NJCubScouter

"I trace the decline in civility to the invention of the telephone -- the computer's only made it worse." Hmmm, and to think I always attributed it to the use of self service pumps at the gas stations... Hmmm is right. That would mean New Jersey is one of the most "civil" states in the country because we don't have self-service pumps at our gas stations. Somehow I never thought of "most civil" as one of the top 10 adjectives to describe people in my state.

Ed, statements made in Issue and Politics require proof? Uh oh. That certainly is a standard that has not been applied previously. The forum would get awfully empty, fast.

Well, if the people selling the patch are telling the boys it is a collector's item and they will be able to sell it for more than they pay for it, that is wrong. Otherwise, as others have said, there are plenty of examples of the BSA and its sub-units selling things for exorbitant prices. Sometimes it is a thinly disguised donation, sometimes it is just a highly priced item that makes you wonder what this is doing in a Scouting catalog. Check out scoutstuff.org. You can have the BSA crystal candlesticks for only $107.95, or perhaps if you are on a tight budget you might prefer the "A Scout is Helpful" Norman Rockwell afghan for only $57.95, to keep you warm on winter campouts. Operators are standing by. But I say this at least partly in jest, because frankly I think raising money like this from people who can afford the BSA crystal candlesticks -- or the James E. West Fellowship knot for a mere $1,000 -- is better than things like raising registration fees or reducing services. (There, see, I said something supportive of the BSA! Mostly.)

For some reason, most of the cryptic, cloak-and-dagger, multiple-names stuff that happens in this forum, tends to go right over my head. I almost never figure it out until someone says "A is also B and C." And even then, those seem to be the posts I miss reading. This is not limited to this forum. Based on my conversations with people over the past 24 hours, it appears that I am one of the few people in the State of New Jersey who, before yesterday, had never heard any rumors that our governor (soon to be former governor) is gay. Though, maybe I just never picked it up, because now certain oblique comments made by radio talk-show hosts and others that didn't make any sense to me at the time, are beginning to connect up. But I didn't have a clue. Yesterday, after hearing 3 or 4 times, "Oh yeah, you never heard that?", I stopped telling people I didn't know. Not that it was anybody's business. That he was gay, I mean. Though some the rest of the circumstances (some of which are still unknown, but once again, I may be the only person in the state who does not know them at least by rumor) ARE peoples' business. In other words, the actual reasons he resigned, which is not because he is gay. As he said in his resignation speech, announcing that he is gay would have made it MORE likely that he could have continued as governor, at least until the next election. Boy, talk about a potential thread-hijacking, huh? But as you can imagine, this is a pretty big deal in my neck of the woods, not because the guy is gay, but really because it turns the entire state political scene upside down. And then of course there are those people who don't care about politics but just want to gossip about how the governor is gay, and how could he do that to his wi(ves) and kids (a legitimate question), etc.

OGE, I'd also say that you are no Underdog, and FOG is no Polly Purebred. In other threads I have noted that the role of Bible-Thumper does not fit FOG very well, to that I think we can add Damsel In Distress. As for Philmont, I've got it, let's drill for gas in half of it and pave the other half over and build condos. Who needs mountains and trees? The business of America is business, let's get cracking.

