response 43 of 174:

Sep 29 18:03 UTC 2000

Then form a group about the kids and having them get involved and some adult
attention, tod.

No group HAS to be involved with anything. The BSA chooses to have religion
as a major focus.

Judaism has always made a distinction between Jews and Gentiles for the
purposes of law. Typically, the policy is that the Gentiles, being
less-than-Jewish, can do many things that aren't kosher, and some acts with
Gentiles don't necessarily count as "breaking the rules."

My understanding of the OT concept of "adultery" was similar to John's... all
it means is that a married person can't have sex with someone they're not
married to. Unmarried people can have sex with each other (while following
the Commandment) all they want -- whether that violates OTHER Judaic law is
a different matter. 

Because women were "lesser" beings, Judaic (especially OT) law was usually
written only in terms of men. In short, a Jewish man had the most strictures
to follow, and a Gentile woman the fewest. Of the handful or so (four, I
believe) *direct* references to homosexuality in the Bible (including Romans
1, which is Christian, not Jewish), I only recall one mentioning females.

the Romans 1 reference, for instance, can be construed to a Jewish-like
stricture: CHRISTIANS can't have homosexual sex (actually, "unnatural sex"),
but homosexuality isn't an added sin if you're a non-Christian. If you'r enot
a Christian, you're already damned. That may be the one that refers to women
(I don't have a Bible handy) as well. For that matter, the Romans reference
could be construed as a loss of will/discipline issue, and not be a specific
ban on homosexuality (as part of "unnatural sex"), since the relevant part
is that the committing of unnatural acts against their wills is a punishment
for heresy (Paul's saying, in essence, that heretics will be tortured like
lil marionettes at God's will ... nice guy, Paul ... see why I don't use that
name much myself? ;} ).

The upshoot: There's no Commandment which cut-and-dry bans homosexual
behavior, certainly none that bans homosexual thoughts or orientation, and
yes, Virginia, Old Testament rules about who you could have sex with were
weird.

(On the polygamy note: There's some degree of scholarly opinion that Joseph,
Jesus' "father", had more than one wife. This would account for Jesus'
references to siblings, possibly older ones, and would not be inconsistent
with the time period. the plus: Fundamentalists can have an excuse for Jesus'
references to siblings without shaking MAry's claim to Immaculate Conception;
the minus (for fundies): It justifies polygyny and (by extension) poygamy.)

response 45 of 174:

Sep 29 18:14 UTC 2000

The Episcopalian church is still discussing allowing homosexual marriages.
Way cool.

response 47 of 174:

Sep 29 18:25 UTC 2000

The church I went to as a child actually did not approve of the Boy Scouts. 
The reason is that they engaged in group prayers, and my church felt that
praying with people who may not share the same beliefs was suggesting a
level of agreement and communion that wasn't there.  They object to the
Masons for the same reason.  My church also felt that the Boy Scouts tended
to teach salvation by works, instead of by faith.

So not even all Christian churches feel the Boy Scouts' use of religion is
appropriate.

response 49 of 174:

Sep 29 23:01 UTC 2000

Hey, gull, were you a Wisconsin synod Lutheran by any chance? (That's really
weird. Bruce is Wisconsin synod, and he wasn't allowed to join the Boy Scouts
either, same reasoning. He was a Boy Pioneer. ) 

response 51 of 174:

Oct 1 04:55 UTC 2000

Actually, this is a rare example where I think everything is just
peachy.  The situation couldn't be better if I'd written the script.

In my elementary school, there was no boy who was not a cub scout.  It
was a small school, but if being a cub scout was optional, nobody ever
noticed.  Meetings were held in the school.  On some days all the boys
would come to school in their cub scout uniforms (I don't recall the
reason for this.  Den meetings after school, I think.)  I think I was
aware that it wasn't part of school, as such, but only barely.  To be
"kicked out of cub scouts" would have been a social horror beyond
comprehension.

The case against the Boy Scouts was predicated on this kind of
experience.  They had become so ubiquitous that they were kind of
effectively a public institution.  The supreme court rejected this
argument.  I think they were right to do so.  It is a private
organization, and the government shouldn't be abridging the rights of
such organizations.

