Hunt

Trevorum, which "people" are you intending to label? Does saying that you believe something is a sin mean that you "loathe" it? I like to draw distinctions and try to have a civil discourse, but I suppose it is easier to simply label people who disagree with you as "bigots."

"So, it might be argued that marriage at 12 or at most any age would be a law most Churches would uphold because Churches believe in marriage." Well, any nutty thing might be argued, but you can't know much about churches if you think that "most" of them would support a law allowing 12-year-old children to get married, whether they are pregnant or not. Perhaps you are under the impression that in all cases church people think that pregnant girls should be pressured to marry the father--I don't know if that was ever true, but it's certainly not true now. The weird thing about this is that even in the case that gave rise to this discussion, there was nobody arguing that 12-year-olds should be allowed to marry. What happened was that a judge noted that under traditional common law (that's the common law of England going back centuries), marriage of a 12-year-old girl could be deemed legal. The case he was considering involved a girl who had begun a relationship at age 15 with the consent of her parents. I still think that is too young, and the judge made bad law because he was facing a difficult case, but it really has nothing to do with 12-year-olds. (I would bet you that the case would have turned out differently if the girl had been 12 rather than 15, no matter what her mother thought about it.)

"Actually, genetic determination has nothing to do with morality in my book. I think it can't be morally wrong because I've seen the looks of love, the tender touches, the respect and uplifting between partners that occurs in homosexual relationships. I've seen such relationships heal the souls of those who have been lost all their lives. I've seen such relationships create families with children who grow into responsible, loving, wonderful adults in their own time. Forgive me if I wax poetic, but in my work and in my life, I have the seen the love, and I can't for the life of me label it immoral." Well, O.K. Of course, such an argument can be made for polygamous families, families in which the heterosexual partners aren't married, etc. I would probably say that just because somebody is involved in a sinful lifestyle doesn't mean that they are depraved in every area of their lives. "I agree with you (and with Beaver and his diabetes analogy) that not all genetic predispositions are automatically right and good. However, my point is that it has as much of a bearing on morality as other genetic predispositions. Is someone who has Type I diabetes "immoral" just because they deviate from the "norm" (norm here meaning "majority")? Is someone with brown hair somehow morally superior to someone with blonde hair?" How about somebody who is genetically predisposed to alcoholism, who drinks, drives, and kills somebody? Has he committed an immoral act? I would say that it's that person's misfortune--and burden--that his genetic makeup has put him at a greater risk of committing particular immoral acts than other people. "Hunt, you don't think that this obsession with gays as potential child molesters who are unable to control their sexual urges fits your definition of homophobia?" I do--I thought I said that. "I have no problem with someone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, but doesn't shout about it from the rooftops. It's those people who beat the wardrum to limit the rights of homosexuals to marry, to raise children, to be involved in our society as equal human beings because of the actions of someone else that causes no harm and does not affect them personally in any way. I think that fits your definition of homophobia pretty well." What specifically are you talking about? I was talking about somebody who doesn't want a gay person to be a Scout leader because they think homosexual behavior is a sin, and that the gay person wouldn't be a good role model. That certainly affects them personally. I don't think that's homophobia at all. "If you want to think homosexuality is immoral, fine. If you even want to preach about it from your church pulpit or teach it in your Sunday school, go for it. But don't do it in my face (i.e. in public), or teach it to MY children, and don't try to use your idea of morality to codify discrimination into our laws. And since the BSA is NOT a Christian church, I personally think it has no place here, either." I'm a little perplexed with the idea that discussing morality in public is somehow improper. Would you say that to somebody who was campaigning against legalized gambling on moral grounds? "Homophobic" is a beautiful PR creation--other interest groups should adopt the same approach. Opponents of gambling could be called "funophobes," opponents of alcohol could be called "alcophobes." Those who favor tougher immigration laws could be labeled "xenophobes"--(maybe that's already being done). My point is that the term "homophobia" has some bite when applied to people who exhibit over-the-top revulsion, but it loses its meaning if it simply means anybody who has any moral objections to any aspect of homosexual behavior. And by the way, are you OK with not teaching MY children that homosexuality is moral?

Make sure you don't refer to the "Civil War"--it's the "War Between the States," or even better, the "War of Northern Aggression." Have a great time--I'm sure you'll find Georgians to be very friendly.

