RobertNashville

Keep this thread going long enough and I suspect we'll see this whole problem become a non-issue.   ROTFLMAO

Seems more and more I'm turning into someone who just doesn't give a s**t any more...I'll probably keep voting in elections, maybe even make a donation to a candidate here and there but my expectations are so low at this point that I can't bring myself to believe it will make a difference!   I was really likely Rubio and Rnad Paul until they not fell but JUMPED onto the "comprehensive" (meaning amnesty) immigration reform bull shit. I can't in good conscious support or vote for any politician that things giving our country away to 11 (more likely 20) million criminals is a good thing.

I've had so conversations with Ramsey and with some of his staff that they couldn't possibly take as "supportive" of his policies but I still get his stuff; including Christmas cards!  :)

You are still just ascribing YOUR particular religious views onto an non-religious organization - why don't you stop asserting morals onto BSA and back up your assertions with evidence???  You clearly have time to write long responses (as evidenced by the above) to my post so I find it doubtful that you are are not answering my questions because you don't have enough free time but rather, because if you looked at the BSA objectively you would have to admit that this change in BSA policy doesn't violate its values or morals at all; it only violates yours.   You certainly have the right to be pissed off at the change in policy but I'd suggest you at least be honest enough to acknowledge that it's your personal view of homosexuals that is causing your angst and not some imagined violation of "traditional values and morals" of the BSA.   By the way; I've performed in a number of UM Churches over the years, some of them had...OMG...female pastors (which many denominations would say was a practice straight out of hell) One UM church's pianist was 1/2 of  a homosexual couple that had been together for over 30 years) so if you are insinuating that UMC is going to pull out of scouts I would find such an withdraw highly hypocritical (and a bit laughable).     So "many parents & volunteer leaders have already started to withdraw from the Scouting program"???  Do have any real evidence of that or is that just another assertion?  I'm sure some will leave...maybe even a lot will leave but I find it highly doubtful that you or anyone else actually knows yet what those numbers are so far or will be. Personally, I expect that when all is said and done those who don't leave will find this whole thing not much more than a tempest in a teapot and won't really change anything about what scouting does or what they teach or how they conduct their activities.

Those who wanted this change in policy and those who didn't want the change in policy are both "guilty" of trying to have their views be the prevailing views; neither group is any more or less "guilty" than the other in that regard.   I suspect that the voting members of the BSA/BSA BoD spent a considerable amount of time debating the pros and cons of this change and made what they felt was the best decision they could; likely being privy to a lot of facts and information that none of us have access to. Whether it was the "best" or "right" decision there probably is no way to ever know for sure.   What I find disturbing are those who, with virtually no facts in front of them at all, would try to impose their particular brand of morality on an organization (BSA) that holds to no particular religion but in fact, has always gone out of its way to be open to all.

  Yes you did get it right.   Every time a heterosexual male sees a beautiful woman and has a physical attraction; is that male an adulterer/fornicator at that moment or is he only guilty of the sin of adultery/fornication if he acts on that impulse?   If he's committed the sin of lust/adultery/fornication just because of his attraction then there shouldn't be a BSA because no boys, heterosexual or homosexual, would ever have the necessary "morals' to be allowed to join!

As far as I can tell, the only people having trouble with this policy change are those who want to force their particular moral views onto the BSA.   "Traditional morality and family values" is a dangerous term because when it's bandied about; few ever question the validity of those alleged "traditions" and whether they are truly "good" or just 'traditional". The "tradition" of some folks having a hissy-fit over homosexuals just because they happen to be homosexuals is one of those traditions that we would be better of without.

What bearing does that story from the Old Testament have on the BSA's change in policy???   Unless you think that gay 12 year old boys are going to walk over the the "straight kids' tent" and demand they come out so the gay boys can sodomize them I really don't see the relevance. :shrug:

That's probably because the folks who are upset about this policy change knows that it really isn't going to change a thing about how the scouting conducts things or what activities it does or the principles and information it tries to teach. ;)

I wonder what kool-aid Ramsey is drinking 'cause it must be pretty powerful stuff to make him go blind like that. ;)

I suppose it's at least possible; difficult to say at this point whether someone already here legally would be better off trying to get himself classified "illegal".   To some extent the very question shows how screwed up this piece of legislation is!

Absolutely correct.   I've been a Christian for over 45 years; I've taken classes on theology and I still cannot understand why some Christians seem to have a special burr up their backside about homosexuals nor why they seem incapable of divorcing themselves from being a homosexual (someone attracted to the same sex) and "unnatural acts" as described in the Bible and clearly identified as immoral.

So that's how it's going to be; you ignore 95% of my post you "quoted" then make a not so veiled insult that I'm a homosexual "activist/supporter"?   How about you answer my questions?   1. What "moral core foundation" are you talking about? 2. What "values morals & principles" are they (BSA) surrendering? 3. Have you even read the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle? If so, point out precisely how this policy change violates it.   You and others have been asserting through this entire thread that somehow, the BSA is being "forced" to compromise its morals...I think it's about time those making that asserting show precisely how...direct me to where I can go to read that "moral core foundation" you assert they have so that I can see how this change in policy violates it.

