PDA

View Full Version : Freedom from religious persecution just a pipe dream?



Patient Zero
10-31-2002, 11:47 AM
What ever happen to freedom of expression? Seperation of church and state. Was it all just an illusion? Sadly most of the time that seems to be the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/31/atheist.scout.ap/index.html

This kid proves that, contrary to popular belief, athiests do have a sense of morality. So what is the problem? Why reject someone who is helping others because he/she doesn't pray to your faith? Why do people feel the need to 'convert the savages'. I already know the answer to that, but I refuse to force my ideas on anyone.

"Just another idea for your mind to synthesize
homogenize and beat into submission"

sith_killer_99
10-31-2002, 12:15 PM
This is a privatly owned organization. The only violation to seperation of Church and State would be if the Government told the Scouts that they HAD to accept a certain member.

I don't agree with their stand, if someone wants to be an athesist or g@y or whatever, then I say so be it!

Unfortunatly there will always be tough decisions to make.

What about these issues:

Women in professional sports?
Prayer in school?
Why can't a woman be a priest?
Why can't a man be a Hooters girl?

The list goes on and on. In the end it all comes down to common sense.

I just watched a program on Fox News about Military Recruiters at Harvard and other Ivy League Colleges. The College required anyone wishing to recruit on campus to sign a form stating that they would not discriminate in any way. The military never signed the form. Therefore Harvard would not allow Military recruiters on campus. However a 1997 law passed by Congress cut Government funding to institutions that refused to allow Military Recruiters on campus. For Harvard, that amounted to a $300,000,000.00+ annual loss.

Harvard now has Military Recruiters on campus.

Currently the military is the only Gov. organization that LEGALLY discriminates against fat people and g@y people.

So what do you think?

The Overlord Returns
10-31-2002, 12:27 PM
simple answer on this one.....

Declare his belief in "Humanity" ........ fits in with atheism, and it gets these thought police off his back.

Still, sounds like the kind of kid who will stand by his convictions and be tossed out first. Cheers to him!

Lord Tenebrous
10-31-2002, 12:48 PM
My answer lies within a question I received prior to earning my Star badge. One of the women on the board asked me if you could tell that somebody was a Christian by what they did.

I answered no.

She seemed confused by this, asking that, couldn't you tell by my uniform, my actions, the way I lived?

And my answer was still no, in that your public image tells nothing of your spirituality, that spirituality isn't morality.


Essentially, spirituality is acknowledging why you exist, what you are accountable for, and a divorce from the view of a temporary existence. Religion is a different issue, and from my standpoint, none of them are completely correct (the aged result of religious warring). But spirituality does explain why a "good" man can be bad, and a "bad" man can be good. :)

Patient Zero
10-31-2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Lord Tenebrous
And my answer was still no, in that your public image tells nothing of your spirituality, that spirituality isn't morality.


Just wanted to repeat this.:D

sith_killer_99
11-01-2002, 11:50 AM
Uh, what's a star badge?

Lord Tenebrous
11-01-2002, 12:35 PM
Tenderfoot
Second Class
First Class
Star <=== analogy here
Life
Eagle <=== finished here

Jargo
11-01-2002, 04:43 PM
Screw the neo nazi scouters. Heinous organisations. breeding grounds of intolerance ond bigotry. :mad:

The Overlord Returns
11-01-2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by EMPEROR JARGO
Screw the neo nazi scouters. Heinous organisations. breeding grounds of intolerance ond bigotry. :mad:

and, much like the catholic church....pedophilia.

James Boba Fettfield
11-01-2002, 04:59 PM
It is a private organization. Let them set whatever membership rules they want. Don't like it? Start your own organization.

The Overlord Returns
11-01-2002, 05:01 PM
someone once said the same thing about the KKK.....

James Boba Fettfield
11-01-2002, 05:05 PM
The Boy Scouts aren't lynching people, though.

The Overlord Returns
11-01-2002, 05:06 PM
Not yet.........

Patient Zero
11-01-2002, 05:10 PM
And here I thought that the boy scouts were a wholesome organization, but to my surprise they are just another anti-freedom of though group conditioning the youth. Why do I bother to hope otherwise these days!?! :cry:

James Boba Fettfield
11-01-2002, 05:16 PM
On membership applications, Boy Scouts and adult leaders must say they recognize some higher power, not necessarily religious. "Mother Nature would be acceptable," Farmer said.

He knew this from the beginning when he joined the organization. Why be part of an organization if you don't believe in all of it's membership rules?

Deoxyribonucleic
11-01-2002, 06:20 PM
I "recognize" James Earl Jones, as the voice of God...Because if we were to hear God I know that's what S/he would sound like!

Does that count I wonder? :crazed: :)

Also, this is a very very eensy weensy teensy town, run by slum lords and conservatives (I know, I lived very near Port Orchard, on Bainbridge Island, which oddly enough was extremely LIBERAL and that's why I lived there) so that's partly why this is going on.

JediTricks
11-01-2002, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by EMPEROR JARGO
Screw the neo nazi scouters. Heinous organisations. breeding grounds of intolerance ond bigotry. Actually, I had a great time in scouts, several years' worth of fun and training. I learned a lot about survival and responsibility not through preaching, but instead through actions where it counts. I fully and wholeheartedly disagree with the recent "straight christian" push of today's boy scout organization, but I still believe that on the individual level there is something good about the scouts and cannot picture it being a "breeding ground of intolerance and bigotry" on that individual level.


Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
On membership applications, Boy Scouts and adult leaders must say they recognize some higher power, not necessarily religious. "Mother Nature would be acceptable," Farmer said.

He knew this from the beginning when he joined the organization. Why be part of an organization if you don't believe in all of it's membership rules? I don't remember ever seeing this, but I started in the cub scouts and some of those concepts seem out of grasp at that age. In fact, I didn't even know the scouts were a christian organization until after I left; we mostly learned about nature, buck knives, and the American flag.


It does feel to me like religious persecution is on the rise in our society again, and I hate seeing it. I think the Boy Scouts of America should change their policies to include anybody who wants to be a part and instill wholesome values without a religious angle, but they are a private organization and they can do what they want - seems like a shame though, I always saw the scouts as teaching noble human values and I don't see how one's lack of belief in a higher power has anything to do with that.

