Updated 08:10 pm.EST, Mon November 23, 2009

Society|Fri, Nov. 23 2007 08:17 AM EST

Philadelphia Sets Deadline for Boy Scouts to Renounce Anti-Gay Policy

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

The city of Philadelphia is threatening to end a nearly 80-year building agreement with the nation’s third Boy Scouts chapter if the group doesn’t change its policy to accommodate gay employees.

All members of the local Scouts chapter, which operates as the Cradle of Liberty Council, must take the Scout Oath and Law in which they promise to do their duty to God and to be morally straight, as well as to be clean in their thoughts, words and deeds.

While the organization does not inquire about sexual orientation at the time of membership, the group bars an avowed homosexual from leadership because they believe such an individual would not be a role model for the values espoused in the Oath and Law, according to a past news release from Boy Scouts of America.

A 2000 Supreme Court ruling upheld the right of the national Boy Scouts to exclude openly gay members from its ranks since it was a private organization.

However, Philadelphia City Solicitor Romulo Diaz said the group’s currently policy amounts to discrimination and has set a Dec. 3 deadline for the Boy Scouts to either renounce their moral standards or lose the headquarters they have rented from the city for $1 a year since 1928, reported the Washington Post.

According to Diaz, the Boy Scouts’ policy conflicts with a local 1982 “fair practice” law which prohibits employers from conditioning employment on the basis of “sexual orientation.”

"While we respect the right of the Boy Scouts to prohibit participation in its activities by homosexuals, we will not subsidize that discrimination by passing on the costs to the people of Philadelphia," the Post reported Diaz as saying.

City officials have suggested that the Scouts can stay at the Beaux-Arts building if they agree to pay the building’s market value price which is tentatively set at $200,000 a year.

If the Scouts refuse the ultimatum, Diaz said he will begin looking for alternative tenants to take over the property June 1, 2008.

While the offer may seem fair, Robert Knight of the Media Research Center wrote in a column posted on TownHall.com Tuesday that the Post report left out many key facts to the dispute.

The Beaux-Arts building was in fact built by the Scouts and later given to the city in 1928, noted Knight.

He added that the Scouts had a lease “in perpetuity” with the city, an agreement that was not upheld by the City Council.

Knight also suggested that that the city stands to benefit greatly from the youth organization, noting that most of the crimes dealing with murder and violence are committed by fatherless young men.

In an interview on “Hannity & Colmes” Tuesday, Jeff Jubelirer, spokesman for Boy Scouts of America, said the group had already modified its policy with a non-discrimination statement issued by city officials.

The non-discrimination statement reads: "Prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of Cradle of Liberty Council.”

According to Jubelirer, the group was assured “that if you adopt this, we'll be fine, and nothing has happened since that time.”

The local chapter has also in the past tried to renounce an affiliation with the national policy in hopes of saving its headquarters but has met difficulties.

“We were trying to be amendable to all sides, but National would not allow us to keep that language, so we rescinded it,” said Jubelirer in the Post report. “We can’t have a policy where we put in specific words that National won’t allow or we’ll loose our charter. We can’t afford not to be part of the national Boy Scouts.”

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
  • Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:26 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    The building that the BSA rents from the city of Philly is given to them at one dollar a year in rent. The building is owned byt the city. If rented at market value, it would bring in a few hundred thousand dollars. Therefore, the taxpayers of Philly are subsidizing the BSA.

    That's fine, but then don't call it a private organization. If you want to be a private org, then don't accept public funds or subsidies. If you do, then you have to play by the rules, and that means, in the case of Philly, that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

    Dont' like it? Then don't accept the subsidy, or change the law, or change the BSA.

  • Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:50 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    Regardless of what one thinks about homosexuality, the BSA is a PRIVATE organization, THEY build the building which they've allowed the city of Philadelphia to use for all these years, and it is WRONG that any government at any level should dictate to them what they can or cannot do with it. If the solicitor were not a homosexual himself, this wouldn't even be happening. I hope someone in Philadelphia will be less concerned about being politically "correct" than doing the RIGHT thing.