A few points to follow up on what others have said: 1. I was addressing why a parent might object to people with certain lifestyles serving as role models to their children. I agree that BSA hasn't made it clear why it sets a rule for one of these, but not others. Would BSA take action to remove a male leader who was living with a woman to whom he was not married? I really don't know. But again, I was countering the idea that it's irrational for anyone to object to gay leaders--it's not irrational at all, if your faith teaches that it's a serious sin. 2. Several people seem to assume that if a particular sexual orientation is genetically determined, that it thus can't be morally wrong to engage in actions consistent with that orientation. That does not necessarily follow, and certainly nobody would accept it as an excuse if it were proven that pedophilia is genetic, for example. Certainly, it makes it tougher to argue if you have to say that a person must be permanently celibate to avoid sin--but again, we'd say that about a genetic pedophile, wouldn't we? 3. I agree that it's of primary importance what the leaders actually do in front of the scouts. However, that's not the end of the story, especially if you live in a community where people have general knowledge of others. I may not want my child to look to a person as a role model when that person is living a lifestyle that my family considers immoral, even if the behavior doesn't appear in front of my child--it still matters if my child knows about it. I wouldn't want Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich to be my son's unit leader, for example, because of their personal morals. 4. One more thing on "homophobia"--I don't think it's fair to label somebody as a homophobe simply because he believes that homosexual behavior is a sin. For me, what seems like homophobia is the disproportionate revulsion some people have to this particular sin, as opposed to others, and perhaps the disproportionate fear of harm from homosexual molestation as opposed to other forms of harm. I think it is FAR more likely that your child will get killed as a result of adults that don't follow safety rules than it is that your child would be molested by an openly gay scout leader. If you really want to protect your children, you'd do better looking into leaders' driving records than into their sexual leanings.

To generalize this a bit, what are the reasons that I would not want a person living what I consider to be an immoral lifestyle to be my child's unit leader? I think there are several possibilities: 1. I might be concerned that the leader would do something to harm my child. 2. I might be concerned that the leader's position as a role model might influence my child to adopt the same immoral lifestyle. 3. I might have a more general concern that exposure to such a person might generally cause my child to question his family's moral teachings before he is sufficiently mature to do so. Depending on your own moral views, and the particular lifestyle involved, all of these might make sense. For example, a leader who drinks heavily or uses illegal drugs might fit all three. A person living in an intimate relationship that I consider immoral is not likely to fit the first, but it may fit the other two. You also have to take into account how seriously immoral the particular lifestyle is in your own set of views--clearly, there are some people who think smoking is morally worse than homosexuality, and others who think the opposite. So while it may make some people feel better to use labels like "homophobic" for anyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, that really doesn't get to the concern that many parents would have. If somebody didn't want a heterosexual leader who is living with somebody out of wedlock, would that be a "phobia" too?

"I especially enjoy walking down the street and seeing what I think is some nut case talking to himself only to walk by and notice the earbud stuck in his ear." I've experienced this many times, but recently I turned the corner. I saw a person talking and gesticulating, and assumed he was talking on a cell phone--but in fact, he was talking to himself.

"I think it's important to remember in da BSA system that the CO's goals are the ones that are most important. So the question of whether the adult (or youth) leaders signing off on requirements are being too harsh or too lenient depends primarily on how well their use of the method is achieving the CO's aims and purposes." I guess I don't disagree with this, although even the CO can't add to the requirements. I can imagine, for instance, that if the CO was the local rescue squad, it might want scouts to show real mastery of first aid requirements. But I have to say that I suspect the vast majority of harsh interpretations come from individual scouters, not from a policy of the CO--and there I continue to think that the opinions of others should be persuasive.

It's very difficult to balance the system of civil lawsuits so that on one hand, people can't easily bring frivolous lawsuits that pressure large organizations into paying out unjustified settlements, and on the other hand, people with real claims aren't discouraged from seeking justice because of the risks that big corporations with expensive lawyers will leave them to pay the bills. From my perspective, the claims that there are vast numbers of frivolous lawsuits costing zillions of dollars are overblown, and the system is pretty well balanced as it is.

I think Eamonn puts his finger on why a question like this is hard to answer--we don't know the timeline of these various problems. If the "real" concern is that the boy hasn't been around since 9/05, that won't matter if he's fulfilled all the requirements. It's not unusual for a boy to do everything except his project, or maybe one merit badge, disappear, and then reappear to finish that last item. While it's far from ideal, I personally think it's better than not returning to finish.

"Church people are the happiest because another child of poverty is alive and well, so marriage at 12 is exactly what the anti-abortion crowd has longed for all of these years." What church would that be? I am familiar with churches that teach that abortion is wrong, but I hadn't heard of the one that promotes unwed motherhood, or childbearing at age 12. Personally, I think the Colorado court's decision was not well-reasoned. If the legislature set a minimum age for marriage of 16 (and even that required parental consent), I think that should have been held to modify the common law with respect to the minimum age of common law marriage that could be recognized. It should be a pretty easy legislative fix, anyway. Maybe this was just one of those hard cases that make bad law.