Jargo
11-01-2002, 08:44 PM
The british cub scouts pledge to serve God and the Queen. My local troupe were based in a church. As a kid I didn't recognise the fact that it was a two faced demon until I turned twelve and advanced in to the senior scouts. It's a cult. innocent on the surface but underneath there's all the subtext of intolerance and hate for anything that isn't squeaky clean and wholesome Stepford wives fashion. When Baden Powell set up the British scout movement he hoped to turn wayward young boys into psuedo soldiers. His antiquated values system entrenched the scouts with a sort of goose stepping benevolence. People felt they had to obey the scouts when the scouts turned up to perform chores for charity donations. It was brainwashing with a sacharin smile. My troupe of scouts was run by a sadist couple and we were threatened with violence for not complying with scout traditions. Boys who weren't from the squeaky clean mold were ridiculed en masse by the leaders and other scouts were given instruction that during activities the ones who didn't fit in were to be knocked around or made to feel unwelcome and excluded from games where team picking was involved. The bullying was similar to that in the British army. I decided that i couldn't consciously be party to any of that and I left very disillusioned with anything to do with the scouts. The worst part for me as a non religious person was being forced to pledge allegience to God. To go on church marches around the streets every sunday banging the drums and carrying the flags like a mini nazi march. Even the uniform is psuedo nazi. earning badges for achievements imbued a feeling of inadequacy in those less able boys. The ones with all the stupid badges up their sleeves were lauded and treated like idols. I mean being treated like a second class citizen because ytou don't have a woodsman badge is just lunacy. Not having a badge that says you can make a call to the emergency services is ridiculously a cardinal sin. I remember seeing boys have something akin to nervous breakdowns because of the treatment they got.
I've spoken to many people who've been scouts as boys and had the same response that it was a terrible organisation and ruled by fear and threat of terrible things happening to you if you didn't comply with the rules.
I refuse to believe that anything has changed. They can dress up the organisation in any color they choose and any flavor that fits the modern taste but at the end of the day it's a starting point towards intolerance of anything and anyone non religious and non ultra-patriotic. If that isn't a form of bigotry then I don't know what is.
The alternative is just as hideous. The woodcraft folk are just as cultish in their policies. I'm sceptical of any organisation that seeks to mold the minds of children. Taking kids camping or fishing is one thing but setting up a pro-military regime to order them and instill some kind of boot camp ethos into them is just plain wrong. same as any group that offers claptrap sloppy liberal attitudes that teach kids how to behave like spoilt brats.

derek
11-01-2002, 09:55 PM
what i find very ironic is that the US supreme court has (correctly) ruled that as a private organization, the boy scouts can set their own membership rules, yet PRIVATE business can't have their own "rules" of organization without being sued for discrimination.

Old Fossil
11-02-2002, 12:40 AM
I never joined Boy Scouts. Seemed like an awfully boring lot. Besides, I had my Star Wars figures, my bike, my dog, and a copy of Playboy my best friend had swiped from his dad's collection. Truly, what else does an eight-year-old need?

plasticfetish
11-02-2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by EMPEROR JARGO
Boys who weren't from the squeaky clean mold were ridiculed en masse by the leaders and other scouts were given instruction that during activities the ones who didn't fit in were to be knocked around ...
Does sound quite a bit like the documentary I just saw on the Hitler Youth. It's funny how people never seem to learn from history.

I was excluded from the scouts by my father. He grew up in the Midwest and was a scout in the '50s. Any time I'd ask about scouting he'd roll his eyes and say that no son of his was going to have to put up with "that brainwashing." I suppose it all depends on the where, when and who of it all ... it's too bad, because he'd ended up teaching me most of the "good" stuff that they'd taught him and the whole thing always sounded like fun.

If this kid sticks to his principles and lets them toss him out for his beliefs, then he's accomplished more than they'd ever be able to teach him if he stayed in. "Specifically, the BSA endeavors to develop American citizens who are physically, mentally, and emotionally fit; have a high degree of self-reliance as evidenced in such qualities as initiative, courage, and resourcefulness; have personal values based on religious concepts; have the desire and skills to help others; understand the principles of the American social, economic, and governmental systems; are knowledgeable about and take pride in their American heritage and understand our nation's role in the world; have a keen respect for the basic rights of all people; and are prepared to participate in and give leadership to American society." I think he's found his way to most of those goals.

sith_killer_99
11-02-2002, 01:43 AM
derek, the Scouts is a club or organization, which is OPTIONAL.

Private businesses control JOBS and therefore a persons possible livelihood. Therefore, discrimination in the business world is an infringement upon a persons constitutional rights.

Vortex
11-02-2002, 03:39 AM
I was a scout, made eagle rank, did the order of the arrow, went to the national jamboree, and to be honest after you leave the orginization, once you're 18, it means nothing, zero, diddly squat out side of scouting. Doesn't help get you a job, doesn't lower your taxes, doesn't get you into exclusive clubs. Its just a piece of metal, a few patches, but it did teach me a lot and gave me some basic skills to deal with a wide variety of things. I have no regret nor did I ever experience any of that "brainwashing" some of you talk about, but I did see some of it. It all depends on the troop, where its base out of and the leaders. Like everything there's bad and good.

I don't feel sorry for the kid. He knew prior to getting involved what requirements he had to have. He willing joined under those stated rules, memorized the pledge and oath which make reference to "God" and now he's crying foul, after willing accepting those requirements. If he didn't have the free thought or mental application to understand this prior to joining its no one fault but his own...he failed himself. He should have had the brains to find an organization that fit his value system than go into an established organization then demand they change the rules for just 1 person. When did this country, or any large organization, put the masses to one side and cater to the sole individual?

I know better than to join an all women's gym since I'm male. I know I can never be a Priest since I'm not catholic. I would never petition an executive golf club since I don't have the 100,000+ dollars required for membership. I would never join the KKK, Black Panthers, Tree Hugger groups, or any extreme religious group or political party which have certain ideals, or requirements that I cannot achieve or that I don't believe in. I don't meet their basic requirements nor would I lie to get in then later challenge them.

Humanity is stupid that way. Everyone wants to be their own individual, but yet have some hardwired mental/emotional programming that require them to find like minded folks and band together and further fit in. Its like a tattoo. Its an individual expression and was a symbol of rebelion vs. the norm of society, but now look at it, its the norm of society to have an individual expression. The suburbanities - drive SUV's, or mini-vans, keep green lawns, and buy recreational vehicles, yet they spend all their free time and weekends in the office. Keeping up with the Jones's.

I would say another problem lies in the university systems, not this trival matter with the scouts. Some of the tenured profs who demand and expect that on tests and final papers that you quote them word for glorious word and believe whole heartedly that they are correct and any other way of viewing or thinking is wrong. Funny ideal and dogma coming from a place of higher learning.

But that's what makes the country what it is. Freedom to choose, and with this comes the opposite, freedom to reject even if it is people, ideas, sexual preference or sexual gender. How do we know freedom, liberties, justice, or acceptance if we don't have its polar opposite?

If you can't think before you act or join a group, its the individuals fault for making a bad choice. It would be like an anti-star wars individual joining the forum and stiring up trouble. Would you change this forum to meet their needs and desires? I should hope not.

bigbarada
11-03-2002, 12:55 PM
The boy scouts are a private organization, thus they can set whatever rules for admission they want. Just like the Free-Masons or Rose-Crucians. Comparing them to the KKK or neo-nazis, in spirit or intent, is just blind stupidity.

But ignorance, baseless accusations and closed-mindedness seems to be the meat and potatoes of internet discussions don't they?

derek
11-03-2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by sith_killer_99
derek, the Scouts is a club or organization, which is OPTIONAL.

Private businesses control JOBS and therefore a persons possible livelihood. Therefore, discrimination in the business world is an infringement upon a persons constitutional rights.

i must of missed the part about the "right to a job" in the constitution.;) it's probably in the paragraph about the" right to free health care, and the guarantee of a supermodel wife". :crazed:

so actually what you are saying is that a privately owned business can't decide to hire whom ever they want, but a privately owned club can? do you not see the contradiction in this line of thinking? anyone who advocates freedom and individual/property rights would not stand for this.

this arguement is similar to republicans complaining about high taxes but advocating mandatory military service.

if an employer is dumb enough to discriminate against a qualified employee, for what ever reason, it is the employeers loss. the qualified employee will find work else-where, and the bigot will eventually suffer as a result of his irrational employment practices of discriminating against qualified people who could help grow his business.

but with that said, there should be no law against being a bigot, or just being stupid in general. rational people will gravitate towards each other, and things will even out.

