Ideology and principles can form from each other.
... which will lead to the relative isolation I outlined in the OP.
Then you've finally answered the question I asked in the OP. Thanks.
I think you have it in reverse. I think they're acting out of ideology formed by their principles.
Perhaps they aren't playing this like a game. Perhaps they have rules and stick to them, with no long term goal in mind.
I think using principles as a means to an end, instead of the end itself, is a good way to lose your principles.
Then you've finally answered the question I asked in the OP. Thanks.
Would you prefer to be ideologically pure and have few, if any, supporters or would you prefer to make ideological compromises and, as a result, have many supporters?
The Bible is very clear that homosexuals must be put to death.
We need to stop with this illusion that religion can be tolerant. It's not. You cannot be Christian and support gay rights because you are defying a tenet of your religion.
.
I agree that principles are important, but I would suggest that it's time for the Boy Scouts to re-examine their policies. The vast majority of Christian churches no longer shun gays. And if the parents really know a prospective Scoutmaster - which should be a prerequisite of letting ANYONE take your children into the woods - there is no reason to suspect that gay Scoutmasters should prove more of a danger to boys than do straight Scoutmasters. (That's an educated guess since I know very few gay people, but based on the people I've seen busted for child porn/child sex I think it's a reasonably safe guess.)Having principles means you're going to piss some people off. If you never have to suffer for your principles, then you're unprincipled.
I think they only risk being marginalized and sidelined by those who care little for it beyond its utility in bringing homosexual politics to the fore.
Why don't gay scouts start their own scouting organization that lacks such criteria?
You actually think Christianity cannot be tolerant? You haven't noticed the striking paucity of churches and/or Christians murdering homosexuals?They're a Christian organization. They should ban gays, and so should every other Christian organization. The Bible is very clear that homosexuals must be put to death.
We need to stop with this illusion that religion can be tolerant. It's not. You cannot be Christian and support gay rights because you are defying a tenet of your religion.
Remember those liberal nuns? Instead of simply leaving the Catholic church, they pretended they could reform it. What good does kind of stupidity do? All it does is let these religions keep hanging on long past their time.
They're a Christian organization. They should ban gays, and so should every other Christian organization. The Bible is very clear that homosexuals must be put to death.
We need to stop with this illusion that religion can be tolerant. It's not. You cannot be Christian and support gay rights because you are defying a tenet of your religion.
Remember those liberal nuns? Instead of simply leaving the Catholic church, they pretended they could reform it. What good does kind of stupidity do? All it does is let these religions keep hanging on long past their time.
Christians believe this is the literal word of God himself.
- KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
You actually think Christianity cannot be tolerant? You haven't noticed the striking paucity of churches and/or Christians murdering homosexuals?
Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuals, but he was a HUGE proponent of the 10 commanments, which have nothing to say about homosexuals.
So was he suppose to go through the OT line-by-line and reiterate every law?
Also, as far as I know Jesus had nothing to say about pedophilia either. Does that make pedophilia okay?
Christians believe this is the literal word of God himself.
- KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Wow, word of God huh? Some pretty backwards shit.
I am Christian and I support gays because it is one stupid ass line in a book who's content was decided on by a handful of people that makes Christians hate gays. And where did it say they must be put to death? I missed that part.
I recommend you read the book for yourself.
Matthew 7:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/us/california-gay-eagle-scout/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
Obviously, the Boy Scouts.. as a private organization.. can set whatever membership rules they want.. so this post isn't about that.
Instead, I'm using the story to ask a question that comes into play all the time in politics:
Would you prefer to be ideologically pure and have few, if any, supporters or would you prefer to make ideological compromises and, as a result, have many supporters?
It's a question facing the Scouts as they double-down on their chosen membership criteria and face the increasing odds of being marginalized and sidelined, but it's also a question for all of you.
There are areas where compromise is possible, and there are areas where it is not. If the price for standing up for your principles is that you end up without support from others, so be it, then that's the price you have to pay.
Of course, there's also nothing wrong with re-evaluating your own principles to make sure you believe them and want to stand by them.
It's very similar to when people call for the church to "update it's beliefs or get marginalized". That's plain stupid. If you believe something, you stand by it, and if nobody else wants to join you in that belief, that's fine. You don't change your beliefs to suit someone elses opinion.
Well, tolerance certainly starts with not killing people. Hopefully it goes a bit beyond that minimum.Woah a sec, possum.. I hope you're not saying that tolerance is linked to not killing people.
As long as they aren't trying to force, via law, their views on you then they are indeed tolerant. To be tolerant doesn't mean letting openly and active homosexuals be an active part of and get married in their Church, either. Some Churches have standards, and that's actually commendable. It's not a discrimination thing, though it's normally championed that way.
Since when did you not accepting something make you intolerant, or is that a bigoted-blanket way to [wrongly] lable all Chrisitians?
I can see why homosexuals don't mix well with reliigion in general. "You don't accept homosexuality based on your "holy book", you're intolerant"... no matter how many Christians are doctors, lawayers, cops, or perform many a civil/medical/legal service for homosexuals world-wide, without them even being aware that a religious person in doing it!
..or is it becasue they want to dictate who's allowed to serve as preists or can get married in their churches?
Well, there is no consequence if someone merely disagrees with and doesn't share your personal beliefs. There are, however, consequences to having and broadcasting fringe beliefs. Organizations like the Boy Scouts and various churches depend on money. If these organizations face significant reductions in funding because they don't reevaluate their beliefs, well, that's a cost that must be endured. The question becomes: what is the cost of standing by unpopular or scantly supported beliefs and is it worth paying or is reevaluation of those beliefs justifiable in order to keep the organization afloat?
Personal beliefs can also be costly. We may find ourselves with few or no friends and have an extremely difficult time finding a mate and family relationships can be strained. Beliefs can cost us financially, too. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we can justify having those beliefs.
Christians believe this is the literal word of God himself.
- KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.