.

Plus I don't really get too pimply these days. Really didn't get all that pimply as a teen either. Must be a white-boy thing.

And I thought I was still on your ignore list, human skid-mark 1.0. Funny how hypocrites like you are so quick to go back on your word...

Yawn.

By the bye, here's hoping for some non-operable tumor on your prostate and naughty bits as well. May your descendants curse your name and disown you and dance on your grave for centuries to come.

Ta :wave:

Shitoryu Dude
29th November 2003, 02:21
Being able to afford all those toys, trips, high-end liquors, gourmet food, etc is certainly a nice way to live. Amazing the number of guys that, after all the women are out of earshot, pull me over and tell me how much they wished they had my life. I don't make all that much in the greater scheme of things, but it is not being directed toward raising a couple of kids and a wife who refuses to work. I spoil myself the way that they used to, and many of these guys are significantly younger than I am.

Interestingly enough, women don't start waxing nostalgic for the days of impromptu vacations, public sex, nice cars and decent furniture until the kids are obnoxious adolescents. Then they start to say things like "If I had it to do all over, I never would have had kids".

:beer:

Julian Gerhart
29th November 2003, 07:00
fyi at the moment I'm almost completely pimple free. jerks.

wab25
29th November 2003, 07:21
Sorry I missed a few posts, I was away visiting family for thanksgiving.

quote:
Er... WRONG.

Check this out:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Opinion: (Chief Justice Burger), brackets mine

The Internal Revenue correctly interpreted the law prohibiting tax exempt status to schools with racially discriminatory policies. The purpose behind relieving schools from paying taxes is that they serve a charitable function. However, racially [and by extrapolation based upon your own statements, gender-based, creed-based, and orientation based] discriminatory policies offset these benefits. Therefore, the IRS did not exceed its authority, because the government has an "overriding, fundamental interest in eradicating discrimination".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, this was not included in the origianl post. I stated before that I was argueing what was posted. However, that being said, the case still pertains to "private religious school." The stuff in brackets proving that it include "any institution" were added in by the reader. This quote clearly identifies the "schools" as the ones which lost there tax exempt status for said reasons. Fortunately, law is not interpreted in such a free flowing way that anyone can add there own wording into the middle, and thus change the meaning of the law.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)

Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization under 501(c)(3). Pp. 585-605.


(a) An examination of the IRC's framework and the background of congressional purposes reveals unmistakable evidence that underlying all relevant parts of the IRC is the intent that entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity - namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, pointing out that "private" schools are not public institutions. BSA does provide public service. Many of its projects involve helping communities. Because it serves a public purpose with its service projects, BSA is a charitable organization.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may be but, discrimination is only illegal in a some places.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, some people are more "equal" than others in "some" places.
-----------------------------------------------------------

No, all are equal, and all have an equal right to discriminate.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, black groups have the right to discriminate against other races. I missed out on many college scholarships offered by such groups because I was the wrong color.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, yes, another example of the Nigra keepin' the po' white man down.

Boo mothereffing Hoo.
-----------------------------------------------------

So, are you saying that when black groups discriminate it does not count? These groups do not give scholarships to certain people due to their race and color of skin. It may be politically correct for them to do so, but, by definition, it is still discrimination.


quote:
-----------------------
You seem to have your semantics all twisted up like your panties, evil Willie. Churches don't have the right to "discriminate."
-----------------------

Why do they excommunicate people? Aren't only people who believe in jesus allowed to be ministers in a christian church? Don't some churches still exclude people based on their being homosexual? They have this right.


quote:
-----------------------
It is obvious to me, at least, that both statistically and logically the inclusion of atheists will not infringe on anyone's rights whatsoever.
-----------------------
It is because of atheists that we cannot pray in school, that we rarely pray in congress, that we cannot say the pledge of allegence. They get offended, because they don't believe and shouldn't be forced to pray. I agree with their position in those cases. But, it shouldn't take a brain surgeon to see that as soon as atheists are officially allowed into BSA, that they are then going to be offended by the offering of prayers. At which point, BSA loses the ability to pray at its functions.