"The majority of the people on this planet at one time believed the sun and stars revolved around the earth." Whether the sun revolves around the earth or not is ultimately not a matter of opinion. Whether an adult scout leader is interpreting the advancement requirements too harshly or too leniently is a matter of opinion, and the prevailing opinion of the majority of leaders should be persuasive, if not dispositive. "At best, a friendly commish should gently prod the #1-3's to tighten up a bit, and prod the #10's to lighten up a bit. Both in a friendly way that doesn't annoy people who are generous volunteers." I agree with this.

Perhaps what makes people more uncomfortable about this situation is the government telling businesses what to think. You can easily imagine some governments refusing to do business with companies that DO donate to scouting. But remember, we're talking about a situation in which the government is a customer--the issue is what criteria we think it's OK for the government to apply in deciding who to do business with. Is it OK for the government to decide whether the "values" of the business are acceptable? It seems to me that looked at this way, liberals and conservatives should have the same concerns about this.

OGE, I like your idea too--it just might work, if National would put a major ad campaign behind it.

To a certain extent, I think I agree with what Beavah is saying. The way I would put it, though, is that I am not going to challenge the SM or other dedicated leaders over small stuff, or stuff that, although not exactly right, isn't inconsistent with what the organization is trying to accomplish. The trick is deciding which side of the line a particular issue is on. For me, requiring Life candidates to lead their service projects would be enough over the line for me to press the issue. Whether it would be far enough for me to appeal, or to leave the unit, I don't know.

Beavah, I like your example, because I think it demonstrates my point--the majority of people (I hope) would be somewhere between 4 and 7. 8 would be considered a pretty tough grader, and 9 would be an outlier. If you are in 9, you may not be "wrong" in your interpretation, but I think most people would think that your approach is inconsistent with what the majority of Scouters would consider appropriate for a Second Class requirement. Personally, I don't have a problem with somebody a bit to one side of the peak of the bell curve, but I think a person insisting on an extremely tough version of advancement requirements is unfairly burdening the boys who are looking to him for honest leadership, and is almost as problematic the leader who cheats the boys by letting them skate through without really doing the requirements.

It's my opinion that very little of the membership decline can be ascribed to anything that the national or council organizations have done. I just don't think the mismanagement issues, or other national issues, have that much to do with whether a particular boy decides to give scouting a try. I think the main causes are more local, and I think the competition from other activities is the main reason for the decline. Increased competition means you need a better product than before if you want to maintain market share--and we are generally providing the same product we have been for many years. Don't get me wrong--it's still a great product, but people have more choices. When I was a boy, many of the guys I knew were in scouts. I suspect that if the kinds of organized sports leagues that exist now had existed back then, some of those boys would have done that instead. I do fault the national and council organizations for not doing more to promote the product, however. I think there should be much more investment in advertising, for example. Why don't I see ads for Cub Scouting during SpongeBob, for example? Or on Nickelodeon? Or in comic books? That's something BSA could do that the sports leagues can't do, because there IS a national organization with resources.

Would it be fascism if a Democratic administration refused to do business with companies that only donated money to conservative causes? This is my problem--on the one hand, I'm troubled by governments using their contracting power to pressure companies into making or not making donations to particular organizations. On the other hand, should a government do business with companies that are ethically challenged in other ways? What if, say, a state said that it wouldn't buy products from companies offer benefits to same-sex couples, or to the contrary, wouldn't buy products from companies that didn't offer such benefits?

Let me suggest we try stepping back from particulars and think about this question of what is "adding" to requirements and what is "interpreting" requirements. I think the problem here is that whenever an organization gives discretion to members (or employees) to interpret rules, there will be outliers from what most people would consider a reasonable interpretation. When that happens enough, the organization may have to refine the rule. How can I judge whether my interpretation of the rule is a reasonable one, or is an outlier? Well, clearly if my intepretation is contrary to the words of the rule, or to clear explanations of the rule in the organization's literature, my view is an outlier. In addition, if after discussions and investigation, I find that a significant majority of others in the organization hold a contrary interpretation, that's pretty good evidence that my view is an outlier. Although because it's a matter of opinion, it may not be "wrong," exactly, but it's inconsistent with what other people are doing, and that should give me pause. This problem occurs so often with BSA because of the large number of rules we have, and with BSA's decision to leave many of them with room for interpretation. Then, a forum like this probably selects for people who like to debate the minutia, and we're off.

