It boils down to this. I'm straight and I can join GLAAD if I choose to. If I was gay or an atheist then the Boys Scouts would have a problem with my membership. That's discrimination. You have the right to free association but you can't fund it from the public trough.

Drakkenmaw:

There's judgement, then there's judgement.
Drinking can impare judgement. That's a physical dimension, physical limitation kind of judgement.
Then of course there's logical judgement. Is a statement true or false. Is a person known for punching people in the face without provocation and should be avoided. Is poison ivy an unwelcome substance. We make these judgements all the time.
Then there's moral judgement. And here it can be tricky.
Take christianity for example. These people feel they know for a fact that the only way into heaven is by believing in Jesus Christ as the messiah. Or, something close to that. So if you put them in the same room with a satanist, they would be likely to make the logical judgement, "One of us in this room is for sure not going to heaven". And of course, they would be talking about the current state of each room occupant's spirituality.
It doesn't take looking into a man's heart (disgusting) to know that someone who would spit on Jesus is not going to christian heaven.

shamus414: My point that it is appropriate to judge conduct but not persons as sinful.

And impose State sanction on that basis?

shamus414: however, by Jesus' mandate as recorded in the scriptures, I am empowered to judge conduct as being consistent or inconsistent with His teaching.

Yes, that's correct - by Jesus' mandate, you are empowered to judge *your* conduct, not anyone else's.

As a former Cub Scout and Boy Scout, son of a Den Mother, who is also a straight Christian married to my first wife, it is my opinion that the Boy Scouts have lost their minds.

The scout group I was involved in met at a Methodist church but was certainly not a gathering of conservative Christians. There were many non-church going folk in our troop as well as an Asian kid (Viet) who called himself a Buddist. Like the marketing brochures of the time we were integrated and had several shades of skin tone. I loved scouting.

This modern move of adopting a strong stance that all Boy Scouts must be active Christians or be kicked out is crap. If they want to stand firm on the "private club so we make the rules" let them pay taxes and otherwise pay their way. They should not be allowed to use public facilities and should not get free boat launch use. Like all of the discriminating Mardi Gras crews which can no longer get parade permits in New Orleans and the country clubs who must completely stand on their own (all, what, 5 of them) the Boy Scouts will die off, a victim of their own prejudice.

At this time, having followed each popularly reported court case and article, having deep passionate conflicted feelings, having truly loved almost every minute of my time in scouting, I say let them disappear.

My only hope is that some new outdoors oriented organization for boys can rise from the ashes to facilitate my boys having the kind of experience I had in scouting.

Drakkenmaw

So would a Christian be in the right to judge another Christian for passing moral judgments? Your argument is a nonsensical strawman. As Christians we are called to preach the law (judgment) and the gospel (forgiveness.) If we never preached the law, there would be no need for a gospel. You are right, in the end we don't judge others in the sense that God judges them. But I assume that you would agree that a Christian should point out someone's sins if they are obviously sinning.

I can't say "If you practice adulterus acts you are 100% certain to go to hell." because I don't make that call, but I can say, "adulterus acts are a sin." There is a big difference and Christ actively calls his disciples to point out sin in a loving manner.

See here: Mathew 18:25-17 "If your brother sins against you go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Not only does Christ tell his followers to point out sins, he tells them to kick them out of the church if they refuse to repent.

shamus414

My point that it is appropriate to judge conduct but not persons as sinful.

The mandate of the Xian scriptures relative to the Church's relation to the State are inconclusive at best, but assume that human beings will be too sinful to consistently govern within Christian moral guidelines.

Your point would be valid if all the Scouts were teaching was that the behavior was sinful, but that isn't what they are doing. They are excluding the sinners, proverbially casting the stone.

I believe homosexuality is a natural process, leaving some members of any given species free to do things other than tend to matters of procreation and sustinence.

Many people believe homosexuality is an abomination.

Is it possible one party is right, and the other wrong... absolutely.

Is it possible we're both wrong? Of course.