Iain
29th November 2003, 08:19
You're avoiding the question. Why are homosexuals dangerous?

Mekugi
29th November 2003, 08:49
Because they dress well and women want them more than they do hetro men, so eventually that will lead to the end of the human race. BTW..has anyone watched "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?" I hear they are really "crab people"....
(Twilight Zone music plays)


Originally posted by Iain
You're avoiding the question. Why are homosexuals dangerous?

kirigirisu
29th November 2003, 08:55
Originally posted by Iain
You're avoiding the question. Why are homosexuals dangerous?

Plus he's deliberately ignoring the bits in my post that punch big gaping holes into his rather weak mantras-- er, "arguments."

And deliberately refusing to learn how to use the quote function out of complete ignorance or attempted spite.

At this point it's quite clear that he's either soliciting for mental masturbatory purposes or, well, that's pretty much it.

Twat.

n2shotokai
29th November 2003, 15:05
Yo mamma wears combat boots!
Does not!
Does so!
Does not!
Does so!
Does not!
Does so!
Does not!
Does so!

Neener, neener, neener!

Well you're not paying attention to me so I'm gonna show my maturity by insulting you and using cutsie swearing. That'l show 'em how tough and mature I am behind this keyboard!

Neener, neener, neener! :rolleyes:

Shitoryu Dude
29th November 2003, 18:15
Because they dress well and women want them more than they do hetro men, so eventually that will lead to the end of the human race. BTW..has anyone watched "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?"

Heh, you don't know very many gay men if you really believe that. While there is a most definitely segment of women that are "fag hags", most women get bored of hanging around guys who spend more time fussing over themselves than they do.

Personally, I'm waiting to see the premiere of "Straight Plan For The Gay Man" in which a group of regular guys teach a few flamers how to not stand out so much and to be able to do such normal things as join a game of hoops.

:beer:

Shitoryu Dude
29th November 2003, 19:27
A clear understanding of our evangelical neighbors:

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 00:55
Originally posted by n2shotokai
Yo mamma wears combat boots!
Does not!
Does so!
Does not!
Does so!
Does not!
Does so!
Does not!
Does so!

Neener, neener, neener!

Well you're not paying attention to me so I'm gonna show my maturity by insulting you and using cutsie swearing. That'l show 'em how tough and mature I am behind this keyboard!

Neener, neener, neener! :rolleyes:

Gee, you really must have a lot of free time on your hands for someone who has supposely taken the high road by ignoring those who are allegedly beneath him.

Or perhaps your unmitigated pettiness has gotten the better of you, you dried out old woman?

Need another tampon for this particular time of the month?

n2shotokai
30th November 2003, 01:58
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
A clear understanding of our evangelical neighbors:
There are evangelicals on both sides of the gay argument, so you somewhat misslabled that nice cartoon. Perhaps "another Christian bash" would have been more appropriate. Or consrvative vs. liberal. Ah the heck with it, just bash all the Christians.

Wait a minute. We are supposed to be understanding and tolerant of gays, racists minorities and a host of others, but not those damned Christians!? Maybe you could clear that up for me cuz I am a bit confused?!

Shitoryu Dude
30th November 2003, 02:32
Its easy: evangelical christians are idiots and jackasses. Anyone who tells me that someone else is "going to hell" because it's in the bible is a brainwashed and braindead moron. Ditto for any theological reasoning of a similar nature.

Any organization that sends out people to knock on doors needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth. That includes mormons, 7th day adventists, scientology nuts, and jehovah's witnesses in particular, and any other group of annoying jerks in general. If I can tell telemarketers to pound it up their butt, what makes you think spouting religion on my front doorstep is any different? I have a 9mm that says you will leave my property in short order and not come back.