2-1B
11-03-2002, 01:12 PM
pursuit of happiness = making money/livelihood

sith_killer_99
11-03-2002, 01:17 PM
or

LIFE= livelihood.:rolleyes:

Especially if your one of those people who has to, oh, I don't know, buy food and eat.;)

derek
11-03-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
pursuit of happiness = making money/livelihood

this statement is open to all kinds of interpretation. i could easily say cindy crawford in witholding my right to pursue happiness because she will not sleep with me. the pursuit of happiness simply means the "freedom to pursue happiness". there is no guarantee you will actually find happiness, get the exact job you want, or force others to buy your medicine for you.(not you caesar, i'm talking to generic joe):)

i could also say a government who forces a devout christian to hire homosexuals would infringe on his pursuit of happiness.;)

2-1B
11-03-2002, 01:27 PM
No, I believe the "founding fathers" were referring to finance with that right.

plasticfetish
11-03-2002, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
Comparing them to the KKK or neo-nazis, in spirit or intent, is just blind stupidity.

But ignorance, baseless accusations and closed-mindedness seems to be the meat and potatoes of internet discussions don't they?

I would think that this statement works both ways. Dismissing an opinion that you happen to disagree with as being simply stupid and then writing it off as being the result of ignorance ... just because you happen to see things differently ... is fairly closed-minded.

Should we ad cynicism to the list?

JediTricks
11-03-2002, 07:43 PM
Yikes Jargo, sounds like the BSUK is way more harsh than the BSA, though upon reflection I did notice around the time I quit the scouts that it was a bit odd that our meetings were in a church. But we had a great scoutmaster so it never felt like anything you're describing, we learned a lot about teamwork and that failing is ok as long as you learn from your mistakes and continue trying. We were never made to feel inferior if we had less badges; I can remember the only time where one of the group was not treated with respect by the others, it was on the hike up Mt Baden Powell here in So Cal, this kid was super whiny and didn't want to go but didn't want to stay at base camp and slowed the already-slower half of the troop down badly so we let him know what the situation was and told him to use the cutback to get back to camp while there was still time.

When I first joined cub scouts, my dad was super mad about it, always ranting paramilitary-this and fascist-that, but within 6 months when he got to really be an involved parent in it, he had a really good time. He went on almost every boy scout trip (we had a lot of parental inclusion) and even hassled me about leaving when I decided I was done.

bigbarada
11-04-2002, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by plasticfetish


I would think that this statement works both ways. Dismissing an opinion that you happen to disagree with as being simply stupid and then writing it off as being the result of ignorance ... just because you happen to see things differently ... is fairly closed-minded.

Should we ad cynicism to the list?

Nope, you got it wrong. Drawing parallels that don't do anything but feed an inflammatory point of view is stupidity. It's also manipulative and ignorant. If I don't believe that an opinion has been thought through, it is my right to dismiss that opinion. Just because someone has the right to express an opinion doesn't mean that I am forced to accept it as valid.

Comparing the Boy Scouts to the KKK is ignorant at best. Using that criteria, we here at SSG could be considered as dangerous as the KKK. There is a code of conduct here that forumites are expected to adhere to. If they break that code, they are banned from the site. There is no rule stating that you have to be a Star Wars fan to post here, but there is a rule stating that you will not post pornographic pictures here. Thus someone who breaks that rule and posts pornographic pictures will be kicked out of this group and cannot complain about his/her freedom of expression being infringed upon because they should have read the rules before joining.

Now take The Overlord Returns' "argument" and replace any mention or implication of Boy Scouts with SSG Forumites:

James Boba Fettfield: "It is a private organization. Let them set whatever membership rules they want. Don't like it? Start your own organization."

The Overlord Returns: "someone once said the same thing about the KKK....."

James Boba Fettfield: "(SSG Forumites) aren't lynching people, though."

The Overlord Returns: "Not yet......... "

Now do you see the idiocy in that statement?

This kid knew the rules before he joined, or he should have. If he breaks those rules then it is fully within the rights of the Boy Scouts to boot his 19-year-old butt out. They are not denying him food or shelter or anything necessary to life. So what is the big deal?

plasticfetish
11-04-2002, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by bigbarada
Nope, you got it wrong.
I would now agree.

I suppose I expected less of a simple "dismissal" and more of a well stated argument ... which we've got now. ;)

bigbarada
11-04-2002, 03:29 AM
Oh, so you're saying I wasn't living up to my normal, long-winded standards?;)

The Overlord Returns
11-04-2002, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by bigbarada



Now take The Overlord Returns' "argument" and replace any mention or implication of Boy Scouts with SSG Forumites:

James Boba Fettfield: "It is a private organization. Let them set whatever membership rules they want. Don't like it? Start your own organization."

The Overlord Returns: "someone once said the same thing about the KKK....."

James Boba Fettfield: "(SSG Forumites) aren't lynching people, though."

The Overlord Returns: "Not yet......... "

Now do you see the idiocy in that statement?



Well, since someone I do not know has taken to calling me an idiot.......I suppose I will have to defend myself.

First and foremost, anyone with half a brain would realize that my "argument" was intentionally extreme, and intended to be inflammatory. Having little to no knowledge of the boyscouts, I was making an outlandish statement comparing them to the KKK. It was never meant to be a serious argument. I figured most people here would understand that.....I suppose I overestimated one or two.

However, they are biggots, much like the KKK are biggots. THere refusal of membership to homosexuals ( I'll assume based on nothing other than the fact that they are homosexuals) is proof enough of this.

James Boba Fettfield
11-04-2002, 10:17 AM
What I don't understand is why did the guy ever join knowing about the whole issue with believing in a higher being. It would be like me subscribing to Huslter Magazine and complaining about the pornographic content. The kid was never ignorant of that fact, and if he was it was his own fault for being so. The logic being used that the Boy Scouts should have to admit anyone is a bit abusrd. It is their organization. When I was in the National Honor Society in high school we had certain guidelines to follow. Was it wrong for us not to admit the kids who had bad grades and bad characters? Not to me it wasn't because it was our group. Just leave the Scouts alone and let them set up whatever rules they want. If you consider it wrong, so be it. If you want to do something about it, start an organization of your own that allow whatever rules and guidelines you feel would be perfect to show everyone else what a perfect group is. That's what makes the Scouts unique, their said guidelines (whether good or bad in your eyes). I can get kicked out of college for having my point hour ratio drop below a certain level, is it right for me to attack Ohio State for kicking me out because I am a poor student? Nope, because I knew the rules to begin with and agreed to follow them. This boy knew the rules to begin with and he agreed to follow them. He showed this everytime he participated in a Boy Scouts activity. Why wait so long until you decide you have a problem with it? Like bigb mentioned about our membership rules we have here. Would it be justifiable for me to start a thread filled with questionable pictures, get kicked out for violation of our membership rules, and then try to attack Steve for being a bigot to my cause? No, because I was aware of the rules we have here. Whether or not I took the time to read the guidelines is my own fault. Until the Scouts start trying to enfore their regulations on non-members, I do not see anything wrong with them.

The Overlord Returns
11-04-2002, 10:21 AM
Actually, I watched an interview on CNN on the weekend. The kids been a scout since he was ..wekll...a young kid. It had not come up then, and once it did, he was already an exemplary scout, from what I caught in the interview....

and, just out of curiosity.......how do the boyscouts look if you take away "No gays" from their rules, and replace it with "no blacks"?