Is there any way to imperically find which party has a stronger claim to being right? Nope.

So what you choose to do is just treat your faith as though it were fact, inducing an artificial sense of right v. wrong, moral superiority, and a wacky urge to codify your beliefs... and what I choose to do is practice my beliefs, and not impede your ability to practice yours, because I understand that there is no way, short of God coming down and elucidating the matter, of clearing up exactly what it is God may want.

trappedspirit: It doesn't take looking into a man's heart (disgusting) to know that someone who would spit on Jesus is not going to christian heaven.

Yes, but the message of Christ was that you should hate the sin, but love the sinner. Regardless of the path of his immortal soul, your job is not to judge but to live instead by the words of the Lord: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:43-44)

You may believe whatever you wish of their soul, but it is your obligation under the words of Jesus Christ to more than tolerate them - it is your obligation to love them, help them regardless of whether they would help you, and seek to do them well when they would do you ill. Excluding them, hating them, and seeking to drive them from your sight is not a part of that command.

I wonder if San Francisco outlaws any use of federal subsidies for minority owned businesses. Because such subsidies are selective based on race, regardless of financial means.

Any of the staunchly anti-discrimination folks still here? I suppose everyone who berated the Boy Scouts will also call for the abolition of minority business subsidies since they are blatantly discriminatory?

The_Sponge: The phrase "....to have your cake and eat it too" is the dumbest farking quote of all time.

/What good is a cake if you can't eat it?
//What's next? "So you want to have your car and drive it too?"
///Former Cub Scout

Are you trying to make a joke, or do you really not understand the saying? You can't "have your cake and eat it too" because once you eat your cake, you no longer have it. So, you can either have your cake in perpetuity, or you can at some point eat it, wherein you can no longer have it.

People who want to "have their cake and eat it to," both want to posess a cake and consume that cake at the same time, which is impossible.

Side Note: Props to drakkenmaw for his ritualistic pwning of everyone in this thread. He won the thread with his Boobies, and could have stopped there, but he kept going and managed to win the entire internets. good jorb (Honorable Mention to Sloth_DC)

ThrobblefootSpectre: I suppose everyone who berated the Boy Scouts will also call for the abolition of minority business subsidies since they are blatantly discriminatory?

I will.

PeopleFirst: Not only does Christ tell his followers to point out sins, he tells them to kick them out of the church if they refuse to repent.

Better get to work turning in the people who eat lobster then, right? Because the Levitican prohibitions are long and cover many things people in modern Christianity do on a weekly basis with no repentance whatsoever. You cannot pick and choose among them for what is and is not "still sinful." You can either accept that Christ's rewrite of the old ways and old laws apply, or you cannot. But it is immensely-hypocritical to go "well these aren't sins anymore, but these over here in THIS passage are."

But I really need to get back to work. It's been fun debating the liturgy.

Drakkenmaw:

You may believe whatever you wish of their soul, but it is your obligation under the words of Jesus Christ to more than tolerate them - it is your obligation to love them,

I agree. No where did I say they should be hated. I can objectively and logically deduce that someone is going to hell. Hell, I can even feel sorry for them, and I don't have to hate.

PeopleFirst

Not only does Christ tell his followers to point out sins, he tells them to kick them out of the church if they refuse to repent.

In all fairness, there are a great number of things in the bible that I don't do to spec.

I've eaten shellfish without remorse.
I went into the city within 3 days of pooping, actually, I pooped in the city.
I've eaten meat more than 3 days past when it was killed.
When I saw a farmer who had planted his fields improperly, I just drove on, instead of killing him, taking his wife and children as mine, and his slaves as mine.
I've decided against selling my daughter, should I have one.
I frequently wear blended fabrics, shamelessly.

ThrobblefootSpectre: I wonder if San Francisco outlaws any use of federal subsidies for minority owned businesses. Because such subsidies are selective based on race, regardless of financial means.

Why would a municipality have any saying on who recieves federal subsidies?