Clear enough for you?

Time to go out and "sin" some more ("sin", what a bizzare concept. Only a nutjob power freak would have come up with it.) and enjoy life.

:toast:

Victor
30th November 2003, 03:01
Evangical Christians are most definately not idiots and jackasses.

What this is is clearly a conflict of belief systems. They have a strong faith and are called upon to act on it. Personally I don't see things their way, but I can respect their belief at least that I would not resort to violence (implied or actual) when I am in conflict with theirs..unless their actions are violent.

On the other hand there is also an aspect of social engineering that may be behind their actions. There is no better way to cement one's belief that the rest of the world is 'evil' than by knocking on door after door and having them slammed in your face.

The Church of Latter Day Saints may know something by having young men go into the world for two years to profess their faith, and in turn face two years of rejection at those who don't see things the same way. Returning home it would surely give them incentive to become a true member and believer in what their families do and to remain in their communities.

Thats the problem with belief systems, and frankly what follows is the real issue.

I know mine are right, I know theirs are wrong and I'm pretty sure you have little idea what you're talking about, is the actual way all of us really deal with them.

Most Pleasantly,

Victor Smith
Bushi No Te Isshinryu

n2shotokai
30th November 2003, 03:27
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
I have a 9mm that says you will leave my property in short order and not come back.

Clear enough for you?

Time to go out and "sin" some more ("sin", what a bizzare concept. Only a nutjob power freak would have come up with it.) and enjoy life.

:toast:

Off your meds or on your way to a good drunk? That's the thing about anger. It blinds you when get enraged and lose control. Using your logic can I assume all atheists are nut cases who will have to wear their 9 MM rectaly if I knock on their door? I don't think so. Let me try again.

NOT ALL EVANGELICALS ARE ANTI GAY. IN FACT IT IS A DIVIDING ISSUE IN MANY CHURCHES TODAY. YOU ARE MISSINFORMED! CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS ON THE SCREEN, OR ARE YOU BLIND RUNNING DRUNK / POSTAL!

You were doing so much better Harv, maybe you shouldn't logon after 5 on a Saturday night. Enjoy your evening. We are all sinners, anyone (religious)who tells you they are not, is clueless.

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 04:35
Ah, back to your tired old petty sniping I see.

What a wonderful example for the more impressionable members of your flock.

Posterity will no doubt look upon you the same way they look upon Senator Joe McCarthy, Reverend Parris, and Oliver Cromwell-- that is, not very fondly.

Shitoryu Dude
30th November 2003, 06:25
Well, Victor, what else do you call a piece of dog turd that won't read the signs that says "No Solicitors" and proceeds to knock on your door anyway? Must be an jackass. Either that or he's an idiot.

Either way, I have put up with far too many evangelicals on a personal basis to have any respect for them. Idiots, the entire lot of them. You just made my point for me on why I should be allowed to shoot them once they set foot on my property with a bible in hand.

As for logging on at 5 on a Saturday night, well I just finished a nice dinner at Toyoda Sushi and stopped at home for a few minutes before heading out to see the premiere showing of The Last Samurai.

The thing about atheists is that they are sick and tired up putting up with jackoffs who want to convert them all the time. Having had to evict some of them by force from my residence I have very little tolerance for any of them who come a'knockin. Here's another news flash for you, I don't sin and am not a sinner. That concept is a christian foible and not one of mine. I don't even buy into the concept of "vice" as that is just another word meaning the same thing. Nothing like telling people that normal behavior is evil to get control of them and screw up their heads real nice.

:beer:

Julian Gerhart
30th November 2003, 06:30
Originally posted by n2shotokai
We are all sinners, anyone (religious)who tells you they are not, is clueless.
The thing that irks me most about christianity is the persistant belief that there is something is intrinsicly wrong with everyone.