James Boba Fettfield
11-04-2002, 10:25 AM
It's his fault for not vacating when he found out the group violated what he believed. If I was in a group that I found out violated what I believed, I would certainly leave it and not try to change it to suit me because it is not my group. I won't force my beliefs on them, and I do not expect them to do the same to me. If the Scouts did do that, it would look bad on them, but it is their group and they can set what rules they want. Remember, this is not an argument about how good their rules make the Boy Scouts look to outsiders, its about their freedom to do so.

The Overlord Returns
11-04-2002, 10:39 AM
I think the question here is what level of prejudice is acceptable, and which is not?

I personally feel persecution/ prejudice against any group in a population is intolerable. Remember the golf course controversy a few months ago with Tiger woods saying it was the courses choice not to admit women, yet fighting a few years ago to be the first black player on another private course. Why do we champion so challenges against prejudice, yet ignore others?

James Boba Fettfield
11-04-2002, 11:06 AM
Not sure what tangent you're going off on, but I am talking about private groups being allowed to choose their membership qualifications. Prejudice will always exist, whether large or small. It's when the prejudice turns into a means of harm for someone that I feel it is a problem. If I want to start a club here at Ohio State called "The Fat White Guys Who Read Comic Books Club" that is my right. The rules would be you have to be at least 50 pounds over weight, white, and read 20 comics a week. To some people they would have problems with those qualifications, whether it be for the race aspect or the weight part or whatever. We're just a group of guys who read comics and discuss them. We're not out there hurting other races and people, we're just having fun within our own group. What's the problem with this? We're not out there preaching our ways to other people. We don't go door to door and attack those who do not meet our expectations. Would it be right for our group to be labeled evil and promoters of hate? Would it be justifiable to force us to change our group to accept anyone and everyone? That's why its a club and thats what would make it unique. Our common purpose is being fat, white, and comic book readers. That is the definition of a club. They're also voluntary, meaning our "prejudice" ways are not forced onto others who want nothing to do with it. Frankly, I do not see the problem with this. This is all hypothetical, so please don't respond with me being a racist or anything.

The Overlord Returns
11-04-2002, 11:24 AM
But, you're hypothetical club would be excluding membership based solely on the color of ones skin. That is the core of biggotry right there. This very notion that prejudice will always be a factor is because little notions like this grow larger.

The golf club in question refuses to allow women to play on the course, simply because they are women. Is this acceptable to me? No, absolutely not. It's backward and ridiculous, IMO. One has to question why decisions and rules like these are set in place, and why they are allowed to flourish in some cases, yet are vehemently challenged in others.

Lets say a 50 pound overweight black man, who reads 20 plus comics a week shows up at your club door. He is exactly what you're looking for in a person, save for the fact that he is black. You deny him membership based on that, and you have committed a racist act. There is harm in that, plain and simple.

And yes, I realize it is all hypothetical, and I am not calling you a racist. Still, can I call you fat? ;)

James Boba Fettfield
11-04-2002, 11:42 AM
But I would hope that the hypothetical black comic book reader would do something about other than cry foul against us. I hope he would see the error in our ways and establish a club of his own that admits any person. Instead of forcing your wants on the group who has denied you, start a club to open their eyes to what they are missing by showing them that denying other races can be bad to the club. I just don't want to see private groups forced to accept people they may not regularly want, whatever their reasons for denying the said people. Though I would find fault with the black man for trying to apply for membership when we clearly label ourselves white readers. It's kind of like me trying to apply for membership in the Black Engineer Society of the Women in Engineering program. I fit neither of these actual organizations expectations, so is it terrible for them to not admit me? They're not hurting anyone, so I do not find fault in their denying me, nor am I hurt for their denying me. So it is all cool with me.

Vortex
11-04-2002, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


However, they are biggots, much like the KKK are biggots. THere refusal of membership to homosexuals ( I'll assume based on nothing other than the fact that they are homosexuals) is proof enough of this.

Spoken like a true biggot you seem to detest to much.

You never went through the scouts, have no 1st hand knowledge of what the organization is like, and you're quick to pass judgment base your ideas and assumptions from what was force fed you through the already biased media.

Your generalized quick fire assumption has really ticked me off and from reading your later statments about "I personally feel persecution/ prejudice against any group in a population is intolerable... Why do we champion so challenges against prejudice, yet ignore others?"

You have just proved that you are two faced, and have no idea of what you are talking about. By your homosexual blanket statement about scouts you have just classified myself and other scouts like my father, grandfather, friends, ex-presidents, large populations of men in general as homosexuals, and you passed this quick judgment and unfounded or unresearched claims blindly, and have just proven yourself to be no better than those you seem to detest so much. You have persecuted and labeld a large population with your statment.

If you try to tell me you have no biggotry or bias in you and want everyone to be treated fairly and have equal opp. you don't have a leg to stand on since you've made your wild, contradictory, accusations and buddy, we all are bias and biggoted toward some one or some thing in this world. You have proven you're scorn toward the scouts, so you have cast your lot and joined the ranks that are biggoted toward the scouts. You better watch and think twice about who you point your finger at an accuse. You're no better than the rest.

I admit I have prejudices against your kind that are quick to accuse, certain churches, and certain organizations that condem and accuse yet preach tollerance and acceptance. But to call me a homosexual since I was a scout or any knowledge of me, I will not stand for or tollerate. Hence I will now be bias toward you.

The scouts are their own organization free to make rules and regulations as they see fit and inforce their rules as they see fit. That's what makes this country a free country. The freedom to do as you wish, say what you like, and exclude who you so choose for your own reasons.

James Boba Fettfield
11-04-2002, 12:01 PM
I think he meant the Boy Scouts would deny a person membership based on nothing other than the person trying to attain memberships is homosexual. I don't believe he means "they" is a reference to the Boy Scouts, but rather to the denied person he is hypothetically speaking of.

Vortex
11-04-2002, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
I think he meant the Boy Scouts would deny a person membership based on nothing other than the person trying to attain memberships is homosexual. I don't believe he means "they" is a reference to the Boy Scouts, but rather to the denied person he is hypothetically speaking of.

Well it could be, but the way he/she/it phrased his homosexual statement, it comes out clear to me that's he's labeling and accusing a group since they don't allow or accept homosexuals.
But in either case the denier a homosexual or not is associated with the scouts and lumps them all in one group.

His quote of "I'll assume based on nothing other than the fact that they are homosexuals". He has listed us as homosexuals since he is still refering to the scouts. Plain and simple. He's made his feelings known and I take personal offense since he's classified me by association.

I wonder what his response would be to the all Black Colleges in the US.

The Overlord Returns
11-04-2002, 12:29 PM
erm,.....

ok.......

I was not labelling the boy scouts "homosexual" that would be, in a word, stupid.

I stated that they do not admit homosexuals based on the fact that they ( they as in, the homosexual person who might be looking for membership) were homosexual. Not that the boy scouts, being homosexual, would not admit homosexuals. Again, a stupid notion. I'm sorry you were confused.

What I did was label that policy as biggoted. Because it is.

Vortex
11-04-2002, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
erm,.....

ok.......

I was not labelling the boy scouts "homosexual" that would be, in a word, stupid.