Any of the staunchly anti-discrimination folks still here? I suppose everyone who berated the Boy Scouts will also call for the abolition of minority business subsidies since they are blatantly discriminatory?

How does agreeing that their private organization should not recieve public assistance == "berating" the BSA? Also FWIW, I don't think any businesses should recieve any public money.

Sloth_DC: I will.

Cool. You are not among the hypocrites on this issue then.

I'm not trying to defend the Boy Scouts. Let them pay their own fees.

But I do detest those who promote "equality" only when the targeted group is one that they politically agree with, or when they stand to gain financial benefit. I abhor the politically correct pseudo-enlightened mindset. Fark is full of such people, and I enjoy calling them out.


(P.S. Sloth_DC: I actually like your posts in most threads. I happen to agree with a lot of what you write.)

Drakkenmaw

So now you change the subject since you don't have a good reply. You then tell me what I what to believe even though it contradicts the Christian scriptures. (Acts 10.) You also assume that there is no good Christian answer for the difference between ceremonial law and moral law. Also, Christ didn't rewrite any law He fulfilled the law but did not abolish it. Then you run away. Typical.

firefly212: In all fairness, there are a great number of things in the bible that I don't do to spec.

I've eaten shellfish without remorse.
I went into the city within 3 days of pooping, actually, I pooped in the city.
I've eaten meat more than 3 days past when it was killed.
When I saw a farmer who had planted his fields improperly, I just drove on, instead of killing him, taking his wife and children as mine, and his slaves as mine.
I've decided against selling my daughter, should I have one.
I frequently wear blended fabrics, shamelessly.

*sniff* I...I've had nocturnal emissions, and slept with a woman within a week of her period, and I didn't sacrifice unto the sons of Aaron to cleanse myself...

The Homer Tax Why would a municipality have any saying on who recieves federal subsidies?

For the same reason that they openly flaunt federal and state law on who can get married. Because it (non-discrimination) is some they feel strongly about.

firefly212

Have you ever even read the Christian reply to this argument that Drakkenmaw and you are making? If you have what part of it didn't you understand?

Acts 10 deals with the Mosaic laws and gentiles, the whole book of Hebrews speaks of how Christ is the new high priest and deals with these laws.

Do a google search about this subject and you will have 20 pages of stuff to read that carefully deals with this. It's not like Christians haven't answered this before.

PeopleFirst: Acts 10

Is not the words of Rabbi Yeshua. His words were "All of heaven and earth shall pass away before one tittle (pen-stroke) of the law shall fail."

Ah, why bother - you own a computer, but think you're a pious Christian.

ThrobblefootSpectre: For the same reason that they openly flaunt federal and state law on who can get married. Because it (non-discrimination) is some they feel strongly about.

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about here, do you? If I lit a cigarette right now, we'd all burn to death from the strawmen piled to the ceiling. I'll try it again: A municipality has absolutely no say in who recieves federal subsidies because they are completely different governmental entities. They'd have no reason to even try to prevent minority-owned businesses from recieving federal money because they have no legal right to do so.

This particular situation involves a municipality deciding what NPOs recieve public assistance on a municipal level. What rationale do you use to justify the notion that they have no right to do this?

I contest that your hypotheical situation is immaterial because it has no bearing on the real-world, and should be stricken from record. That said, I open the floor to anything of value that you wish to add to the discussion.

DiamondSmasher said:

Berkeley is infamous for blindly siding with any cause that is against American traditions. Let them have at it. I don't see a debate here. They have the legal right to drive everything that is right and good from their midst by summoning up technicalities whenever feelings are hurt.


How is it a "technicality"?

The city anti-discrimination policy probably says something like that you cannot discriminate against homosexuals (and/or atheists) and still get public subsidies.

Getting a service for FREE is a subsidy.

The Boy Scouts (an organization the Sea Scouts are tied to) discrminates against homosexuals and atheists.

THEREFORE they are in violation of the city anti-discrimination policy, and should not get public subsidies. Thus, no free marina priveleges.