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:58 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    "they’re a family, him, his four wives, and his very tall sons. I figure, if he ever becomes a Christian… we won’t ever let him become an elder."
    Exactly. Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Maybe if I repeat it a few times you might get it. How about some flash cards? You think you'll get it then? Maybe draw some stick figures for you on a marker board?

  • GMG »
    Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:42 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Sigh-h-h-h-h-h, I went to dictionary.com and retrieved this little tidbit.

    Definition of a:
    6. one (used before a noun expressing quantity): a yard of ribbon; a score of times.

    Sometimes I think truth has become so relative in this crazy world that becoming a hermit seems to have more pluses than minuses.

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    GMG,

    You asked, “am I missing something here?”

    Yup, you’re missing something :^)

    Ya know, it’s a funny thing this conversation. I live just a few miles from the second largest polygamist sect in the U.S. Some of their big houses are just a walk away from my home. I’ve even been to church with them once (that was an interesting experience). One of my best friends used to be a member. I know of one polygamous family that has since left that church, they keep up the arrangement for the sake of the kids and because… well… they’re a family, him, his four wives, and his very tall sons. I figure, if he ever becomes a Christian… we won’t ever let him become an elder.

    Polygamy… it’s not abnormal here.

    http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/

  • GMG »
    Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ifeelfine and didymus - am I missing something here? Are you saying that these passages allow for more than one, such as 1 man and 2 women are okay, or whatever?

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    but the point is this....so try and follow along.... God ordained marriage between "one" man and "one" woman. Anything other than that is wrong.

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    youre right didymus...i looked up the word "a" in the dictionary. And it said "multiple of items, or more than one;numerous" sorry for being so presumptuous to think that "a" meant "one".

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    jester_the_King _of_dense,

    1. You need to take an English refresher course.
    2. More importantly, you need to learn some manners.

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    I'm sorry you're so dense, ifeelfine...let me quote it. It says the same thing:
    Genesis 2:24 "For this reason A (singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more) man will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE (wife...not wives--singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more), and they will become one flesh."

    Hold on...lets try New Testament....Ephesians 5:31 "For this reason A (singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more) man will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE (wife...not wives--singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more), and they will become one flesh."

    Matthew 19:5 says "And said, For this cause shall A ( singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more)man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife (wife...not wives--singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more): and they twain shall be one flesh?
    running out of arguments that you have to nitpick between "one" and "a"? Last time I checked the word "a" meant "one". I can't even believe you said "Jesus never said "one". I've heard better arguments from a 5 year old. But nice effort in tryng to avoid the truth...didn't work, but still looked good.

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Jester - Jesus didn't use the word "one." Look it up

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Jesus himself spoke of one man and one woman...so it's not quasi-biblical. Paul did too.

  • Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks Didymus, I'll check him out.

    maranatha7593 - I wasn't one. I know lots of other faiths consider homosexuality to be wrong. I'm not a part of those faiths, I'm a Christian. But even in the history of Christianity marriage hasn't always been defined as one man and one woman - its sometimes been one man and multiple women. The notion of "traditional marriage" is made up and only quasi-Biblical.

  • Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    dont you realize that this country and world is going down the toilet? And that it has to? Things are just going to get worse...and worse.....until it's ripe for the antichrist to come in and "bring peace" to a divided world.
    It's a rollercoaster ride, so sit down, buckle up, and hang on.....

  • Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    token:

    Your reasons for redefining marriage do not validate homosexual behavior as being normal, acceptable, right. There is no reason here in the US why homosexual "couples" cannot live in peace. They are not being deprived of being with anyone. They have been doing that for quite some time.

    You said, "I realize that Christians do not interpret the world without the Bible for lense, and to me that only exemplifies the dangers religion pose on society."

    If people do "interpret the world" without the Word of God being their standard, they are not Christians. This is not my theory, it's what Jesus Himself taught throughout His ministry on earth.

  • Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72:

    Someone here had asked if any other faith besides Christianity deemed homosexualty to be abnormal. I answered by saying:

    "Yes, homosexuality has been considered abnormal and sinful by other faiths besides Christianity. Islam is probably the most obvious example. And from antiquity, in every culture/faith, "marriage" has been defined as a binding union between a man and a woman."

