inRich.com   


Keyword Search Site Web    Yahoo!

Barticles Blog
 

Barticles Home Page

RSS 2.0



Talk Among Yourselves
Bart Hinkle
April 04, 2007 9:18 AM

Note to regulars: Your Humble Servant stricken. Flu? Viral Gastroenteritis? Something like that. Anyhow, not fun.

Back soonish.


Reader Comments:

Margie, from your tone, I am guessing that you have exhausted what to say on this subject.

Don’t give up. The Supremes will find a way by five to four to find that the scouts can’t use a government vacant lot to hold a Jamboree everynow and again.

I appreciate your interest in this subject. The First Amendment simply put says that the government csnnot establish a religion or interfere with the peoples’ right to practice whatevet religion they want to. The intent has been festooned with all sorts of inferences.

There are so many implications to ruling that there can be no mix of religion and government. Should government employees get a Christmas holiday? Should the White House have a Christmas Tree?

The Supreme Court Building is covered inside and out with Judeo-Christian material in recognition of the foundation of our law. Should it be removed? Should the armed forces give up the Chaplains Corps? What about the Congress having a chaplain? And the Supreme Court?

Let’s face it. All of us need a break from this quagmire. If we could just go back to the original intent, all of the above absurdities would go away.

Posted by on 04/06 at 02:14 PM

Yes, John, I spluttered through it, my spleen rising. I’m aware that I’m fighting a losing, unpopular battle here.

It remains to be seen whether they are right or wrong on the constitutional issue. The battle is not over yet. Nor will it be anytime soon. I don’t want to see the Boy Scouts injured by this, I want to see them improved and inclusive.

Posted by Margie on 04/06 at 12:33 PM

Margie, I am sure that you read today’s editorial about the Boy Scouts. It covered additional aspects of the situation.

Posted by on 04/06 at 11:46 AM

Sorry, Bill, I am completely against the death penalty. I was sorry to see his veto over-ridden. But the people spoke through their representatives and if I don’t like it, I can work to change it. At least one of the additions did not survive. My stand on the death penalty wavers with each new DNA advancement. The fear of executing an innocent man is the basis for most of my reluctance. Mixed in is the question; What is the differenc between citizens taking a life and the state, acting in the citizens name, doing the same thing for retaliation or revenge?Actually the latter is more deliberate, cold-blooded and premeditated. Protecting the citizens can’t be it, because no studies that I am aware of have proven a connection between the death penalty and the deterence of crime. Life in prison would do as much. Guess we would rather kill them than feed them.

Posted by Margie on 04/05 at 10:38 PM

Only when the definitions, ‘immoral, and abnormal’ change and gays become accepted as another example of nature at work will this rediculous discrimination stop. Maybe someday.

Posted by Margie on 04/05 at 10:24 PM

Margie, to answer your question about the collapse of the scouts, the structure would change. Eventually the boys and their parents would lose interest in belonging, and the whole movement would wither on the vine.

Posted by on 04/05 at 08:51 PM

Speaking of regulars, where are you, Scott, Chris?

Posted by Margie on 04/05 at 08:50 PM

Using your approach, they should include everybody, sexual predators and criminals of every stripe, prostitutes, etc. The scouts are not adults, and, in my opinion, should not be exposed to immoral behavior.

Churches are not hotels for saints; but hospitals for sinners. They should minister to all people, but their mission is to bring all sinners to whatever God the church believes in.

I just don’t think young boys need to be exposed to every possible behavior.

If they should,why not let them drive cars when they are 12. And drink booze. I could go on, but what’s the use?

Posted by on 04/05 at 08:45 PM

How would the Scouts collaspe from their religious sponsers living up to the teachings of thier Christ and including all boys? They are being hypocritical in excluding the ones they don’t approve of. Must one be perfect in the eyes of the church in order to attend? If so, there would be a lot of empty churches. What is the difference? If they love these “imperfect” boys, do they think they are accomplishing anything by leaving them out of this life-influencing experience?

Posted by Margie on 04/05 at 06:52 PM

Margie, somehow, I expected that you would say that. If the scouts have to change to include the ones you want to see plus girls, which you left out, the scout movement will collapse. It is largely sponsored by religious organizations.

Posted by on 04/05 at 06:21 PM

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Post Your Comments:

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

--- advertising ---

 
 
 
 
 
 

News | Sports | Entertainment | Living | Shopping/Classifieds | Weather | Opinion | Obituaries | Services/Contact Us
© 2008, Media General Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Conditions | Site Map
-- Part of the GatewayVa Network --
webmaster@inrich.com