Gene Williams
30th November 2003, 11:24
Take a read of history and human behavior and tell me there isn't, Christian or not.

n2shotokai
30th November 2003, 15:21
You guys are so funny when you get going. To reply with anger, insults and profanity when your life / world isn't the way you want sure makes me want to convert, not. Gettting pissy because someone won't use the quote function!?


The thing about atheists is that they are sick and tired up putting up with jackoffs who want to convert them all the time.
Harv, replace
atheist with believer
jackoffs with atheists
I have no intention of converting you Harv, your beliefs seem to suit you.


You just made my point for me on why I should be allowed to shoot them once they set foot on my property with a bible in hand. Having had to evict some of them by force from my residence I have very little tolerance for any of them who come a'knockin.
Meds Harv, quick, find your meds!


I'm pretty sure you have little idea what you're talking about But that doesn't stop Harv from forming opinions from false information and turning that into hate and rage :rolleyes:

It's just words guys. How about a little discipline / self-control from the martial artists!

Gene Williams
30th November 2003, 17:04
Harvey, me thinkest thou doth protest too much...anyone with as big an ax to grind as you have certainly has some major emotional baggage with God or momma or daddy or all three...sort of a psychoanalytic Trinity:D

Shitoryu Dude
30th November 2003, 17:58
Naw, only with evangelical do-gooders who, from the time I was 6, were determined to "save" me. Put up with them in school, where if I didn't convert they proceeded to bully me until the point I started leaving them bloody. As an adult I have had them barge into my apartment as if they were doing some sort of "intervention for god". Hence pulling a pistol on them and telling them to get out before they met god personally in the next 30 seconds.

The fat guy dressed as a banker was one of the worst, telling me that the constitution needed to be shredded in favor of the bible. The most surprising was the young couple that showed up on Saturday morning early enough that I hadn't even taken a shower yet. He was dressed like a would-be pimp and she had on a cocktail dress - I went nuclear on them and had them pass on a message to their pastor that the next door-knocker he sent at me would be a crime statistic. That had been at least the fourth of fifth time I had put up with that church's crap.

Overall, the most fun has been calling the cops on mormons who ignore no trespassing signs. One of the apartment complexes I have lived in over the years had a "No Solicitors" policy that prohibited EVERYBODY, even the residents from engaging in anything. It was quite clearly spelled out and there were large signs at the entranceway to the property. Damned if about once a month I didn't see a pair of pimply-faced dweebs walking door to door in the light of day. I walked up to them and told them in no uncertain terms to get lost as they were trespassing. Out came the speech about "serving a higher power" and I told them to save it for the cops. Then they said that they had been invited, so they weren't trespassing. When I asked who invited them they told me the apartment number.

I promptly went to the office and told the property manager, who rolled her eyes, said "I warned her about this", called the cops and then proceeded to evict the dimwit who kept inviting door-knockers onto the property. I was great fun to watch the police show up and arrest the two dweebs a few minutes later. I made it a point to get rid of every stinking door-knocker who showed up for the next couple years and also managed to get rid of at least one additional pair of tenants.

Also as despicable is the use of elderly women to distribute material and attempt conversions. I guess they figure nobody will assault "grandma" for being a pain in the butt, and they are mostly right. Asnwering the door naked and sporting wood is reportedly a good tactic for getting rid of them. I know of one guy who claims that asking them inside for a couple of drinks and "real good time, like you haven't had in years" sends them packing. I personally am polite to them the first time, but only the first time.

Having put up with this crap for 35 years or so, nobody is going to convince me that evangelicals and their constant attempts to convert the world are worth putting up with. Experience has also shown me that none of them have an original thought in their head, they are rude, condescending, and essentially corrupt. The planet would be a better place without them.

:beer:

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 18:28
Originally posted by n2shotokai
You guys are so funny when you get going. To reply with anger, insults and profanity when your life / world isn't the way you want sure makes me want to convert, not.


Ah, herein lies the fundamental issue.