    It IS true that marriage has been defined as a binding union between men and women since antiquity -- not only in cultures based on Biblical faith, but also in cultures whose morals are not based on Biblical standards.

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    jc4me,

    I'm sorry you feel that way.

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:32 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    How Wonderful Didymus, you are further deceiving ifeelfine by encouraging him to read the heretical teachings of Brian Mclaren the Liberal/Post-modern/emergent.

    Great, the spiritually blind leading the spiritually blind.

  • GMG »
    Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Oops, the last sentence on my post doesn't belong there, so ignore it :)

  • GMG »
    Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:00 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Ifeelfine and didymus - all right guys, perhaps you need to go back a few posts and read what Token and I were discussing. The issue of NAMBLA is a part of the issue of homosexuality, and I sure have read more about "christian" atrocities throughout the ages than about NAMBLA in these discussions. And Ifeelfine, your sarcasm does not become you, and insults do not change the facts.

    TokenSP - NAMBLA is not LAMBDA, and since I already know that you do many searches, you're not really fooling me. I agree that NAMBLA is an uncomfortable subject, but it is there all the same.
    Sorry you don't like it, but discussing this group

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine72,

    I recommend Brian Mclaren, I recently finished one of his earlier books, “A New Kind of Christian”, the other day. It wasn’t great, but it’s a good opener on emergent church stuff. I think better and deeper stuff can be found at http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/ and the book series they are releasing. I’ve read both of the books already published. That second one, by Caputo, titled “What Would Jesus Deconstruct?” I think you would appreciate.

    http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:45 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Hey Jester in the Kings Court:

    I think you also may have forgotten GLSTEN. They are allowed to go and teach kids in Sout Florida Public schoold about some subjects I'd rater not talk about, but nevermind, like other's on this site say, I guess we're just blind right wing Cristian fundamentalists creating a conspiracy, and there is no gay agenda. Nope, I don't see one here anywhere................WRONG.


    Thank you Dydimus, but the list did not include Nambla, and since both you and others on this site oterwise would like to exclude Nambla from the conversation, then I just brouht it up again. By the way, mentioning nambla is not a derrogatory remark. It is a factual part of this discussion which should be and will be brought up. And please do read the Book of Jude and memorize it. Let it trully speak to your heart about false doctinr ad false teachers who will twisst the Scriptures. Hopefully it will make some headway in the liberal/post modern way you think and express yourself on this site.

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    jc4me,

    You said, “but i must point out, you forgot one more: NAMBLA… “

    It appears that you’re obviously not paying any more attention to this conversation. Just dropping a derogatory statement here-n-there, letting everybody know you still exist, and that you still don’t like gays.

    I know, I know… I’ll go read Jude again, so you don’t have to post it this time.

    http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:07 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine wrote:

    "jc4me - I don't know who Brian McLaren is. I'll check him out . . . I still need to check out joe dallas - I'll go to the bookstore this weekend and check."

    Brian Mclaren is a heretic who has watered down Scriptures, and has a very liberal view on hell and homosexuality. He is one of the founders, and the leading voice in the post modern/extremely liberal emergent church movement which has sought out to rethink, and redefine Christianity, and the Bible. This is why I equated your views on promoting homosexuality with those of Brian McLaren. You can find out more about his extremely erroneous views as well as other heresies within the "emerging church movement" at www.understandthetimes.org; that is of course if you're trully willing to be exhorted in the truth of the Word of God.

    Joe Dallas is the founder of Genesis Counseling which I think you should check out. I remember you said you had some homosexual friends, and i thought you might want to introduce them to this ministry. There is also Exodus International. And lastly, if you live in South Florida in the Ft. Lauderdale Area, there is also a ministry to the homosexual community called Worthy Creations at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church.

    I hope this helps, and I'll be praying that you will come to a knowledge of the truth regarding this sin.


    Taken from joe dallas's website: www.joedallas.com

    "Joe Dallas' ministry in sexual addiction recovery and homosexuality is nationally recognized. He is the author of The Game Plan, The Men's 30-Day Strategy for Attaining Sexual Integrity (Thomas Nelson), and Program Director of Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California.