So you are in favor of the law sometimes such as laws concerning UIB?   Businesses have no unalienable rights; they are artificial constructs (and in the case of most schools, extensions of government)...this is not a property rights issue and never was as at least one federal appeals court has already ruled.

What "moral core foundation" are you talking about...what "values morals & principles" are they surrendering?   I think you are trying to ascribe YOUR personal moral code to the BSA but since the BSA is NOT a religious organization it's a fool's errand. Have you even read the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle?  If so, please feel free to point out precisely how this policy change violates it.   Traditional scouting is not "lost". I'm sure some hysterical parents will pull their child out of scouts to make sure they don't catch the "gay gene" but that will be it.  BSA may end but if it does it will probably be because kids would rather play CoD than pitch a tent.

I'm not sure I understand your question...if they are here legally then nothing happens to them; life goes on as normal.   As to them becoming a citizen, I see no reason to make it easy (or easier) for anyone - that's just one part of this "immigration reform" that should be rejected; NO ONE who came here illegally should be given any path to citizenship that essentially screws everyone who did it the right way.  If an illegal wants to be a citizen they should go back to where they came from and then go through the legal steps to some here the legal way.

I doubt that.  Ask a few attorneys who defend shooters in SD cases and I think you'll find that a quarter-million is probably just a starting point.   If anyone here ever is engaged in a SD shooting but winds up having to defend themselves in a full-fledged murder case (even if they are 100% innocent and the shooting justified) that person will be just as dependent as GZ is on donations to fund his defense because you'l almost certainly be looking at a 7 figure price tag.

I've never been to Disney World...I'd sort of like to go sometime but there are plenty of other things I want to do that are more important to me.   "leaving my gun behind" is something I've always been a bit concerned about...I've tried to make it a habit that before I leave a rest room or anyplace that I've been sitting in or just "in" for a while that I do a quick "check" to make sure it's still there.   I agree that it is negligence to lose your carry gun...at the same time, I doubt any of us are totally immune from having it happen to them!

I believe that's exactly what he did and that it was this little thug-want-a-be with a chip on his shoulnder that attacked Zimmerman unprovoked.   Yeah...the lesson here is stay in your home and hope for the best and and if you see a suspicious person walking through your neighborhood don't do anything about it.

My experience also tells me that a majority of people can be in favor of something and be right....my experience also tells me that personal experience is untrustworthy as a basis for making wide-reaching decisions or forming opinions.   The results of the surveys conducted are not "right" or "wrong" anyway...it was asking what people believed...their opinions; not a math problem where 2 + 2 = 4 and answering "3" is a wrong answer.

You are overlooking a couple of points.   Yes, an employer can fire you for virtually any reason or no reason. However, it matters to an person's UIB if he is fired for cause or not.   This law does take away the ability of an employer to press criminal charges against you for carrying on a "posted property"; while I don't know if it's EVER happened at least it can't happen now.   It also negates the threat of criminal charges for having a firearm in your vehicle while parked in "posted" parking lots at places like shopping malls, etc.   We'll get a good parking lot law eventually; similar to those that some 19 other states already have...we'll just have to wait until we get a governor and legislative leadership with some balls.

While almost everyone does it, anecdotal evidence is a poor basis on which to make assumptions about...well...about much of anything.   The BSA surveyed a wide variety of groups, most importantly, those current and former members of the BSA which is why I was included...it was a pretty comprehensive, scientific survey; I give far more credence to the results of a survey like that any day over personal/anecdotal experience...even over my own personal experiences.   I might also suggest that before you start making assumptions about the results of the surveys go take a look at the results. for yourself.

I agree that I don't think he should have been charged but I'm not terribly surprised that he was.   http://www.commonsensefororegon.com/measures/oregon-castle-doctrine/   From the link above:   Currently in Oregon, a homeowner is only allowed to use deadly force against an intruder if the intruder posed an “imminent deadly threat” to either the homeowner or the homeowner’s family. This means that Oregon law forces a homeowner to choose between protecting him/herself and/or the homeowner’s family, and deciding whether an intruder poses an imminent deadly threat. No homeowner should be forced into making such a decision. The Oregon Castle Doctrine makes it clear that you have a right to protect your home.   As with all SD shootings, you run the risk of being charged (and if charged your weapon will almost certainly be confiscated) unless it's absolutely and abundantly clear of precisely when a potential threat crossed the line and became an "imminent deadly threat".   I hope a jury sees the facts and finds him not guilty.

It seems as if you eliminated 90% of Charis's post to make a small point.   They can have or not have any policy they want but that's not the point...the point is why have a policy against the "sin" of homosexuality (which I contend being a homosexual isn't, itself a sin anyway) but completely ignore/have no policy regarding any other "sin"?     They have the right to have the policy...sure...they had to right to say we aren't going to change...but it still shows a disturbing pattern of discrimination and for reasons I think any in the BSA leadership would have a very tough time explaining.

You've surveyed them all???  I doubt it.   More to the point, the BSA DID survey; I know because I was a part of it.   Do you know what the final findings of the survey was?