None of us "heathens" is trying to get you to convert to anything. Belief whatever you want. If the only way you find meaning in life is by constantly courting the favor of the Big JuJu, then by all means, supplicate away.

But when you try to impose your beliefs on us through legislation, solicitation, bullying, or whatever means your particular group of rabbi Yeshua's alleged "representatives" deems necessary to swell your ranks, then it becomes a problem.

Besides, beliefs aside, you've shown yourself through deeds and words to be such an arse that I doubt any self-respecting group of non-believers would have you, anyway

:kiss:



Gettting pissy because someone won't use the quote function!?


Ah, reading my posts in-depth, aren't you? You just can't get enough, admit it. You love it. You luuuuuuuurv it...

:laugh:

And the quote function isn't that hard. Heck, even you and Brucie have managed to figure it out. Based upon those folks that don't use the function, the two possibilities are:

1. Ignorance. They're new here and don't know how... yet. Quickly remedied. Example: newbies.

2. Spite. They do know and deliberately do it to annoy other posters. Common Kaufmanian tactics. Example: His Ralphness, the man, the myth, the legend (in Dallas, Tejas, anyway), let's hear it for... Kamiyama!!!.



Meds Harv, quick, find your meds!

Ah, that tired old jape again. At least you're not nattering on ad nauseum about how he and Tony abuse alcohol and otherwise "sin" again.


But that doesn't stop Harv from forming opinions from false information and turning that into hate and rage :rolleyes:


Not unlike your own wildly inaccurate opinions on the nature of my identity, huh?

:rolleyes:

See? I can do that, too!



It's just words guys. How about a little discipline / self-control from the martial artists!

Again, you're one to talk, so-called "do as I say, not as I do Elder" person...

Gene Williams
30th November 2003, 18:41
!!!!, Harvey, you need to move to a new neighborhood:(

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 18:43
Naw, he needs to move to a new state.

Washington attracts the nutters like sh!t attracts flies.

So does Colorado, from what I hear.

Gene Williams
30th November 2003, 18:58
I have a friend in Colorado and he says that the state is getting "Californicated" because of all the flakes moving there from the Left coast:D

Gene Williams
30th November 2003, 19:01
BTW, William, How did you become a "candidate for the giant presidential tool award and a moronic shxt weasel?" What is the history of that?

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 19:01
Originally posted by Gene Williams
I have a friend in Colorado and he says that the state is getting "Californicated" because of all the flakes moving there from the Left coast:D

Not unlike they did to Washington a decade ago...

Do have to thank Washington and Colorado for easing our "flake" burden, though.

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 19:07
Originally posted by Gene Williams
BTW, William, How did you become a "candidate for the giant presidential tool award and a moronic shxt weasel?" What is the history of that?

I think Tony was responsible for the "candidate for giant presidential tool" thing.

And a person not quite unlike our resident fundie (but with a much better sense of humor and not quite such a prick) once refered to me as a "Moronic Sh*tweasel" during our verbal sparring and I thought it was so funny I put it in my sig.

Same goes for "Moderator's Pitbull," but this was a party-liner guy.

Julian Gerhart
30th November 2003, 19:08
Originally posted by kirigirisu
Naw, he needs to move to a new state.

Washington attracts the nutters like sh!t attracts flies.

So does Colorado, from what I hear. actualy washington is the most enlightened state in the country. of course by that I mean that it has the lowest church rate. It is a demonstrated fact that everything bizzare and/or evil eminates from Florida. Florida is also a lightning rod for retired pornstars, dead beat dads, child molestors, and people who have been kicked out of Nevada. Washington really isn't that bad. especialy not by comparison with a lot of other states

Shitoryu Dude
30th November 2003, 20:39
Oddly enough, it was Colorado that I ran into the most despicable members of the door-knocking union. 7th day wacks and jehovah's witnesses were the worst, mormons and scientologists were a distant annoyance. Only place I've ever been that had polite mormons.