    "No one understands the subject of sexual purity better than Joe Dallas." - Hank Hanegraaf, Host of The Bible Answer Man Show"

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    jester_in_the_Kings_court: you are so correct, but i must point out, you forgot one more:

    NAMBLA which is also a very sick organization which doesn't get much play on the more secular progressive and liberal TV and Radio Stations, because obviusly, they don't think there is muc harm being done by this organization and the ones you mentioned. Thanks for presenting facts to ifeelfine who would rather dismiss the facts and present fiction as evidence in his quest to promote the homosexual agenda.

    Ifeelfine, previously you made a comment to me saying that it was unloving to say there were liberal judges pushing for the homosexual agenda, and it seems that the organizations listed have proven that those organizations exist, and may I add, do have their own agenda.

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, I really like your comment "You have no idea how stupid it looks to everyone when you talk about the "homosexual agenda" or the "homosexual movement." There is no such thing. There are no recruitment meetings, no meetings on formalizing any kind of agenda."
    Ok..so here it goes...
    Lambda Legal - Legal Help for LGBT People
    Colage, For People with LGBT Parents
    International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission
    Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
    Lambda Legal
    National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF)
    Gay & Lesbians Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
    Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
    Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
    Egale Canada
    American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
    Stonewall Democrats
    Log Cabin Republicans

    Wow! So that's a lot of "no agendas" and " no homosexual movements".

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72,

    You said, “Homosexuality might not be in the majority but it is certainly normal. And every society has and had gay people. And with somewhere between 5-10% of the population I can't imagine societies going extinct specificallly because of that. It might be an evolutionary anomaly but it certainly isn't abnormal.”

    You definitely bring to light some of the things that make my argument not so great. But still, I do think that the church at least should approach such an issue as this with trepidation, even if we were to determine that it’s just “cultural”, we in the church would still have to deal with Romans 14-15.


    GMG,

    I completely agree with ifeelfine72, stop trying to define all homosexuals by the example of some extremist group. You don’t like it when conservative Christians are defined by Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, or Eric Rudolph and the Christian Identity movement (or at least I hope you don’t like it), so stop associating homosexuals with NAMBLA.

    http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/

  • Tom »
    Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GMG you right. one only needs to do a little research and one can find this agenda to make homosexaulity acceptable and main stream and special. one only needs to look to Canada, Sweden,England as well as others to see the repercussions of this homosexual agenda that ifeefine denies is there and Token agrees with. Token--- How is it affirmative action when you are giving someone special rights for something that is a choice, no matter how difficult it is. Oh well it is a fallen world indeed. Gods Blessing on you and yours
    In Christ
    Tom

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    GMG - It is ridiculous. You have no idea how stupid it looks to everyone when you talk about the "homosexual agenda" or the "homosexual movement." There is no such thing. There are no recruitment meetings, no meetings on formalizing any kind of agenda. There are gay people who are pretty passionate about their rights.

    NAMBLA is a fringe group - certainly not part of any "gay agenda." Most gay people I know find that group as disturbing as the rest of us.

    It's like equating all conservative Christians with people who blow up abortion clinics. If we're talking about conservative Christians, we have to talk about those people. Do you bomb abortion clinics, GMG? You can't bury your head in the sand to what other conservative Christians are doing . . . do you see how ridiculous and insulting that argument is?

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What do they do? Do they take people to court to gain more rights? Do they try to pass hate crime laws? I happen to agree with these laws. I equate this to affirmative action.

  • GMG »
    Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:42 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Ifeelfine - you said "GMG - Stop throwing up strawmen. You keep equating gay people with pedophiles, NAMBLA, etc. That is a ridiculous arguement."

    I don't "keep" equating gay people with pedophiles, NAMBLA, etc. This train of thought has come up as a natural progression in the discussion. And unfortunately, it is not ridiculous. I didn't invent this group, and their existence is a part of the homosexual movement. If you are going to discuss issues surrounding this lifestyle, can you really justify leaving this part out as if it doesn't exist? Hiding your head in the sand doesn't make it go away.