A technicality would be something like the Sea Scouts did not answer the complaint properly, so they lose". Alternatively, if the Scouts were the plaintiffs "the Sea Scouts did not write their complaint properly, and so they lose" would be a technicality.

The argument above goes to the merits of the issue. It's a very simple argument, and I have a hard time seeing how they could have won.

Apparently, the Sea Scouts were given options- which essentially came down to them ceasing to discriminate (ie, break ties to a discriminatory organization- the Boy Scouts, or disavow discrimination). Had the Sea Scouts availed themselves of one of these options, they could continue to get subsidies. They refused to stop discriminating. Unsurprisingly, because the Sea Scouts refused to stop discriminating, they were still in violation of the anti-discrimination policy, and so they couldn't get any public subsidies.

But, if you want to call that a technicality, be my guest. I'd like to know what you think is *not* a technicality.

Sloth_DC

I have no idea of what you are talking about, and could you to define a "pious Christian" versus a Christian.

PeopleFirst: I have no idea of what you are talking about, and could you to define a "pious Christian" versus a Christian.

A "pious" Christian is one who actually attempts to follow the teachings of Yeshua. You apparently haven't given away all your possessions and devoted your life to spreading the Word, so I guess you're not very pious.

What's wrong, righties? Fighting FOR governmental funding of something? I thought government wasn't the answer and the invisible hand™ is suppose to fix everything?

shamus414, you are an embarrassment to loving, open-hearted Christians everywhere.

Jesus did not blindly follow the religious dictates of his day, and does not ask any one of his children to do the same.

If you look into your heart, you will find that your disapproval of gays has nothing to do with what the Son of God wants for the world, but rather something personal you are bringing to the table.

Release whatever it is inside of you that causes these feelings and embrace, equally without judgement, all of the children of the Earth.

You are focusing too much on different levels on government (city vs state vs federal) and missing the basic concept.

It is an example of politically correct discrimination.

My point is that most people are rather selective about when equality is required and when it can be conveniently ignored.

I think my point is valid. I will not argue semantics of municipal vs. federal. If you think my opinion is of no value then feel free to ignore it. Most politically correct people conveniently do. I will not, however, stop posting simply because you disagree with me. :-)

Jon Snow - I may be an embarassment to loving, open hearted Christians I cannot disagree. However nothing I have said today is an embarassment to Christians who desire to follow the teachings of Christ to the best of his ability.

ThrobblefootSpectre: You are focusing too much on different levels on government (city vs state vs federal) and missing the basic concept.

That's because the basica concept is inherantly flawed. You posed a question: why can't a city dictate who recieves federal funds? I answered you. A better point for you would have been to point out instances where the City Discriminates based on race WRT Municipal Funds. Actually, please do this.

It is an example of politically correct discrimination.

Right, on a Federal level - which I disagree with (as previously stated). But we're talking about on a Municipal level.

My point is that most people are rather selective about when equality is required and when it can be conveniently ignored.

Right, but most people are idiots. Still the point isn't particularly appliciable to this situation Where a municipality has an anti-discrimination law WRT public assistance on a municipal level. I've asked at least 3 times for someone to show me an instance where an discriminatory NPO other than the BSA is given free berths, and have yet to see one. Therefore, one can assume that the City is applying this law fairly to all NPOs, and by definition cannot be "picking on" the BSA.

I think my point is valid. I will not argue semantics of municipal vs. federal. If you think my opinion is of no value then feel free to ignore it. Most politically correct people conveniently do. I will not, however, stop posting simply because you disagree with me. :-)

Your opinon is valid, but your point is lost due to poor presentation. You're taking the "Right Wing Radio/Left Wing Blog" approach to political discourse, which involves false analogies, strawmen, and other logical fallacies. Stick to facts and logic and it will be a lot better for everyone.