I stated that they do not admit homosexuals based on the fact that they ( they as in, the homosexual person who might be looking for membership) were homosexual. Not that the boy scouts, being homosexual, would not admit homosexuals. Again, a stupid notion. I'm sorry you were confused.

What I did was label that policy as biggoted. Because it is.

I'll buy that, but you should be more careful how you phrase things. If you go back and re-read your statement you elude that the scouts are homosexual.

You make no refernce or clarification as to the "they" you were refereing to. The they in that statment refers back to the scouts, who you link to the KKK. The scouts are still the main subject and you didn't clarify anything new in your new line of thought.

"However, they are biggots, much like the KKK are biggots. THere refusal of membership to homosexuals ( I'll assume based on nothing other than the fact that they are homosexuals) is proof enough of this."

You make no refernce in your other 2 paragraphs other than the scout subject, therefor I am lead to belive that your "they" are still the scouts.

I will take back what I said earlier if this is the case, but please, next time make sure your thoughts match what your thinking. That statment looked and came across very badly.

The Overlord Returns
11-04-2002, 12:55 PM
It comes off clear as day to me. The they is in an aside style, while I am discussing the boyscouts refusal of admission to homosexuals ( based solely on the fact that they are homosexual).

How you got that I was calling the boyscouts homosexual is beyond me.......

but...hey.....problem solved.

QLD
11-04-2002, 01:31 PM
I was in boy scouts for a few months, and I thought it was pretty homosexual.

Vortex
11-04-2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
It comes off clear as day to me. The they is in an aside style, while I am discussing the boyscouts refusal of admission to homosexuals ( based solely on the fact that they are homosexual).

How you got that I was calling the boyscouts homosexual is beyond me.......

but...hey.....problem solved.

Yes, because you wrote it you undestand your cryptic writing.

How I came to line of thought was like this...
Again your quote...

"Well, since someone I do not know has taken to calling me an idiot.......I suppose I will have to defend myself. (you vs. Big B, your response to his reply)

First and foremost, anyone with half a brain would realize that my "argument" was intentionally extreme, and intended to be inflammatory. (you vs. others) Having little to no knowledge of the boyscouts (subject of thread), I was making an outlandish statement comparing them (scouts) to the KKK. It was never meant to be a serious argument. I figured most people here would understand that.....I suppose I overestimated one or two. (Your reference back to Big B and others)

However, they are biggots, much like the KKK are biggots. (Ok, new paragraph, but yet no identification to a new subject...so who are you referring to the scouts? You don't make "they" clear so it refers back to the scouts) THere (Who again the scouts?) refusal of membership to homosexuals ( I'll assume based on nothing other than the fact that they (scouts agian) are homosexuals) is proof enough of this."

Clear as mud to me - since the topic of the last paragraph wasn't announced or defined, so I took it as you were still going on about scouting.

It might make sense in your head, but what you thought was clearly not implied by they. I know understand your "they" to be the powers that be or heads of the BSA, but yet you didn't make that clear in your writing.

The Overlord Returns
11-04-2002, 01:50 PM
Well....JBFF knew what I meant....you didn't....like I said.......no big worry.....:)

JON9000
11-04-2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by derek
what i find very ironic is that the US supreme court has (correctly) ruled that as a private organization, the boy scouts can set their own membership rules, yet PRIVATE business can't have their own "rules" of organization without being sued for discrimination.

Indeed, perhaps private businesses should be allowed to decide who they want to serve, or perhaps organize their business to force certain ethnic groups to get service in a certain area, or no service at all. It is all private action, isn't it? ;)

As for the irony, Congress has the authority to enact legislation against government entity discrimination under the equal protection clause, and against private employers under the Commerce Clause of the CONSTITUTION. The Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in this fashion.
All that is required is a congressional finding that the discrimination affects interstate commerce. Discrimination in Scouting probably has no effect on commerce, while it does in employment. Scouts=apples, Employers= oranges, at least for legal purposes.

Incidentally, the court just undermined the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because there is no explicit finding in the 1964 Act that discrimination affects interstate commerce. The court decided in 1996 to impose this requirement- so theoretically, the court could get rid of the act. But the court, as conservative as it is, isn't about to commit the political suicide you suggest.

:crazed:

2-1B
11-04-2002, 05:34 PM
tjovonovich,
Overlord's comment was quite clear and I don't belive you misread it! :D

Come on, what sense would it make for him to accuse the Boy Scouts of being homosexual and excluding homosexuals at the same time? :crazed:




I have one bias --- I hate mullets.

Vortex
11-04-2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
tjovonovich,
Overlord's comment was quite clear and I don't belive you misread it! :D

Come on, what sense would it make for him to accuse the Boy Scouts of being homosexual and excluding homosexuals at the same time? :crazed:




I have one bias --- I hate mullets.

Yea, clear as mud.

I guess being homosexual and not letting other in is either the "don't ask don't tell" bit, or if some one is homosexual and in the ranks I guess they hit the mother err man load huh.

I even had a few co-workers read the post and they had to scratch their heads...high brow philosophy or new way of thinking I guess. I just need to get out more or read deeper between the lines...my bad really.

derek
11-04-2002, 07:12 PM
Indeed, perhaps private businesses should be allowed to decide who they want to serve, or perhaps organize their business to force certain ethnic groups to get service in a certain area, or no service at all. It is all private action, isn't it?

as an advocate of individual/property rights, i would agree it is a business owners right to hire, fire, serve or refuse service to anyone he/she so chooses. but as a rational individual, i personally would not partake in this discrimination, as it would not be "good for business".;)


Scouts=apples, Employers= oranges

i know congress has their finger in just about every aspect of the economy, and they regulate the heck out of it, but still, what this issue is all about is individual/property rights and the right to associate with those of one's own choice, whether it be the boy scouts or any other private club or business. it's about freedom, plain and simple, and while i do not discriminate against people of a different race, religion, or sexual orentation than mine, i believe if one does choose to do so, it should not be illegal, as long as the bigot does not initiate force those he discriminates against.

JON9000
11-04-2002, 07:38 PM
I just listened to an interview with the young man that this thread is about. He seems to be a person of extremely high moral standards who simply does not believe in God. It doesn't seem that he really thinks the BSA should be forced to accept him as an atheist, however, he does take issue with the BSA's assertion that to be a "good" citizen, one must profess a belief in God.

I think he's right on. Let the BSA make its rules, but let them also try to come on the air and explain the moral superiority of their position. This kid would run circles around them, I'll bet.

JesusFreak
11-04-2002, 08:17 PM
I haven't read the replies to this, just the actual story on CNN. Here are my 2 cents...

If it is a rule that you must believe in some "higher power" to be in the boy scouts then he shouldn't be allowed to stay. I don't think that's a fair rule, but it's a rule anyways. There are lots of rules that my parents give me that I don't think are fair but they're still rules. That kid should get kicked out of the boyscouts if he doesn't follow the boy scout's rules.

derek
11-04-2002, 09:24 PM
Let the BSA make its rules, but let them also try to come on the air and explain the moral superiority of their position.

no need for the scouts to reply, i'll state their arguement for them. it is as follows:

"We believe in God. God tells us what is right and wrong. His word is law. God has a monopoly on morality. If one does not believe as we do, he is immoral."

i disagree with this, but that is their arguement.