If you chose to believe differently -- if you stated that Jesus was not the Son of God, I would not be offended. So in other words, Rooster, what what you believe is the "truth", but what I believe is what I "choose to believe"? Actually, I don't find that offensive, I find it amusing. Notice, by the way, in my previous post I never used the word "offended" or any variation thereof. I phrased my post in terms of your conduct, not mine, or my reaction to yours. You don't respect the beliefs of others, and it is you who are accountable for that, it has nothing to do with how I feel about it. The point, anyway, is that I don't state my beliefs about Jesus Christ, or lack thereof. For that matter I don't state my beliefs or lack thereof about Allah, Vishnu or any other deity believed in by others. I choose not to state them or debate them. I don't see the point. Since I have described myself enough for people to know that I am not a Christian and that I am at least ethnically and culturally Jewish, I figure that people understand that that carries certain implications about what I believe or don't believe, and out of respect for their beliefs, I mostly leave it at that. (Where I have given more details, it is about what parts of my ancestral religion I don't necessarily go with.) Id probably debate you, but why should I take it personally. Its your belief. What would be the point in "debating" religious beliefs? I suppose you can discuss them so the other person understands what you believe, and I have done so (rarely in this forum), but how can you "debate" them? Debate assumes one of two things, one, that either or both party can prove they are correct, which nobody can when it comes to religion, because beliefs are based on faith, not on evidence. (Even the Bible is not evidence, because before you rely on it as fact, you have to believe it is the word of God, or written to God's specific instructions, or like that. I suppose if two people believe in the same text, they can debate what it means, but that's not the same thing.) Or, two, a person might "debate" religion if he is trying to convince the other person, or spectators, that his belief is correct. I have no desire to convince anyone that my religious beliefs are correct. Are you offended by any religion that does not proclaim salvation for all - unconditionally? There we go with "offended" again. But, ignoring that, your statement assumes a lot, like that I believe we are "saved" or not based on what we believe -- or at all, for that matter. If so, Belief-O-Matic may be in need of a repair, because I would peg you 100 percent as a Unitarian (Universalism). If that is meant as a negative comment, it doesn't work with me. I would just point out that "Unitarian" (to my understanding) means a Christian who does not believe in the Trinity, so I can't be that, because I am not a Christian. As for "Universalist," I have never thought of myself as one, but based on the definition of it that you have given recently, it's close enough. It seems to me the world would be a happier and more peaceful place if we all respected the beliefs of others. Im sorry to say, all paths do not lead to God. You think. I, on the other hand, don't know whether any paths "lead to God." I think that if it is ever important that I know, I will find out at the appropriate time, and there won't be any need to debate about it. What I personally think we are supposed to do while we are here is mostly treat each other as we would wish to be treated (yes, the Golden Rule, described in more detail in the "Scout Law" portion of the Scout Handbook -- including the part about respecting the beliefs of others.) If we do that, and it turns out that there is a "judgment" at some point, I think we are in pretty good shape regardless of what we have believed. Or at least, that's what I think.

I just did a little experiment with Belief-O-Matic, and if it is possible to "beat" a computerized quiz, I think I just did. Or, showed the whole thing to be either a fraud, or deeply flawed. (Hey, that rhymes.) I answered either "None of the above" or "Not applicable" to every question, except for the one where neither was an option, so I left that one blank. Here is what I got: 1. Bah' Faith (100%) 2. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (100%) 3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (100%) 4. Jehovah's Witness (100%) 5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%) 6. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (66%) 7. Liberal Quakers (50%) 8. New Thought (33%) 9. Unitarian Universalism (33%) 10. Nontheist (26%) 11. Secular Humanism (26%) 12. Neo-Pagan (13%) Every other faith (there are 27 altogether) was at 0 percent. This result is pretty wild. You'd think that Non-Theist and Secular Humanism would have been a bit higher than 26 percent, if I basically answered none of the questions. And does this mean that Bahai, Christian Scientists, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mainline/Liberal Protestants all believe in nothing? Or, that I exposed a flaw in the program? I vote for door number 2.

Rooster says: The Jews were, and still are, Gods chosen people. However, their salvation rests on their acceptance of Him as the Messiah. Gee, Rooster, when you say you don't respect the beliefs of others, you aren't kidding. The above is one of the most disrespectful things you could say about the Jewish people, who don't believe any such thing. Of course, you have the right to say it, but it's just not something one would normally expect to see in a forum related to an organization where people are supposed to be courteous and respectful of each others' beliefs. Though, it is not the first time you have said this, or something like this, so from you it doesn't really surprise me.