However, bringing the suit did have a good effect - it got the BSA a lot
of publicity for being firmly anti-gay.  The government made it's
decision.  Now its time for the public to make their's.

There has been a lot of backlash against the BSA over this, from former
scouts mailing back all their merit badges, to schools and organizations
declining to support them.  Probably they'll get plenty of positive
feedback, but on the whole this is going to hurt the BSA a lot.

I've no grudge against the BSA, but if they're going to take an anti-gay
stance, then I'm glad to see them getting a backlash, and not a backlash
from nine judges and some ACLU lawyers, but a broad backlash from a lot
of people in all segments and levels of society.  The BSA used to be
universally accepted as a good thing by everyone in this country. They
took a stance against gays, and lost that universal acceptance.  The
message is clear - discrimination against gays is no longer acceptable
in mainstream American culture.  Too bad that the BSA which has, as
Christian organizations go, been amazingly tolerant couldn't manage to
keep up with the times, but I like this change in our culture.

response 53 of 174:

Oct 1 13:37 UTC 2000

No shit.
Brighn, your understanding of OT is not a Torah understanding. Sorry to
break it to you.

response 55 of 174:

Oct 1 23:07 UTC 2000

janc, you and the rest of your Ann Arbor liberal types can be smug about how
"all this" is going to seriously hurt BSA.  You go on believing that, and have
some more granola, as willard would say.  Meanwhile, BSA will continue to do
just fine, thank you.

response 57 of 174:

Oct 2 02:06 UTC 2000

Hippies: 0  John Wayne: 1

response 59 of 174:

Oct 2 13:34 UTC 2000

Fag haters that wear scarves and beads.

response 61 of 174:

Oct 2 15:01 UTC 2000

Let me provide a random source (this is quite literally the first thing I
found on the Web... about 30 seconds of searching. I'll do more after tod
actually ponies up).

http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/khutbas/compwome.html

5. Adultery
Women's position, role, rights, and duties in the Quran are very different
from those found in the Bible. Let us take some examples. Adultery and
fornication are considered sins in all religions. The Bible decrees the death
sentence for both the adulterer and the adulteress (Leviticus 20:10). Islam
also equally punishes both the adulterer and the adulteress (24:2). However,
the Quranic definition of adultery is very different from the Biblical
definition. Adultery, according to the Quran, is the involvement of a married
man or a married woman in an extramarital affair. The Bible only considers
the extramarital affair of a married woman as adultery (Leviticus 20:10,
Deuteronomy 22:22, Proverbs 6:20-7:27). The extramarital affair of a married
man isn't per se a crime in the Bible. Why this dual moral standard? According
to Encyclopedia Judaica, the wife was considered to be the husband's
possession and adultery constituted a violation the husband's exclusive right
to her; the wife as the husband's possession had no such right to him [5].
The New Testament echoes the same attitude in Matthew 5:31-32, where it is
attributed to Jesus to have said," I tell you that anyone who divorces his
wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress,
and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Why didn't he
label the man who divorces his wife and marries another woman as adulterer?
To the present day in Israel, if a married man indulges in an extramarital
affair with a woman, his children by that woman are considered legitimate.
But, if a married woman has an affair with another man, her children by that
man are not only illegitimate but are forbidden to marry any other Jews except
converts and other bastards. This ban is handed down to the child's
descendants for 10 generations until the taint of adultery is presumably
weakened [6].
The Quran, on the other hand, never considers any woman to be the possession
of any man. The Quran eloquently describes the relationship between the
spouses by saying," And among His signs is that He created for you mates from
among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquility with them and He has put
love and mercy between your hearts: verily in that are signs for those who
reflect" (30:21) This is Quranic conception of marriage: love, mercy, and
tranquility, not possession and double standards.

So, I stand corrected on the general comment that Jewish men have more
strictures than Jewish women, but stand firm on the conviction that, in
Judaism (at least, in the torah), "adultery" is only relevant when one of the
people involved is married t, and not to everyone else involved.

response 63 of 174:

Oct 2 16:19 UTC 2000

That's why I only spent 30 seconds getting that, John.
I'll spend more if he actually comes up with something sound.

response 65 of 174:

Oct 2 19:38 UTC 2000

Yes, your knowledge is secondhand.
*yawn*