Dryanta
11-04-2002, 09:36 PM
Hey all,
Sorry to be a "johnny come lately".I have just read through this thread for the first time.Becuase of that I won't try and address anyones comments directly.I'd make an ***** of myself by confusing things.
I really want to know how this conversation turned so quickly to Homosexuals?Why does that have anything to do with this topic?
The same old titles thrown around,Black/white,Male/female,Straight/***.
Neo nazi.Biggot. racist. All these words are thrown around way to much in my opinion.If someone doesn't agree with you then they must be NeoNaxi,Biggot,Stupid,ignorant,or nuts? Why is that exactly?By applying titles like this to anyone is doing the same thing.
Tell me why, as a Christian, I can be ridiculed and insulted at every turn and it is becoming more and more acceptable.
What is the difference? Becuase my faith is seen as intrusive?
Because my faith mandates that I tell others the "gospel".
We have become a very selective world.Certain things are "enlightened though" others are not.If it's not,it's ignorant,bigotted,and Neo Nazi?
There are so called thought police on both sides guys,period.
If I approach an Non christian with my faith then I am wrong,and am attempting to brainwash them.But if a Homosexual,enviromentalist,or radical liberal in general speaks in a PUbLIC school,they are educating and enlightening?
If you try and confront a raving biggot and tell him he is wrong in his outlook,you are guilty of intollerance.You are unwilling to tollerate his beliefs,and are intollerant because of it.
The overlord raises a very good question.Why are some discriminations acceptable and others not?Not a hypotheticle question.Really why?It makes no sense at all to try and take any kind of moral high ground against intollerance and be intollorant in the process.

Food for thought to all who might read this.The spelling is terrible I'm sure.The grammar and structure is way off.But are you willing to dismiss my opinion becuase of it?Some of you already have.And that is intollerant

JON9000
11-04-2002, 09:43 PM
This post is not aimed at Dryanta- it is a reponse to Derek's idea of what the BSA response would be, and I think he is right.

Man- sometimes I wish I was that self righteous. It must be a truly wonderful thing to walk through life knowing you are saved and that that you automatically hold the moral high ground over all non-believers! It gives you license to do such great things for and to them! Just ask the Taliban.

I was a boy scout, but never experienced this kind of trouble. I think this whole controversy takes away from a lot of positive things a kid can learn through scouting. I really wish I had been asked my religious beliefs. I could have professed allegiance to Gozer the Gozerian.

derek
11-04-2002, 09:50 PM
I really want to know how this conversation turned so quickly to Homosexuals?Why does that have anything to do with this topic

it's relevant because last year the boy scouts caused a big stink by kicking homosexuals out of their club. this discussion is not so much about what someone has to believe to be a scout, it's more of "do the scouts have a right to discriminate".

and you're correct, those who preach the loudest about intolerance, are actually the most intolerant people around. they are only tolerate their adgenda (christian bashing, *** rights, feminism, etc...). disagree with them and you're "intolerant", but they have, in their mind, the complete right to be intolerant towards anyone who dosen't toe their line.

JON9000
11-04-2002, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Dryanta
Tell me why, as a Christian, I can be ridiculed and insulted at every turn and it is becoming more and more acceptable.
What is the difference? Becuase my faith is seen as intrusive?
Because my faith mandates that I tell others the "gospel".

If I approach an Non christian with my faith then I am wrong,and am attempting to brainwash them.

No one should be ridiculed on account of their religious faith. As an agnostic I know all about it. Hey- I am the one who is, according to some religions, required to be shunned or consigned to eternal flame.

As far as witnessing goes, I have had 2 types of experiences.

The first variety I have no problem with, and that is someone telling me that they enjoy their faith, it works for them, and helps them find some peace. These people are usually receptive to my pointing out (as mildly as I can) some of my problems with organized religion and why it is not for me.

The other type is the witness of the fire and brimstone variety who insists that you are a morally abject creature for rejecting their faith and you better shape up, or you will be sent to the boiler. I have literally dealt with people who have told me my education is worthless and I should just read the Bible (never mind that I would interepret it in a completely different manner). If I try to point out some flaws to these people, they usually act as though I killed their child and simply throw their noses in the air. I think these types give the bunch a bad name- because everytime a would be witness steps to me, I prepare for the worst.

I would like would be witnesses to consider 2 things: First, most agnostics have come to their point of view after a great deal of introspection, and you don't see us trying to convert you to our point of view. Secondly, if you are of the fire and brimstone variety I just mentioned, perhaps you should find another line of business, after all, if Jesus wanted you to convert, he might have blessed you with some tact.

Dryanta
11-04-2002, 10:53 PM
Hey Jon,
I don't want to derail this thread but I have to respond at the same time.
It is the greatest thing to know you are saved.But it gives me no moral high ground at all.I am far from self righteous.I have no delusions about my nature.And I consider myself less than you.I am called to lay it all down for you at any time period hardly the The Taliban stereotype you feel applies to people of faith.
I suppose that term will replace Nazi.It's a shame more people dont' take anytime to find out what people faiths really are instead of making blanket statements like that.

JON9000
11-04-2002, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Dryanta
hardly the The Taliban stereotype you feel applies to people of faith.
I suppose that term will replace Nazi.It's a shame more people dont' take anytime to find out what people faiths really are instead of making blanket statements like that.

I do not compare all people of faith to the Taliban. Far from it, and I want to make it clear that I do not. Otherwise I would have many dear friends and relatives that would be terribly insulted- for I am the only areligious person I know.

What I consider to be Talibanesque (excuse the neologism) is the propensity of some to use religion as an excuse to carry out wretched acts in the name of God.

I do not hold all religious people accountable for the zealotry of a few, but when I hear people praising Allah for the destruction of the Twin Towers (bin Laden) and I also hear others saying God allowed it to happen because of the activities of gays, liberals, and feminists (Falwell and Robertson), I am sorry, but they are one and the same as far as I am concerned. I know most Muslims and Christians do not share these views, so I do not put them in that category- only those that use religion to legitimize hatred.

Sorry if I was unclear:o

Vortex
11-04-2002, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Dryanta

Food for thought to all who might read this.The spelling is terrible I'm sure.The grammar and structure is way off.But are you willing to dismiss my opinion becuase of it?Some of you already have.And that is intollerant

Ahem...I think this is aimed my way, since I'm now playing the great kreskin and reading between the lines and pulling out decoder rings to try and understand ideas and view points here.

Dismiss your opinion, no. Intollerant of you, no. Upset at spelling, can't be. I can't spell that well i-ther. Pick on grammer and structure, possibly. I'm no saint myself, but if you can't clearly get your point across, how am I going to understand your thoughts and your opinions or john q public.

What you write is your mode of communication and thoughts. If you write one thing and it comes across as something else, or means another you've done yourself a disservice and your statment is no longer valid without clarification. If we have to guess and there's confusion on the matter something is wrong with the statment.

Here chew on this...

They can all go jump in a lake for their ideas. They can all do whatever they feel for this is a free nation and they are entitled to do whatever they so feel at that time. They have their own right to dismiss them when ever they feel like it.

Now, you tell me, who the they is and what I'm talking about. Are you going to be intollerant of me and toss my idea out the window cause you don't understand me...even if it pertaints to the topic at hand? Haven't you already dismissed me or classified myself as intollerant for dismissing a forum members grammer and structure?

Quite the ugly cycle isn't it?

bigbarada
11-05-2002, 01:23 AM
Getting back to the article, I have noticed that the Boy Scouts seemed to be more than willing to overlook his athiesm until an argument broke out. Given the fact that he is nineteen, the odds are pretty good that he mouthed off to the wrong person and did this to himself.