    You tend to make statements and then refuse to discuss them. I am sorry that you find the subject of NAMBLA uncomfortable, and I can understand why it does, as it doesn't fit neatly into your assertions regarding homosexuality. Just as 1Cor 7:12-14 does not fit neatly into your ideas on marriage. You can't pick and choose what the Bible says about God's design for Hiis people.

  • GMG »
    Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    TokenSP - you said "Im sorry what about them? A group for gays... if they've done something controversial you'll have to enlighten me.

    NAMBLA stands for North American Man/Boy Love Association. You assert that a pedophile is evil, but homosexuality is not. This group makes it into the news even. Look up their web site. Then tell me what you think.

  • Tom »
    Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ah token I wasn't talking about what you think but, what the worldview as presented by evolution theory holds to be evil, Under this then it would be then true. By the way I don't think that mentally impaired people are evil either, they didn't have choice in th matter. Gods Blessing
    In Christ
    Tom
    Tom

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well I take that back. Liberal Christians are quite adaptable to modern times... fundamentalists are what scare me...

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To Tom;
    To go by those standards it would be adequate to call mentally impaired people a hinderance to evolution therefore bad therefore evil. I do not find mentally impaired people to be evil, even though they do hinder the process of evolution.
    To marantha
    Giving lists of people who also disagree with the view of homosexuality does not validate that homosexuality is evil. And I know why it is bad in the Bible, it is bad because it is sin, but I contend that there is no reason given that justifies it as being evil. It is merely a couple living in peace whom love eachother dearly as any man and woman would. We are depriving people of the ability to be with whom they love. You tell me if you would not be infuriated if they didnt allow you to marry the man or woman you loved? Are these people not humans? Do you intend to keep putting through trials before they can ever attain what we already have? Imagine, your children could have turned out to be gay, and any child you may have is not free from this possibility. Unfortunately I realize that Christians do not interpret the world without the Bible for lense, and to me that only exemplifies the dangers religion pose on society =/.

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GMG - Stop throwing up strawmen. You keep equating gay people with pedophiles, NAMBLA, etc. That is a ridiculous arguement.

    jc4me - I don't know who Brian McLaren is. I'll check him out . . . I still need to check out joe dallas - I'll go to the bookstore this weekend and check.

    maranatha7593 - Marriage has been defined as a man and a women forever? Check your facts, heck, read the Bible. Polygamy is certainly not a man and a woman - more like men and women! Ha

    didymus - this might be the first time I disagree with you. Homosexuality might not be in the majority but it is certainly normal. And every society has and had gay people. And with somewhere between 5-10% of the population I can't imagine societies going extinct specificallly because of that. It might be an evolutionary anomaly but it certainly isn't abnormal.

    Tom - evolution doesn't make moral judgments. Its a branch of biological science, not philosophy.

  • Tom »
    Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Token you ask if homosexaulity is evil outside of the Christian world view. I believe that one of the tenants of the atheistic worldview is evolution and one of the beliefs in evolution is survivable of the fittest. Life is spent trying to live eternally by procreating and giving our DNA to another combining them with the opposite sex thus creating a new life and achiving our goal. This is considered the norm and is good I suppose in the eyes of the evolutionists, it is the way it should happen. Otherwise the species goes no further and dies out. This is bad. So anything that hinders that process is considered bad. Homosexaulity will not further the species at all. It could be considered a determent to the evolution of the species, in this case mankind. So since for most people good= good and bad = evil and evil. would that not make homosexuality evil or wrong or sinful to the evolutionary worlview? (sin is really a archery term meaning missing the mark.) Is not homosexaulity missing the mark? sin? which is evil. food for thought
    Gods blessing on you and yours
    In Christ
    Tom

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    TokenSP:

    With all due respect, why should Christians view homosexuality (or any other issue, for that matter) apart from what the Bible says? When you come to a website which is frequented by Christians, do you expect Christians to disregard and put aside the standard of God's Word when discussing anything, including morality? If so, why?

    Before I became a Christian, I did view issues through the lens of my own understanding, my own finite mind. But then my eyes were opened to understand that God's wisdom is as high above my own as the heavens are above the earth. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Wisdom and He enables Christians to view all issues, including morality, through God's perspective, as we fellowship with Him.