Also don't assume that because someone disagrees with you that they are "politically correct". This is another fallacy. I am by no means "politically correct," I just think you are wrong :P

PeopleFirst - it's sort of funny that the same arguments continue to get trotted out time and again even though they've been answered for as many as 20 centuries. There is a distinction between the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws of the Scriptures. This distinction was made as early on as the books of Acts and Galatians. Civil and Ceremonial laws are no longer applicable as they applied to another time and people however the Lord's moral precepts still exist. Therefore, the tired comments about lobsters and whatnot are rather willfully uninformted in regard to long established Xian theology.

Sloth_DC

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't actually believe what you just wrote, that all followers of Christ have to give away all possessions at all times.

You're right. I'm not pious. I'm a sinner, a sinner who continues to sin each and every day. Being a Christian doesn't magically stop me from sinning either. Giving away my possesions isn't the half of it. It's not even a fraction. To be a follower of Christ of my own accord would mean being perfect . Absolutely and totally without sin. I can't do it, but Christ was perfect and in Him I am justified before a Holy and perfect God.

Look at the sermon on the mount again some time. The one that everyone like because Jesus is being so sweet and nice about the meek inheriting the earth. It isn't comforting, it is terrifying. The Mosaic law is easy compared to what Jesus laid out in that sermon, and remember the law must be followed perfectly.

When Jesus told the rich young man to give up his possessions he did it because the man came to Jesus claiming he had actually fullfilled the law. In one command, Jesus showed that prideful man he hadn't even begun to fullfill the law. The rich man wasn't even close.

So where does that leave you and me? In the same place as the rich young man. A sinful person being judged by a perfect, and holy God. The homosexual, the murderer, me and you Sloth, we are all in the same boat. We are all sinners. Yet there is hope, hope in Christ Jesus.

shamus414: it's sort of funny that the same arguments continue to get trotted out time and again even though they've been answered for as many as 20 centuries. There is a distinction between the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws of the Scriptures. This distinction was made as early on as the books of Acts and Galatians.

I'm so glad the teachings of Paul carry more weight than those of Yeshua. Are you sure you're not a Pualian?

/btw, Paul lived less than 20 centuries ago.

Civil and Ceremonial laws are no longer applicable as they applied to another time and people however the Lord's moral precepts still exist.

And who gets to decide which is ceremonial, and which is moral? Is there a handy guide?

shamus414: PeopleFirst - it's sort of funny that the same arguments continue to get trotted out time and again even though they've been answered for as many as 20 centuries. There is a distinction between the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws of the Scriptures. This distinction was made as early on as the books of Acts and Galatians. Civil and Ceremonial laws are no longer applicable as they applied to another time and people however the Lord's moral precepts still exist. Therefore, the tired comments about lobsters and whatnot are rather willfully uninformted in regard to long established Xian theology.


Did Jesus ever actually condemn homosexuality? I seem to recall that Paul did, but can't remember Jesus actually saying "teh homos are sinnars."

Was Paul actually Jesus?

The Homer Tax: but can't remember Jesus actually saying "teh homos are sinnars."

Aren't there still "missing" books from the canon that address this?

The Homer Tax:

I apologize for my poor presentation. I will not disagree that there is a difference between different levels of government.

I believe my point is still valid. Discrimination is actively promoted by those who most often claim to be against discrimination. Including the ACLU.

I think we may be in agreement on this issue. Discrimination based on inherited traits or religious beliefs (and perhaps a few other things) should disqualify an individual or organization from receiving public financial assistance. I'm sorry if I was unclear on this.


I only ask that people apply the same standards across the board. Not selectively when it suits their political or financial purposes.

ThrobblefootSpectre: I apologize for my poor presentation. I will not disagree that there is a difference between different levels of government.

I believe my point is still valid. Discrimination is actively promoted by those who most often claim to be against discrimination. Including the ACLU.

I think we may be in agreement on this issue. Discrimination based on inherited traits or religious beliefs (and perhaps a few other things) should disqualify an individual or organization from receiving public financial assistance. I'm sorry if I was unclear on this.

I only ask that people apply the same standards across the board. Not selectively when it suits their political or financial purposes.