I am also a born-again Christian so my beliefs are firmly rooted in the Bible. Thus the Boy Scouts having a rule stating that you must believe in some sort of higher power seems perfectly harmless to me.

And no, The Overlord Returns, I was not calling you an idiot. Just that your line of logic was seriously flawed. I've known many intelligent people who allow their own passions to corrupt their thinking process. When people get overly emotional about an issue, any kind of compromise or understanding becomes impossible.

Anyways, the KKK was founded in the years following the Civil War to address the complaints the Southern men had about the government infringing upon their way of life. Were those complaints valid? Of course they were, because the government WAS infringing upon their way of life in order to insure that Secession never happened again. Racial prejudice was never the key issue for the KKK, just the one that they are stigmatized over. Their outward hatred of blacks basically invalidated their other demands in the eyes of the world.

BTW, anyone who takes offense to me using the term "blacks." Too bad, grow up and get over it. I gave up trying to be politically correct years ago.

In any case, a group that discriminates against blacks is not really comparible to a group that discriminates against homosexuals. Homosexuality is a choice, being black is genetic. There has never been any proof that homosexuality is genetic, just a lot of supposition, propaganda and conjecture.

I for one am not afraid to be labeled a "bigot" by those intolerant of different opinions, just because I refuse to recognize homosexuals as a valid minority.

Deoxyribonucleic
11-05-2002, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by bigbarada
Homosexuality is a choice, being black is genetic. There has never been any proof that homosexuality is genetic, just a lot of supposition, propaganda and conjecture.

OH MY F***ING GOD! I can NOT believe I just saw that!

THIS IS A GOD D*MN starwars forum (not a g*y bashing forum), a site I come to, to have fun and enjoy...but what I just saw was one of the worst things I've ever seen on these boards TO DATE. You should know when to keep your mouth shut, that you may be hurting other people...wouldn't that be the "christian" thing to do? Oh, golly no how could I forget the Born-Again Christian motto ....Love thy neighbor, but beat the S**T outta him when you find out he's g*y and tie him to a fence post out in the middle of nowhere to die, because it was HIS F***ING CHOICE to be that way and he was asking for it! Then go picket in front of his grieving parents with signs that say "AIDS kills F*gs Dead."

Let me ask you something...are you G*Y BigBarada? Obviously not by your statement, so I'd like to know how in the H*LL you think you can make a statement like that when you don't have ANY facts to back it up???? And don't tell me "the bible says it" because I don't buy that crap for a second!

WOW bigbarada, I really thought you were a decent person, but that's what I get for being unjudgemental. I knew you were a born-again christian as I've seen your posts for a long long time and I had my preconceived notions about such things, but I thought to myself "you can't judge just because of the person's religion, you could be missing out on a truly good person, as I thought you were." I STAND CORRECTED.

And thank you for ruining the sanctuary of these forums for me. It was one of the last places I felt I could come and have no worries!

F**K!

derek
11-05-2002, 08:13 AM
delete me 'Dar Argol.:)

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by tjovonovich


Ahem...I think this is aimed my way, since I'm now playing the great kreskin and reading between the lines and pulling out decoder rings to try and understand ideas and view points here.

Dismiss your opinion, no. Intollerant of you, no. Upset at spelling, can't be. I can't spell that well i-ther. Pick on grammer and structure, possibly. I'm no saint myself, but if you can't clearly get your point across, how am I going to understand your thoughts and your opinions or john q public.

What you write is your mode of communication and thoughts. If you write one thing and it comes across as something else, or means another you've done yourself a disservice and your statment is no longer valid without clarification. If we have to guess and there's confusion on the matter something is wrong with the statment.

Here chew on this...

They can all go jump in a lake for their ideas. They can all do whatever they feel for this is a free nation and they are entitled to do whatever they so feel at that time. They have their own right to dismiss them when ever they feel like it.

Now, you tell me, who the they is and what I'm talking about. Are you going to be intollerant of me and toss my idea out the window cause you don't understand me...even if it pertaints to the topic at hand? Haven't you already dismissed me or classified myself as intollerant for dismissing a forum members grammer and structure?

Quite the ugly cycle isn't it?

Dude, why are you so hung up on this?

You didn't feel my point was clear, I cleared it up for you.....isn't it over now?

James Boba Fettfield
11-05-2002, 09:43 AM
Deoxy, the Bible thing can be found in Leviticus 20:13, it's a list of such things.Not saying I defend what's in there or that I am a Bible thumper, just wanted to inform that's all.

Vortex
11-05-2002, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


Dude, why are you so hung up on this?

You didn't feel my point was clear, I cleared it up for you.....isn't it over now?

Hey man, I wasn't picking on you in that one. That was aimed at Dray...

I guess I didn't make my post clear now did I:D

Overlord, I'm not digging on you, our beef was settled. You corrected or pointed out your thought to me, and I retracted. Dray was making an comment my way, so I sent one his way.

I am a little hung up on this because it seem our communication skills around here are getting worse and we're all taking freedoms to invent our own form of language and definitions and some of us wonder how these threads turn into war zones so fast. Nothing more nothing less. I was upset with you over a phrase, BFF or who ever had to guess and assume himself, you clarified the issue and questioned me, then I responded as to how I was confused. I was under the assumption that it would be ok to help out on trying to clarify, teach and try to understand, how we both arrived at our conclusion, but hey I'll stop if it getting to you or others. Besides this thread is about to be a power keg again over a statment and I'm sure it will be closed soon...and not to add fuel, there was a news report on CNN and yahoo yesterday about a homosexual ram or something and they are claiming its biological matter. I'm not sure if that's the exact content and how bias the media is on that, but this thread is going in a new direction and there's trouble brewing here.

But getting back to topic, again, nothing personal, I was being sarcastict toward Dray, not you.

But since this link has taken a nasty turn, none of this will matter soon anyway.

Dude, I'm sorry if I got to you. It was a debate, nothing more nothing less. I'll see ya in other non-controvercy threads. My appologies if I offended.

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
Deoxy, the Bible thing can be found in Leviticus 20:13, it's a list of such things.Not saying I defend what's in there or that I am a Bible thumper, just wanted to inform that's all.

I think he meant he doesn't care if the bible says it....

James Boba Fettfield
11-05-2002, 09:57 AM
I thought about her meaning that, too Overlord. I was always curious about that defense myself, so I looked it up a few months ago. Damn if it was actually in there, too. Either way, I just wanted to show for anyone who cared that its there.

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 09:58 AM
tj - cool.....just checking.

I think the thread should remain open. We obviously have a need to discuss the new turns that the thread has taken.

(ofcourse I can't do that until lunch...but oh well)

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
I thought about her meaning that, too Overlord. I was always curious about that defense myself, so I looked it up a few months ago. Damn if it was actually in there, too. Either way, I just wanted to show for anyone who cared that its there.

gotcha....

still...IMO....it's not a defense at all.....the Bible is a book, written by men, individuals just as fallible as you or I.....

Vortex
11-05-2002, 10:14 AM
Well if people want to debate this go for it. I for one am ducking out. I persoanlly can't defend their chosen lifestyle, nor can I totally dismiss it either so I'm fading out.