Well, Merlyn, I do not think it will surprise many that I am not going to be the one defending the BSA on the issues you raise in your last post or the linked documents. (I have previously criticized the BSA over the UUA affair.) I just wanted to point out that the BSA does "accept" Buddhists, which based on the article you linked-to, you already knew. I also found this: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-209.html It indicates that the American Buddhist presence in Scouting goes back almost to the beginning of the BSA, and that a "formal" relationship between Buddhist organizations and the "relationships" arm of the BSA has existed for some time, though it does not specify how long. OK, so why does a boy who says he is an atheist get kicked out, while an adherent of a religion that does not believe in God is welcome? Is it because the self-proclaimed atheist is "challenging" the BSA, while the Buddhist is not? This may be the answer. I don't think Buddhists go around telling people they are "atheists" or that they "don't believe in God." In their religion, it probably isn't an issue, so why discuss it? I also suspect that Buddhist Boy Scouts recite the Scout Oath and Law "as written", while (as I understand it) the relatively few atheists who have been booted out, would not recite them, or modified them to exclude the terms "God" and/or "reverent." The Buddhist Boy Scout may modify the Scout Law to himself so that the term "God" signifies what the boy actually believes in -- but this probably can also be said of some Christians (who may mention Jesus Christ "to themselves" while speaking the word "God,") some Jews (who may use the Hebrew term internally), Muslims (Allah), Hindus (I'm not sure), Wiccans (the god and goddess, or just the goddess), deists (the Creator or Divine Providence or whatever), and so forth and so on. I think many Scouts and Scouters "internally adapt" that part of the Scout Oath to fit what they believe. Now, why that could not be extended to boys whose internal substitute for "God" is something non-theistic, such as "the spiritual oneness of humankind," I am not sure. In practice, I think that is exactly what happens. The problem arises when the boy says so -- or more accurately, when he feels the need to express that his "internal substitute" for "God" is nothing at all.

Wojauwe says: First the reporter has pieced together what he thought would make a good story.Now those pieces are being dissected by you guys. Welcome to the forums. I know that the staff plays pranks on the staff of the WEBELOS resident camp right next to them and get them played on them. One of my sons works at the WEBELOS camp and they made copies of their camp flag and ran them up every flag pole in the other camp. They refrain from anything hurtfull. Pranks in and of themselves are fine, and as you say, the dividing line is whether something is "hurtful," and to me that does not just mean physical hurt. There is a big difference between the harmless prank of temporarily commandeering a flagpole, and making a boy feel like an idiot, and at the same time resentful at the lie he was told (explicitly or implicitly) by his leaders and "friends" to go off searching for a mirage. The flagpole thing sort of reminds me of that college football game, I am pretty sure it was a major bowl game with the usual top-ranked teams, where some Cal Tech students electronically tapped into the computerized scoreboard with their own computers, and changed the names of the team to Cal Tech and MIT. Nothing wrong with that (except for the little detail that it was probably illegal.)

Big Dog says: This is more than PC run amok, this could be the beginning of anarchy. Uh huh. Maybe you need to calm down a little. If this country does begin to slide into anarchy, somehow I am doubtful that it is going to be an amendment to the Canons of Judicial Ethics that starts the ball rolling.

Merlyn says: If you subscribe to a religion that doesn't require belief in gods (such as some forms of Buddhism) and do not believe in at least one god, you can't be a member, according to the official statements of the BSA. There's no membership exemption for people who follow a religion while being atheists. Merlyn, what you say about Buddhism may be logical, but I do not think it is correct. In other words, it may be the logical conclusion one would draw from the BSA's general attitude toward atheists, but I doubt that you would be able to find a statement by the BSA to this effect regarding Buddhists, nor is this the practice of the BSA. (And I know you said "some forms" of Buddhism, but it is my understanding that Buddhism itself does not require a belief in any deity. Actually I once tried to figure this out in the BSA context and found an article on the Internet (probably in "beliefnet") by a Buddhist that said Buddhism is inherently "agnostic.") The fact is that, despite the apparently atheistic or agnostic character of Buddhist, adherents of that religion are welcome in the BSA. I looked in my son's Scout handbook and confirmed my impression that there is a Buddhist religious emblem approved for wear on the Scout uniform, and next to the picture of the emblem in the book is the address for the "National Buddhist Committee on Scouting." Now, Merlyn, I suspect you know all of this since it has been discussed in this forum before. If you are trying to cleverly make the point that the BSA is not entirely consistent in its dealings with people who don't actually believe in "God," you don't have to be sly about it, I would agree with you. It does sort of make me wonder what happens to a boy who does not believe in God, but recites the Scout Oath and Law (as Buddhists do, presumably, despite the fact that they don't believe in "God" and may have "different" ideas about what "reverent" means) and says that he is part of the "religion of Secular Humanism." (You know, the one mentioned in that footnote in the Supreme Court opinion, whose name I forget.) If that boy would be "out" but the Buddhist is "in," then maybe the rule is that it is ok to believe in an atheistic religion as long as the religion is at least 500 years old. I don't know. I'm just speculating here. What I do know is that the search for total logic in the world is never-ending and often frustrating.