:beer:

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 21:42
"Polite" in that "I'm going to convert you by killing you with kindness" way?

A little too bright and fluffy but with that implied "and while we're at it, please come over to my home so we may break bread and speak more of the Saints and the Glories?"

Or just plain "creepy" nice as opposed to the sincere stuff?

Shitoryu Dude
30th November 2003, 23:14
No, these ones were actually so quiet about being mormon that you never even knew about it. You could actually go over to their place, knock back a couple of beers, have dinner with coffee, and watch the game.

I'm still wondering about this "false information" that I have used to form incorrect opinions about evangelicals. Since it is all based on personal experience, reading their own texts, watching their own programming, and having to listen to their wandering conversion teams, in what way is any of it wrong? Oh, and let's not forget the news programs that expose the inner financial workings of various evangelical groups, nor the police reports of them going to jail for said financial impropriaties. To read the posts made previously you would get the impression that I had never actually encountered these door-knocking dweebs or had personal knowledge of what was contained in their sermons.

This afternoon's "sin" - a crisp, clear apple cider with a generous shot of single malt over ice. Yum! And with the holiday season upon us, eggnog is again available in gallon jugs at Costco. Time to break out the bourbon :)

:beer:

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 23:40
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
No, these ones were actually so quiet about being mormon that you never even knew about it. You could actually go over to their place, knock back a couple of beers, have dinner with coffee, and watch the game.


I know lapsed mormons like that.



I'm still wondering about this "false information" that I have used to form incorrect opinions about evangelicals. Since it is all based on personal experience, reading their own texts, watching their own programming, and having to listen to their wandering conversion teams, in what way is any of it wrong? Oh, and let's not forget the news programs that expose the inner financial workings of various evangelical groups, nor the police reports of them going to jail for said financial impropriaties. To read the posts made previously you would get the impression that I had never actually encountered these door-knocking dweebs or had personal knowledge of what was contained in their sermons.


It's "false" in the relativistic sense in that it doesn't agree with whatever notions and sensibilities our frothing fundamentalist court jester has about his own get and goes contrary to the notion that he and all those who are like him are above reproach, especially from insolent heathens who dare to deny rabbi Yeshua (or, rather, the institutions created in theory to spread his (alleged) teachings) submission and obedience through our blasphemous disbelief.

Because, as we all should know, rabbi Yeshua is on his side.

Not the hypothetical historical one, of course, but some variant fictional iteration as passed down by various institutions created in theory in the good rabbi's name through late-Roman, Medival, Renaissance, Reformation, Calvinist, Elizabethan, Jacobian, Puritan, Restoration, Classical, Victorian, Industrial, Antebellum, Post-bellum, Edwardian, Post-industrial, Pre-war, Post-war, Modern, and Post-Modern filters.



This afternoon's "sin" - a crisp, clear apple cider with a generous shot of single malt over ice. Yum! And with the holiday season upon us, eggnog is again available in gallon jugs at Costco. Time to break out the bourbon :)

:beer:

Never been a 'nog fan, but I'll have to try the cider formula.

Gene Williams
30th November 2003, 23:46
Damn, Harv, I don't think I'd want to mess up single malt by putting it in cider...why not a blend? Try this: get some of that store bought egg nog and add a bottle of Godiva chocolate liqueur or a bottle of Grand Marnier:D

kirigirisu
30th November 2003, 23:47
Originally posted by Gene Williams
Damn, Harv, I don't think I'd want to mess up single malt by putting it in cider...why not a blend?

I sure as hell ain't gonna be diluting my 30 year old single-cask port-wood aged Balvenie with no stinkin' cider, but how's about a younger Glenlivet, Glenmorangie, or 10-year old Bushmill's?


Try this: get some of that store bought egg nog and add a bottle of Godiva chocolate liqueur or a bottle of Grand Marnier:D

That might actually make 'nog palatable...