Word. I think the ACLU gets a bad rap alot of times. I may not always agree with them, but I'm sure as fark glad that they're there. Somewhere along the line, they became synonymous with Liberal boogeyman, and people instantly identified everything that they do as either good or bad depending on that person's political affiliation.

The truth? They do some good and some bad, like all people/organizations.

The Homer Tax: The truth? They do some good and some bad, like all people/organizations.

Agreed. They do a pretty good job of defending free speech rights across the board. Even filing amicus briefs for those organizations that otherwise are against the general ACLU ideology. This is quite admirable.

I met my fiancee (female) while we both worked at a Boy Scout camp. I was the ecology/conservation director, and she was the aquatic director. She was impressed by my tree identification and science skills, I was impressed by her bathing suit. I always joke that we must be some of the only people who can say that we met our true love at Boy Scout camp, and we can still get legally married in Ohio.

/atheist
//thinks that scouting is a Good Thing(TM)
///also thinks that denying them public funding unless they change their stance is also a Good Thing(TM)
////first time I've used slashies, hope I did it right

Interesting information from SkinnyHead.

If the Sea Scouts have never actually discriminated against any protected class, then assuming they will seems to contravene the basic tenet of innocent until proven guilty.

Should we, for example, preemptively institutionalize people who are shown to have emotional disorders (sociopathy) which make it statistically more likely that they may commit a crime?

PeopleFirst

firefly212

Have you ever even read the Christian reply to this argument that Drakkenmaw and you are making? If you have what part of it didn't you understand?

Acts 10 deals with the Mosaic laws and gentiles, the whole book of Hebrews speaks of how Christ is the new high priest and deals with these laws.

Do a google search about this subject and you will have 20 pages of stuff to read that carefully deals with this. It's not like Christians haven't answered this before.

The arguement that speech does not entitle one to my money, or the arguement that many modern Christians choose morals from the bible like a buffet, without ever giving any real thought to how they make such decisions?

8 years of catholic school, and some religious studies in college, I'm fairly familiar with the arguements against me. Rejecting the arguement doesn't mean I don't understand it. My arguement is that much of the old testament, leviticus in particular, is a guide to healthy and sanitary living 2000 years ago, so even if I wasn't of the belief that most of the old testament and vengeful God stuff wasn't applicable post-Christ, I would still have a rational basis for my cafeteria style buffet-o-morality, as I skip the leviticus bar in its entirity.

I don't have time to actually look it up right now, I'm between two finals, but IIRC, Acts 10 is where Peter and Cornelius meeet, and they figure out that the gentiles are also called to Christianity, and basically, the evolution of seeing Christianity as an offshoot of Judaism to seeing Christianity as a separate entity that calls both jews and gentiles to it. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong though.

I'm sorry I'm so squeezed for time, I will be around this evening to see how the thread goes.

Best Regards.

Boy Scouts DON'T discriminate. A private group can make it's own rules. That is not descrimination. If it was an atheist group you would'nt see this kind of discrimination and persecution by hypocritical, self righteous, non members.

Mija: A private group can make it's own rules. That is not descrimination.

Sure - but if they are not open to the public, they don't get public monies and support. Their choice.

Mija: Boy Scouts DON'T discriminate. A private group can make it's own rules. That is not descrimination.


That doesn't make any sense. The KKK is a private group, are you saying they don't discriminate? Country Clubs are private groups, do they not discriminate?

Mija

It is not a question of whether they are allowed to choose who they associate with. They are allowed such choice. It is merely a question of whether they are allowed to receive public funding.

It is reasonable to deny public funding because public funds come, in part, from those whom they do not allow in their membership.

2006-07-12 12:25:34 AM Chameleon

You know, I came in here prepared to viciously mock the Boy Scouts.

Then I realized that if some town in South Dakota wouldn't extend a benefit to Planned Parenthood that it would give to every other non-profit, I'd be seriously pissed off.

There's a difference. Planned Parenthood doesn't discriminate and get around the constitution by claiming they are a private organization, and then demand services paid for with public funds. The Boy Scouts do.

/apple
//oranges