Just on a lark I decided to play Belief-O-Matic again and not do it as quickly as I did yesterday, and think about the answers a bit more. As you may recall, yesterday I got a 100 percent for Sikhism followed by a 96 for Reform Judaism. Well, here are my latest results: 1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%) 2. Liberal Quakers (91%) 3. Bah' Faith (85%) 4. Unitarian Universalism (83%) 5. Reform Judaism (65%) At least Reform Judaism got in the top 5. Evidently I am not in quite as Sikhish a mood as I was yesterday. (Today Sikhism was 8th, 57 percent. It may interest some to know that 6th and 7th were Neo-Pagan and Secular Humanism, both in the 60's.) Yesterday I said I thought this quiz was really testing one's philosophical beliefs much more than one's religious (or "faith") beliefs. Based on today's results and a comparison with yesterday's, it seems possible that the whole thing is someone's idea of a joke, and the answers come up randomly. But either way, one of these two explanations (it's a joke, or it's about philosophy and not religion) seems the best way to account for the fact that I get 100 percent for "Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestant," when I am not a Christian.

Acco, I agree. I think the article is really talking about 2 categories of things, one is the "scary stuff" such as the "snipe hunt." The other is the "wild goose chase" sort of thing (left-handed smokeshifter, etc.), where in my opinion the purpose is to hold a boy up to ridicule by sending them out for an item that they believe exists (because you told them to get it), but that does not really exist -- and then to make them feel embarrassed and stupid when they finally catch on or when someone takes pity and tells them. I don't see any legitimate Scouting purpose to making someone feel stupid, so that a few adult leaders and older Scouts can get a laugh at the boy's expense. Or am I wrong, is it just "good clean fun?" What I thought I knew was that this sort of thing had been officially banned, but this article says otherwise.

Um, I just took that Belief-O-Matic quiz. I just found out something I never knew: I am a Sikh. The answers I chose matched 100 percent with Sikhism. I had no idea. Pretty wild for a nice Jewish boy born in Newark, New Jersey. Less surprisingly (or maybe more surprisingly depending on how you want to look at it), the religion that I actually grew up in, Reform Judaism, is a close second with 96 percent. Of course, as I have described in a few posts awhile back, I don't completely believe in all the beliefs of my ancestral religion, either. Seriously (though it is absolutely true that the top of "my list" says Sikhism 100%) these sorts of quizzes are flawed in a number of ways. The particular questions in this quiz are geared much more to "philosophy" than "faith." Several specific indicators of faith that I thought would be there, were not there. As a result, this quiz is easily "manipulable," not just on purpose, but accidentally by choosing between two very close philosophical choices. It is an interesting exercise, however. I really like the disclaimer: Warning: Belief-O-Matic assumes no legal liability for the ultimate fate of your soul.

Ed says: Take down the manger in front of city hall but what about the menorah? Try as I might to resist, I cannot. It is like an illness. Hi, my name is NJCubScouter, and I can't resist getting into the same pointless argument time after time. (Hello, NJCubScouter...) OK, Ed, what about the menorah? Is this about that Pittsburgh/Allegheny County case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, again? If so, Ed, you and I have discussed that case before and, with all due respect, including a recognition that you live in Pittsburgh and you think you know what that case is about, I really don't think you understand what the case is about. Among the things you refused to acknowledge that last time we discussed this was that the ACLU sued to remove both the nativity scene and the menorah. It is a very complicated case, because it has various justices joining in parts of various others justices' opinions. It also involves two different settings, one of which was a nativity scene by itself, the other of which was a display that included a 45-foot Christmas tree, an 18-foot Hanukkah menorah, as well as a sign containing a message from the mayor about how the city "salutes liberty with these festive lights." Contrary to "nobody having a problem with the menorah" as Ed has said in the past, of the nine justices, seven saw no distinction between the two. In fact, four were of the opinion that both the nativity scene and menorah on public land were constitutionally acceptable, and three were of the opinion that both displays were unconstitutional. Only Justices O'Connor and Blackmun (this was in 1989) believed that there was a constitutional distinction, and they were the deciding votes. Those two justices believed that the nativity scene was unconstitutional but that the menorah, as part of the overall "symbols of the season" display, was constitutional. As a result, the nativity scene "lost" by a 5-4 vote while the menorah "won" by a 6-3 vote. To make it even more interesting, in re-reading the opinions of both Justices Blackmun and O'Connor, it is pretty clear that if the menorah had been by itself in a display, without the Christmas tree, the menorah would have been found unconstitutional as well, meaning both displays would be unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote. (I will add, because I personally think it is interesting, that there were Jewish lawyers on both sides of the case, but at the time, every justice of the Supreme Court was Christian. I just think it's interesting.)