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:54 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    didymus:

    Aren't Bible-believing Christians forced to pay (through taxes) community costs for 'Gay Pride' events, for tax-supported abortions, and other such things which grieve the heart of God?

    ALERT: The BSA is NOT discriminating against homosexuals! They simply want to continue the exact policies they've had for more than 100 years. It is homosexuals who have invented this idea of so-called 'discrimination'. Does the BSA 'discriminate' against girls? Of course not!

    The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of BSA to set their own standards, so what then gives Philadelphia City Solicitor Diaz the right to set a Dec. 3 deadline for the Boy Scouts to either renounce their moral standards or lose their OWN building they purchased themselves almost 80 years ago and have allowed the city to use all these years?

    The Scouts had a lease “in perpetuity” with the city, an agreement that has not been upheld by the City Council.

    Is it right for city (or any) government to dictate to a private group which is NOT supported by taxes what they can do with their OWN property and what they CANNOT do? Absolutely not.

    If this ruling is allowed to go stand, what other private organizations will also be affected by this precedent? That would not be just. I am hoping the people of Philadelphia will wake up to this atrocity and put pressure on their city government leaders to do the RIGHT thing.

  • Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:49 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    TokenSP:

    Yes, homosexuality has been considered abnormal and sinful by other faiths besides Christianity. Islam is probably the most obvious example. And from antiquity, in every culture/faith, "marriage" has been defined as a binding union between a man and a woman.

    The Bible defines all forms of immorality as sin, and not just sin, but sin against one's own body. Some forms of immorality are not only called sin in the Bible but are given the stronger term of abomination: Homosexuality, incest, and bestiality are on that list. Which means they are not only sins, they are abominable in God's sight.

    Any sin which is not confessed and repented of will keep us from Heaven.

  • Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Im sorry what about them? A group for gays... if they've done something controversial you'll have to enlighten me.

  • GMG »
    Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Jester - I believe I detect the first stages of Alzheimers........so maybe not quite perfect? !!!!!

    Didymus - you place yourself within the christian community, but you only use the Bible as a guide? And this makes sense because.............?

    TokenSP - you said "So to answer your question, if a gene was found in a pedophile that would justify why he did what he did, would I find it to be an acceptable behavior? Quite not at all... because children have not the mind nor the strength to overcome advances by fully grown adults. It is evil it is wrong. Homosexuality on the other hand has no such comparable characterstic."

    Ok, so explain NAMBLA.

  • Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Didymus said,
    "I feel your pain. I say this only half in jest, but I don’t think these guys even have it in them to understand. I’m willing to bet that every one of these guys believes in creation science (or at least intelligent design)."
    It is particularly funny that one would accuse posters on a site entitled "The Christian Post" as believing in Creation! It is along the same lines of telling an athiest to stand strong and firm in his faith.

    "Darwin is evil, science in general is evil, separation of church and state is evil. Why?"

    I don't think Darwin is evil....just not correct. As far as seperation of church and state....if you are referring to the Constitution and the First admendment where it provides that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..I agree!! I don't want a state ran church.

    "Because nothing is outside of their interpretation of the bible. For them the bible is not just a “guide” to God’s thoughts or a narrative of God’s interaction with humanity, it is much more than that, for them the bible is itself science, the bible is law, the bible is all encompassing."

    So, as a Christian, I should chunk the Bible, even though the Bible is the foundation of Christian belief. The Christian belief tells me the Bible is the inspired word of God. Wow!!(slaps palm to forehead!!) Christians should just look at the Bible as a narrative and not a divine work. Bolderdash!! The Bible is an inspiration, a source of comfort, a guide of the way we should live, a prayer manual, an answer to life's problems, it is the Christian's owners manual and the wellspring we draw from.

    "So, when you asked your question about whether homosexuality would still be considered evil if the Bible had not said so, if there was some outside source to point to its inherent evilness, the answer is quite impossible for them to even imagine."

    You see Didymus, everyone who has posted here has respect your opinions. You and others have raised questions, in which we answered, with answers based on our beliefs which encompasses the Bible. These little jabs by you are uncalled for and quite frankly, childish...i.e(the quibs with "these guys " "not finding answers here on the Christian Post" and "the answer is quite impossible for them to even imagine" ). I find it very offensive, as well as an assualt on our collective intelligence. I bid you good day.

  • Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    didymus:
    "I didn’t flag you, but someone obliviously more righteous than I did :^)"
    Oh. so it must have been me then! hahaha. o wait...why would I flag myself? I don't think i've ever said anything that's convicted myself....i'm perfect!
    Well...mostly perfect. somewhat perfect...
    kinda...perfect?
    good enough?

  • Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    TokenSP,

    You said, “And my pooint in saying to look at this without the Bible was to try and get you guys to see my point of view... and the point of view of hundreds others... if you do not wish to walk in our shoes, why should anyone else walk in yours? lol unfortunately I forget myself.. you guys are the majority =/.”

    I feel your pain. I say this only half in jest, but I don’t think these guys even have it in them to understand. I’m willing to bet that every one of these guys believes in creation science (or at least intelligent design). Darwin is evil, science in general is evil, separation of church and state is evil. Why? Because nothing is outside of their interpretation of the bible. For them the bible is not just a “guide” to God’s thoughts or a narrative of God’s interaction with humanity, it is much more than that, for them the bible is itself science, the bible is law, the bible is all encompassing. So, when you asked your question about whether homosexuality would still be considered evil if the Bible had not said so, if there was some outside source to point to its inherent evilness, the answer is quite impossible for them to even imagine.

    As for my own answer to your original question, I know there is nothing out there that says homosexuality, in and of itself, is evil, except for maybe one thing… I’ll call it tradition. For thousands of years homosexuality has been considered evil, in various cultures, and not just biblically oriented ones (of course there are significant exceptions, classical Greece for instance), and that tradition has developed itself for both good and bad reasons, as control valves on societies to protect them from danger. Look at it this way, I’m using an evolutionary argument for tradition here, survival of the fittest kind of thing, those cultures that accepted homosexuality have in a sense naturally selected themselves right on out of history.

    Now I’m not saying this is a great argument, but I personally don’t think we should just toss out thousands of years of tradition without a very good reason for doing so. Having said that, I do think the church needs to take a serious look at itself, its culture, its bias’s, both in its history and its scriptures, in order to really grasp that which animates the letter in the Bible. Maybe our view really is wrong, maybe it really is just culture speaking and not God, or maybe the answer is something more nuanced than just a simple reversal of position. (Unfortunately, you won’t find any of the here on the Christian Post.)


    jester_in_the_Kings_court,

    I didn’t flag you, but someone obliviously more righteous than I did :^)

    http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/

  • Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GMG...
    That's what's so sad. I don't remember what I wrote! hahaha. But it wasn't that bad. Probably someone got convicted and flagged me. it's a taste of what's to come in the future, eh?

  • Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sociopaths are sociopaths by nature. It is an attribute of their character, it is in their genes. Do I believe they should roam the streets? Dear God (no pun intended) no. Why? Because they have within them the ability to harm a person with out a single ounce of remorse, all for the pleasure of doing it. It is in their genes, and yet we still jail and even kill them. So to answer your question, if a gene was found in a pedophile that would justify why he did what he did, would I find it to be an acceptable behavior? Quite not at all... because children have not the mind nor the strength to overcome advances by fully grown adults. It is evil it is wrong. Homosexuality on the other hand has no such comparable characterstic.

  • Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72: sounds like you're getting your biblical interpretation from all of the liberal/progressive people like Brian McLaren.

  • Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    What you have in Romans 1: 18-32 is the natural course that sin takes in a person. Was Paul talking about sin(sexual immorality) as it relates to pagan rituals. No. It is much, much more than that. Paul, gives us a commentary on how sin runs it's course in society, corrupting everybody involved and is suprisingly accurate in how it relates to us today. In my opinion, if Paul had meant this to be only about pagan sex practices he would not have been so specific and deliberate in how he presents his words.

  • GMG »
    Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ok Token, calm down. But do answer me this question. If there is a gene found to predispose a person to be a pedophile, would you then determine that it was acceptable behavior. And why or why not?

    Jester - I'm innocent. So what did you say that was so flaggable?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a