For those of you who are sticking around for the battle....check this out.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=571&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20021104/hl_nm/***_sheep_dc

Any truth to this? I don't know. Does it support, condem? I don't know. Just some more ammo.

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 10:18 AM
link don't work

Patient Zero
11-05-2002, 10:18 AM
The link does not work.

Tell me about the sheep, DAMIT!!!!!

James Boba Fettfield
11-05-2002, 10:27 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=570&ncid=753&e=6&u=/nm/20021104/sc_nm/science_sheep_dc

Dryanta
11-05-2002, 10:53 AM
Before I bow out as well I need to just clarify for TJ.I wasn't talking to you directly at all.I realize because of previous posts you could easily think I was ,but you didn't cross my mind at all when I wrote that post.

Vortex
11-05-2002, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Dryanta
Before I bow out as well I need to just clarify for TJ.I wasn't talking to you directly at all.I realize because of previous posts you could easily think I was ,but you didn't cross my mind at all when I wrote that post.

Interesting since I seem to be the only one picking on grammar...but if you say so...

Thanks for reposting the link. That is the article I was talking about. CNN had one too, but I can't find it today.

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Dryanta
Hey Jon,
I don't want to derail this thread but I have to respond at the same time.
It is the greatest thing to know you are saved.But it gives me no moral high ground at all.I am far from self righteous.I have no delusions about my nature.And I consider myself less than you.I am called to lay it all down for you at any time period hardly the The Taliban stereotype you feel applies to people of faith.
I suppose that term will replace Nazi.It's a shame more people dont' take anytime to find out what people faiths really are instead of making blanket statements like that.

Two questions...

1. How do you know you are saved? Has God told you personally (by personally I mean sat down and had a chat with you about it)?

2. Why would you "lay it all down for me" if I haven't asked you to do so?

( By "I" I mean a general 'I"........not me personally)

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
Getting back to the article, I have noticed that the Boy Scouts seemed to be more than willing to overlook his athiesm until an argument broke out. Given the fact that he is nineteen, the odds are pretty good that he mouthed off to the wrong person and did this to himself.




Actually they weren't. This has been going on for a while by the sounds of it....it's just getting media attention now.



Originally posted by bigbarada


I am also a born-again Christian so my beliefs are firmly rooted in the Bible. Thus the Boy Scouts having a rule stating that you must believe in some sort of higher power seems perfectly harmless to me.



Well, placing absolutely no faith or belief in the bible leads me to the exact opposite conclusion. The boy should be judged on his merits, which are considerable, not his belief structure.


Originally posted by bigbarada



And no, The Overlord Returns, I was not calling you an idiot. Just that your line of logic was seriously flawed. I've known many intelligent people who allow their own passions to corrupt their thinking process. When people get overly emotional about an issue, any kind of compromise or understanding becomes impossible.



Cool :)


Originally posted by bigbarada



Anyways, the KKK was founded in the years following the Civil War to address the complaints the Southern men had about the government infringing upon their way of life. Were those complaints valid? Of course they were, because the government WAS infringing upon their way of life in order to insure that Secession never happened again. Racial prejudice was never the key issue for the KKK, just the one that they are stigmatized over. Their outward hatred of blacks basically invalidated their other demands in the eyes of the world.



Pretty sure all that burning and Lynching of Black men had a hand in invalidating their arguments as well.


Originally posted by bigbarada


BTW, anyone who takes offense to me using the term "blacks." Too bad, grow up and get over it. I gave up trying to be politically correct years ago.



Can't stand political correctness either. Still, isn't african American simply "correct"?


Originally posted by bigbarada


Homosexuality is a choice, being black is genetic. There has never been any proof that homosexuality is genetic, just a lot of supposition, propaganda and conjecture.



Replace "genetic" with "choice" and you have my reply to that line of logic.


Originally posted by bigbarada



I for one am not afraid to be labeled a "bigot" by those intolerant of different opinions, just because I refuse to recognize homosexuals as a valid minority.


If you're refusal to see them as a valid minority leads to you thinking they are not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as any other human being, well, that's biggotry.

Patient Zero
11-05-2002, 02:35 PM
There is alot I would love to say, but being around SSG for a while now I know that attempts at 'logical' arguments are pointless. People are too fixated with looking through their own eyes with a vision that only stretches to the tips of their own fingers. I am not fighting or attacking anyone because I simply don't care about correcting (converting) anyone's ideas to mine. Even though mine are right. :p In the end, we will all earn our own fate (whatever that might be). I'm simply pointing this out cuz I think that it's funny.


Homosexuality is a choice, being black is genetic. There has never been any proof that homosexuality is genetic, just a lot of supposition, propaganda and conjecture.

I would like to also state that a belief in God (any and all religions) is a choice, we should all just be as free as the next person to choose. There has never been any logical, rational or scientific proof that there is a God(s), just a lot of supposition, propaganda and conjecture.

plasticfetish
11-05-2002, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
I was in boy scouts for a few months, and I thought it was pretty homosexual.

This thread has evolved into something so lame ... but, that post is one the funniest most well timed little things I've seen in a long while.
My hat off to you sir ... wherever you are!

OK.

Now that this Jamboree is over ... anyone want to clean up the campground?

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 05:26 PM
Damn....the jamboree is over?

Patient Zero
11-05-2002, 05:47 PM
I thought that it was more of a shin-dig!

JesusFreak
11-05-2002, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by The Ghost of Jonna
I would like to also state that a belief in God (any and all religions) is a choice, we should all just be as free as the next person to choose. There has never been any logical, rational or scientific proof that there is a God(s), just a lot of supposition, propaganda and conjecture.

I agree Jonna. That is an unfair rule made by the Boy Scouts but since they're in charge of their organization they make the rules. I also agree that you can't prove that there is a higher power or whatever, many people have beliefs in higher powers, but you can't prove it. I can't prove to you that there is a God, and you can't prove that their isn't. Everyone has their opinions. I believe that their is a God and his son is Jesus Christ who died on a cross as a substitutionary atonement for my sins. I personally believe that is fact. But I can't prove it to you, or anyone else.

QLD
11-05-2002, 06:22 PM
Thanks plasticfetish!

I thought it was pretty darn funny myself....and I was wondering if anyone was going to acknowledge it. :)

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Thanks plasticfetish!

I thought it was pretty darn funny myself....and I was wondering if anyone was going to acknowledge it. :)

Actually, I had been meaning to acknowledge it....as I found it perfectly timed and HI - Larious!

JediTricks
11-05-2002, 08:23 PM
Well, it seems this topic's discussion has reached the end of the road here - too much fighting, getting off-topic, and hurt feelings; not enough concentration on the actual subject at hand.

As I said in another thread that had to be closed for similar reasons, religion is a very difficult subject to discuss because the core remains one of the most personal issues to any one individual, yet discussing religion requires thrusting one's personal views into a forum for all to see allowing the possibility of misinterpretation or disagreement with (or worse). It's been my personal opinion that one's religious choices should really be kept somewhat private and that he or she should express those choices by living their lives the best way they can by their personal beliefs rather than hoisting them upon others to embrace. I suggest to all parties who have vested interest in this thread that they reflect upon their choices and actions in here and if they want to further their discussions with other individuals, that they do so in private.

Finally, my own personal views are that it is far too common for man to kill in the name of someone rather than live by one's ideals; such is the tragedy of mankind, such is the burden placed upon us that we must strive to shed before we place it upon future generations. -JT

Thread Closed.