Ummm, NJ, a snipe is a bird. Yeah, but that's not the "snipe" that older Scouts have been leading younger Scouts on the "hunt" for, in the woods, in the dark, since time began. The "snipe hunt" I'm talking about is the one mentioned in the article. In my neck of the woods snipes are usually big and hairy and have huge fangs, or whatever else the imagination of a 14- or 15-year-old boy can come up with.

Ed says: Yeah bad because it states the BSA discriminates! As Packsaddle says, the BSA does discriminate, in several ways. There shouldn't be any dispute about that. It is whether that discrimination is justified or not that creates controversy. It doesn't state that the Supreme Court ruled what the BSA is doing is constitutional. Well, just to keep our legal terminology straight here, what the BSA does can be neither constitutional nor unconstitutional, because the BSA is not the government. To my knowledge, every currently in-force provision of the Constitution affecting the rights of people, restricts the conduct of the government, not of individuals, with one exception that is not likely to come up these days. (That exception being the ban on slavery in the Thirteenth Amendment, which does directly prohibit conduct by private citizens. I believe the Eighteenth Amendment also directly impacted on individual conduct but that one was repealed.) What the courts HAVE ruled is that the government violates the constitutional rights of the BSA when it prohibits the BSA from applying its membership policies, at least in the contexts that have come before the courts so far. As for the article in question, I am not sure how the camp director knows that some of the campers have "no" religious beliefs. Did they tell him that? If so, it may be true that he is not enforcing the "rule." If that is just an impression he has in watching some of the boys at the time grace is recited, then it is just that, an impression. I find it a peculiar statement for him to make, and if he were here, I might have a few questions about it, but he isn't here. What I find really interesting in this article, especially in light of some past discussions in this forum, has nothing to do with religion. I am surprised to be the first one to point it out: These days, scaring the wits out of a boy is a definite no-no, but sending him on a farcical snipe hunt or to the office to request a left-handed smoke shifter or 10 feet of shore line is still fair game, McDonald says. Really? I thought the snipe hunts and wild-goose-chases (smokeshifters, 10 feet of shore line, bucket of steam, blue soap and so forth) were now considered hazing as well, and prohibited. I still do see it on occasion. There was a major snipe hunt in my son's troop some months back, and I was proud to see my son (then one of the youngest Scouts) giving me a look that said "No Dad, I'm not falling for this." I saw the SM watching all this, and he did step in at the point where the older boys were actually going to take the younger guys out into the woods in the dark. He didn't let on that there were no snipes, though.

Rooster says: However, there was a time in this country, when many individuals literally found a soapbox and stood on a corner off of Main Street, or in a public square, or in the middle of a city park, and loudly proclaimed their opinion. Sometimes the message was religious, sometimes it was political, and sometimes it was just non-sense. Nevertheless, I believe they exemplified the free society that our founders fought for, and it was not only legal, it was celebrated. and Yes - everyone has a right to ignore the message of others. BUT - everyone should also have the right to proclaim the message of their own choosing in public squares. All of that can still happen, and still does happen. It is less prevalent today, probably because much more efficient means of communication are available. The obvious example is the one that is literally at our fingertips as we have this conversation. The Internet allows you to proclaim your message nationwide, even worldwide, at the touch of a button, and at relatively low cost. Even before the advent of the Internet, desktop publishing, and before that something as low-tech as the early photocopiers alllowed people to get their messages across on a "mass" basis. I find leaflets, some religious in nature, under my windshield wiper on a regular basis, not to mention people coming to my home (fortunately, I am usually not there at the time) to give me literature about their personal version of God. All of this mass communication can take place without having to bother chatting with one person at a time, though, as I said, people can still do that if they choose. Have you, Rooster, been prevented from doing so? Or have you heard of others being prevented from doing so? If so, how and by who were they knocked off their soapbox?