"Let Bank of America do what they want and let their customers decide what they want to do about it. It is called the American way." But the state is also a customer. I have trouble identifying the right principle here--should the state deal always with the low bidder, and never have any concern about the ethics of the businesses it deals with (as long as their activities are legal)?

Sheesh, guys, why do you keep challenging Merlyn on one of the few things he's right about? Even BSA has recognized that they couldn't continue having public schools charter units. Why? Because the well-established legal precedent made it obvious that U.S. federal courts would rule that public schools can't own or sponsor an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. You may not like this, but it's the law--the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is part of the law of the land. Remember, this is not about whether BSA units can use school property--they can, as long as it's open to all organizations. But a public school can't sponsor a religious organization. It's really that simple, and when you keep arguing the contrary, you're just inflaming a non-issue.

"Hunt, UU churches are not allowed to sponsor scouting unit per BSA national council, because the UUs said that they would not enforce the discriminatory membership policies within any units that they sponsored." That's not discrimination against UU, exactly--UU made it clear it wouldn't agree to the terms of the charter. BSA didn't need to "ban" UU churches, if none of the churches will agree to the charter. Assuming BSA was not willing to change its membership requirements, its hands were tied.

While a SM might successfully impose any requirements he or she wants to, a conscientious leader will want to know what the requirement is supposed to be, and will not add requirements, even if he or she knows the boys are unlikely to challenge them. To respond to some of LongHaul's points: "You say a SM should not impose conditions but the requirement makes no reference to what should and should not be approved as a service project." But a sensible reading of the requirement, especially when compared to the Eagle service project, helps one understand what is appropriate. "Is the SM forbidden from requireing more from a Star Scout than a First Class Scout?" The service project requirement is identical for both Star and Life ranks. "The requirement states at least 6 hours, does that men the SM can set a 20 requirement?" No. "Does at least mean no more than?" No, it means "at least." The Scout can work more hours, but when he's worked 6 hours, he's met the requirement. "We all know what we are trying to accomplish in being leaders and sometimes read things into the words or fail to read the words to suit our goals." Well, I agree with this--to me the words are pretty simple, and those who try to add a leadership requirement or increase the required hours are making the error you describe. "What I would like to discuss is how we interprete the written word consistantly. Unless National puts out a diffinitive list of acceptable projects it's the SM's choice to approve or not approve. Saying service is service and that the requirements for approval for Life should not exceed the requirements for approval for Second Class, except for duration, is an individual interpretation. In the end the wriiten requirment states that the SM must approve the project before it is done, it sets no other conditions. The requirements do not say that service projects shall not become more involved or demanding as the boy progresses in rank. The requirements set a minimum hour limit but do not set a difinitive hour limit. That is to say a service project lasting six hours is not necessarily acceptable as a Life project even though it may have been acceptable as a Star project. The requirements just don't say that even though some interperate them that way." They interpret it that way because it is the most sensible interpretation of the requirement as written. It is clear that helping an Eagle candidate with his project is appropriate for both the Star and Life requirements, and this may involve something pretty basic, like digging holes. The Star and Life ranks both have leadership requirements--position of responsibility requirements--leadership in a service project is a requirement only for Eagle candidates. Now, let me again qualify what I've said, and emphasize that I can imagine situations in which a SM might refuse to approve a service project. Examples: (1) paid work, or work for a for-profit organization. (2) work to benefit scouting (for the same reasons it isn't allowed for an Eagle project. (3) work that's part of the routine duties of the Scout (i.e., if he's an usher at church). (4) A project that is so trifling that it's unworthy--I admit that this one is subjective, and could be twisted to include leadership requirements and everything else, but I can't pretend that I would approve it if a scout came to me and told me he was going to, say, spend 6 hours watching cartoons with a sick friend.

"Wait a minute. Does that mean that if my son uses a cornet that he can't use the valves to change notes while working on his MB?" The MB requirements don't impose such a requirement. Unless the pamphlet clarifies this, I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. I suppose a Bugling MBC might argue that you can't "sound" a bugle call by pressing valves, but I think that's extreme. And what's the point? That's not how you play a trumpet or cornet.

Even if there are lots of terrible things going on in the upper echelons of scouting, I have to say that I think I get very good value for the money I pay for my son's registration, even when you add in the modest amount I give to FOS. I'm not trying to defend any of the actions complained about, but the organization is so big that I'm not convinced that shenanigans in a subset of councils is enough to tar the whole organization.