Lesson: Don’t strip in an airport if you are ticked off about the security search. Only strip down when asked to.

Michael: I think it is unfortunate that they did not stand up for their principles earlier. I think one key issue here is the boy’s public argument (albeit within the group) against excluding athiests. He forced the issue when it would have been wiser to back down. The BSA leader was incorrect in ever letting him get to this point, but we do often turn away as long as things are not public (like your Lesbian in the church story). Principles should be adhered to across the board, which is apparently not the case here. The problem now is the case is public, which means it is a hill that the BSA will die on. They cannot back down, as it could have negative consequences in future legal matters.

Jim: I do not see a major definition shift here, although some do shift what can constitute racist. I believe there have always been racists practices, meaning that race is involved in the decision process (ie, hiring a quota, et al), and racists, people that practice racisom. Looking at the definition on m-w.com, you can see that racist can be used both as an adjective and a noun. Is Planned Parenthood racist? If the results (ie, hindsight) is the measure, it is an easy argument. As a larger percentage of blacks get abortions than whites, the quota system is in place. But, to use the quota system for causation is a racist methodology, so it is a razor thin distinction, using causation alone. If the intent of the founder was to have blacks aborted to avoid having them take over society, then her intent was definitely racially motivated, which makes her a racist and the initial intent racist.

Okay, here is a firebomb. AIDS is a curse against gays. Let’s examine this statement. If God were truly to put out a curse on homosexuality, is he not perfect enough to single out homosexuals. Look at Sodom! He took the one righteous family out and destroyed the rest, so he has ways of separating the wheat and tare. I won’t get into the debate of whether or not AIDS is a curse on immorality, as I just do not have enough energy at this time.

Eric: I believe the “anything not of faith” is apt. It is a standard we can never hope to achieve, so I do not attempt to hold anyone to it, as I cannot hold to it myself. God holds us to a much higher standard than we can ever attain. As there are elements in Harry Potter that fall outside of God’s perfect plan, I do not have a problem with parents keeping their children from it. I know people that edit Disney cartoons.

I never stated that Lewis and Tolkein’s works, as they were Christian, are sanctified. We have had this stupid thread before, so you should know where I stand rather than blindly arguing against small stones. I did state that there are some elements in Tolkein’s works that differentiate it from Harry Potter, but never that Tolkein’s works should be seen as exemplary Christian prose. You have completely mischaracterized my post in this matter. I purposefully kept it short, as we have jumped on this stupid topic one to many times, but apparently I should be more verbose to avoid mischaricterization.

As for parent’s choice, where does the vitriole come from here Eric? The statement was not out to attack anyone’s position, but was simply put out as a feeling. Oh, I guess I should keep from writing anything that is not part of the debate at large.

As for the scout: Yes, the scouts should have kept to principles from the beginning. I think it was the argument between the leader and this boy about athiesm that got the ball rolling. And, I am sure that the scouts cannot back down now, or their next visit to the Supreme Court will not be as friendly as there will be a major precedent. As such, they are both on a hill that they are willing to die on. As for the time issue, I was sincerely asking a question. The right thing to do, according to the principles of scouting, was to oust him immmediately. They did not. Now that it is public, the amount of work is inconsequential. If the scout leader brought this matter to the public, he should also be ousted, as he has not shown good sense and proper leadership. If the boy brought the matter public, it is much like throwing down a gauntlet in medieval times, and he needs to learn a bit about proper decorum. Yes, the scouts should have responded from the get go. The boy should not have argued about athiesm with his scout leader. Now, perhaps the scout leader should have dropped the debate, but I am not sure if he was there from the get go. It should have never been brought public, as it creates a situation in which no-one wins. There is a lot of stupidity going on; I just think we should hold back our opinions until all of the facts are out, as we do not know much about who knew what, when and the actual course of events.