Muckraker says: That's easy to say for someone from New Jersy, there being no "feral dogs" in or around New Jersy forests. If you say so. I have never seen or heard of any wild dog packs in New Jersey, but I don't know why there necessarily wouldn't be. There are still enough secluded forest areas for them to hang out in the northwest part of the state (basically the same place the black bears are.) Sure there are plenty of bears and enraged turkeys and rabid raccoons, but feral dogs certainly are something different. Bears usually only disturb campers when they smell food, and they live a good distance from the camps. Yeah? Remind me sometime to tell you the story of arriving on a Friday evening at a district Cub Scout camping weekend, to find a very large black bear right in the middle of camp. I don't know where its home was, and I suspect it had gotten used to the fact that for at least the past week, nobody had been around, so this was a good place to snack on whatever it could find. Probably the families who had used the camp the previous weekend had left the odd scrap here and there. The bear in fact had no desire to be in our vicinity, and after watching us watching him across the vacant parade field for a few minutes, began ambling off to quieter pastures. Needless to say, extra precautions were taken that weekend to make sure nothing tasty was accessible to the bear(s). But for the adults and boys who were there, I'd say a big black bear is considered something "different" as well. This is not the only time I have seen a black bear in northwest New Jersey, but it is the only time I have not been in a vehicle at the time. I did have the experience of driving along and seeing what turned out to be Mommy Bear and her cub standing in the middle of the road ahead, and fortunately she got the hint that the middle of the road was not the place to be, sufficiently ahead of the arrival of my now-slow-going vehicle. Maybe this is an everyday experience in some states, but it is not something that happened much in New Jersey until fairly recently. As for wild turkeys, enraged or otherwise, my car did have a close encounter with one once. It suddenly appeared right in front of me. Neither my car (a minivan at the time) nor the turkey emerged unscathed, though my car could be repaired, and while the turkey was able to leave the scene, I suspect that it was injured beyond repair, unfortunately. The same was true in my one direct encounter with a deer, while I did have some damage, the deer was the definite loser in that contest, and after getting up and stumbling away, I doubt it got very far. As for handguns, the person who started this thread mentioned police officers being able to carry them. It happens that 2 of my fellow Troop Committee members are police officers, and although I have seen them at countless meetings and several weekend camping trips, and each has been to summer camp at least once with my son, to my knowledge they have never had their weapon with them at any Scouting function. While I would understand if they felt the need to be armed at all times (and I believe they are permitted to be), I am happy that they apparently do not, at Scouting events.

What Eamonn said is basically what I think about this. (Though I think my wise-guy guess, in my first post, is correct.) I do not know whether the dogs are a problem at this camp, because I don't know the camp. What I do know is that IF the dogs are a problem, one guy (or several guys) in a Scouter's uniform and a handgun isn't going to solve it.

What are your thoughts on this? My thoughts on this? OK, as long as you asked. My thoughts are that it sounds like you are looking for any excuse you can find to carry a handgun around when you aren't supposed to.

Rooster inquires: I wonder what is more discourteous - Forcing others to hear your opinion (or prayer as the case may be)? Or Forcing others to keep their opinions to themselves? Who said anything about forcing anyone to keep their opinions to themselves? You mean a noise ordinance? That doesn't force anyone to keep their opinion to themselves. It just places a limit on how and where and when the opinion can be expressed. These kinds of restrictions are all around us, and as long as they are reasonable, it's ok. If I want to express my political opinions, it's usually ok, but if it happens that at the time I want to do so I am sitting in a courtroom watching a trial, and I want to do so in a loud manner, the nearest representatives of authority will force me to keep silent -- quite properly, if discourteously.

Haven't we had this discussion before? I think it was California where this proposal came up previously. Now it is being proposed at the national level. I doubt it will pass, and if it does, some state judiciaries will adopt and some will not. I have mixed feelings about it. But it would not be that much different than the many other restrictions that judges are under. In New Jersey, a judge cannot be an active member of a political party or speak out on public issues other than those directly affecting the administration of justice. Those are pretty serious restrictions on their First Amendment rights, but the courts have upheld such restrictions because they protect the image of the courts as being fair and impartial. (Which of course they sometimes fail to be anyway, but that is another discussion.)

Just to clarify my last paragraph: Under the First Amendment you of course have the RIGHT to act discourteously. But you take have taken an oath (the Scout Oath) not to.