Shitoryu Dude
1st December 2003, 00:48
I look at using booze this way: You can taste the difference between the good stuff and the cheap crap no matter what you do with it, so why bother with the cheap crap at all? Therefore, all drinks have high-end booze in them and they are that much more enjoyable :)

If I want a shot of Scotch all by itself later on, then I don't have to fret about only having rotgut left in the cabinet. Yet again, one of the many benefits of two professional incomes and no kids.

:beer:

Mitch Saret
1st December 2003, 20:56
Hey Harvey,

I really wish you would stop holding back and let us know how you really feel!:toast:

And, seeing as how I love Grand Marnier, I will be putting some in my 'nog, as always.

Shitoryu Dude
1st December 2003, 21:31
I'll be sure to try that this evening. I'm sure I still have some of the stuff. I primarily use bourbon, vodka, or rum in eggnog, but what the hell, I have plenty to experiment with.

:beer:

Shitoryu Dude
14th April 2006, 14:43
Got a link to it?

Nemesis2e
14th April 2006, 15:21
Hi guys,
Im in the BSA, life scout wating for my eagle project to be aproved, OA brotherhood member, 45 merit badges (with almost 10 more, and many others wating to be had), all my eagle required, working on hornaday, been to philmount, and a BSA summer camp worker, and JLT, mom is BSA range certified in all shooting sports, ive been SPL once, and evn though i dont need it again i have ran again because i have plans for the younger scouts.
OK now that ive set down that i really like scouts.
Most of my freinds are pagan (theyre all older than me) one of them being that he was in scouts, but quit when he was a lad then became a scout or den master, then he quit when his son got eagle...but dont quote me on that, anyway, hes pagan. I belive (yes even as a catholic) that paganism is a religion, i think its foolish that the BSA cant accept that, but will accept "atheism" religion, buhdism, daoism (i think) etc. But thats me...hope i didnt go against the flow of what this threads about....

Shitoryu Dude
14th April 2006, 16:23
"pagan" covers a lot of ground, depending on who is using the term.

1) As used by many xtians and catholics in particular, it oftentimes means "satanic, devil-worshipping, child molester that plots evil at all times"

2) To those that describe themseves as followers of paganism it typically means someone that has wrapped up a bunch of new-age BS in the trappings of earth worship and idoltry.

3) Technically, it means any form of religion that existed in Europe prior to be converted to catholicism at the point of a sword.

4) Many people use it simply to mean "not a xtian, jew or muslim".

Nemesis2e
15th April 2006, 03:32
"pagan" covers a lot of ground, depending on who is using the term.

1) As used by many xtians and catholics in particular, it oftentimes means "satanic, devil-worshipping, child molester that plots evil at all times"

2) To those that describe themseves as followers of paganism it typically means someone that has wrapped up a bunch of new-age BS in the trappings of earth worship and idoltry.

3) Technically, it means any form of religion that existed in Europe prior to be converted to catholicism at the point of a sword.

4) Many people use it simply to mean "not a xtian, jew or muslim".
Im not the stereo typical catholic who thinks any non christians are pagans so 1 is rulled out, two, i dont think your description of# 2 is very acurate, no disrespect but, when paganism was almost competly wiped out, the new pagans (neo pagans) had to start from scratch assetially, but people find books. and to my knowlege of knowing people who are broad type pagan, druids, etc. there is no idolotry. But back on topic, i think they should be accepted and there should be a religious medal for it like the other religions, for it is a real religion, but then again, the BSA was slightly religious based, and so is my troop, christian grace, and sunday servive, even though, were not all christians, i wont vouch for other troops/crews/or packs though.

Shitoryu Dude
15th April 2006, 22:44
I've known more than a couple women who described themselves as "pagans". I'm sticking with my definitions.

Nemesis2e
15th April 2006, 23:04
To each his own.