Compromise: Good or Evil

[BubbaBear 11]

I'll second the "Have a happy fourth" sentiment.

Please keep in mind those young men and woment who stand on the front lines defending the freedom we celebrate tomorrow.

 

Bubba

[Bob White 20]

BubbaBear,

I have done nothing to attack you personally, I do not understand your need to insult me.

 

You ask us if compromise is good or evil. Compromise as a verb is neither good nor evil. It is only in the context of what you compromise, or why you compromise, that a judgment value can be attributed to it.

Is swimming good or bad? Depends on where you swim. Swim in someones private pool with out their permission or against their rules and that would be bad.

 

I realize that you kept your USA/BSA comparison simple but logically it has a flaw.

Just because two groups share one element in common (in this case a representational form of decision making) does not guarantee they share any other features as your argument implies.

 

As far as the right to civil disobedience, that too has its constitutional limitations. A good example is that, while you can insult me on this board, you do not have the right to enter my private home and insult me. I have the right to throw you out.

 

You have a constitutional right to voice your displeasure with the BSA, however your protection ends when you choose to be a member of a private organization. The BSA, and this has been upheld by the US Supreme Court, has the right as a private organization to throw you out of their house if you misbehave. It is no different than your right to choose who stays in your home.

 

I apologize in advance because I know you will not enjoy reading this, but, it is not the BSAs actions to determine its own membership that violates anyones constitutional rights, it is the act of trying to force a private organization to surrender its rights of free association that violates that organizations constitutionally protected rights. Thats only according to the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court though.

 

As you celebrate this Fourth of July remember that one of the rights protected by the foundation of this country is the BSAs right to determine its own membership.

 

Bob White

 

[littlebillie 10]

Bob, when you say "You have a constitutional right to voice your displeasure with the BSA, however your protection ends when you choose to be a member of a private organization," I don't think that's quite on the money.

 

I still have the right to free speech, to right letters, etc. Now, the private organization may or may not have the right to kick me out, but that's another issue.

[littlebillie 10]

sorry - too many things happening at once - kicked THAT one too early.

 

Bob, when you say "You have a constitutional right to voice your displeasure with the BSA, however your protection ends when you choose to be a member of a private organization," I don't think that's quite on the money.

 

I still have the right to free speech, to write letters, etc. Now, the private organization may indeed - or may not - have the right to kick me out, but that's really another issue entirely.

 

While BSA policy precludes wearing the uniform in pursuing certain activities (political, for example), they do NOT ask me to refrain from writing letters to the editor, letters to Irving, whatever. I'm sure a lot of folks in this thread HAVE done so. And if I do wear the uniform at a rally - well, that's an issue that I'm not aware has been tested in SCOTUS.

 

Regardless of my membership, I still have a right to free speech.

 

And as far as kicking me out for the exercise thereof, I note that Cozza's still active...

[Bob White 20]

Hi littlebillie,

That is my point, that while you have a right as a citizen to disagree with the BSA, you do not have the "right" to membership in a private organization.

 

The Supreme Court's ruling was very clear, the BSA as a private oranization has a right to free association and is free to choose it's own membership, membership rules and values. You are free to disagree and the BSA has the right to say "not in my house" just as you have the right to determine who stays in your house.

 

The BSA has made it clear that avowed homosexual or atheist, adults and youth, are not eligible members of the BSA. The BSA can also revoke membership from people who publicly speak or act against any of their rules or values. That is the BSA's constitutional right.

 

I support everyones right to free speech even when it does not agree with my views. Why won't those same people aknowledge the that a private orginazation has a constitutionally protected right to choose its own members and to remove members who disagree with their values?

 

If we really are celebrating our country's freedoms then shouldn't we celebrate all of them, especially those that protect people who we may not agree with, since we would want them to honor the laws that protect us?

 

Happy 4th.

Bob

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

Surely you recognize more than a few folks from the board that fit into the categories above?

 

TJ,

 

You left some folks off your list. How about these guys:

 

There's the not so religious, who claim to own a bible, but don't care much for what it has to sayat least not the parts that talk about sin.

 

There's the "I believe in morals, but I'm not sure which ones I believe in today; and tomorrow, that list may be a little different"

 

There's the "Don't tell me about your morals because they're based on your faith. My morals are better because they come from society, or at least the segment of society that I associate with today."

 

There's the "Let's bury our heads in the sand" crowd and pretend that homosexuality is normal.

 

(I could create a list equally as long as yours, but you get the picture)

 

Fortunately, these guys don't sit at that table in Irving.

 

Try to understand this point. It's not about "deciding what's best for other people". BSA is setting a standard. It's their standard. They want to be a national organization that trumpets one universal message. As a national character building organization, they apparently feel it is important to be consistent.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer 10]

Bob... I really don't know who you think disagrees with you on this matter. Certainly not me, and I don't think I have ever read a single other post from anyone on this board that would disagree with you on whether the BSA is a private organization with the right to set its own membership standards. I can not recall a single post from any of the "regulars" on my side of the debate that has ever said the Supreme Court was wrong, or that BSA Inc. should be forced to change its policy by anyone other than its members, leaders, parents and chartering partners.

[BubbaBear 11]

I wish to appologize to everyone reading this forum. Bob White was right, I did indeed attack him personally which was clearly wrong.Of course I wouldn't dare to ask for an appology from him.

 

I also wish to state that I am offering this appology not because of fear of any consequences but because what I did was wrong. Please have me removed it it will make you sleep better at night.

 

This last flurry, TJ, NJCubScouter, and others reading this post, is what I was referring to as the "glacier", and why I believe it to be the natural order of change.

 

In the meantime,I will pray for all y'all.

 

Before I go, however, I would like you to answer my other question: "How can you take something as simple in theory and pure in intent and lend it to COs to manipulate it to their own purpose"?

 

 

 

 

[littlebillie 10]

Hi, bakatya, Bob,

 

"That is my point, that while you have a right as a citizen to disagree with the BSA, you do not have the "right" to membership in a private organization."

 

Well, I'll meet you half way here. I - as an adult participant - have no specific rights at all. It's up to the organization to decide if I can participate as a volunteer (or get hired as a pro, for that matter - and we probably disagree on the range of criteria that should be applied here). but as far as it being up to the BSA to accept or reject its adult members, I figure that's where we agree. After that, we may part ways. :-)

 

See, as far as the real target member - the boy - well, I think there are probably interpretive issues in looking at the Charter.

 

"Sec. 30902. Purposes

 

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the

methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

 

It just says 'boys'. Not heterosexual religious boys - just boys. So as far as atheist boys go, I think letting them and exposting them to a healthy dose of reverence goes along with the teaching part of the charter. And gay? I have trouble reading where - in the Charter - the BSA is called upon to exclude ANY boy.

 

Anyway, keeping faith with that Charter should be a real goal, I think.

 

Just a perspective.

 

 

 

[littlebillie 10]

First, I figure everyone knows I'm a "gay sympathizer". I don't think that orientation, in and of itself, should automatically disqualify anyone from Scouting.

 

That said, I gotta fill in another square. We sometimes forget that society is based on folks working together, and sharing - it's not really based on 'individual rights' per se, tho' these are very important. Individual rights need to be balanced against community rights. There's a point where one person's desire to keep a pet (too many cats, a smelly ol' rhino) or play music (too loud, or anyhing with an accordion) begins to impact an entire neighborhood. We are a social animal, and it is the community that represents that social nature.

 

A single chimp is less important than the troop, and while it is regrettable that anyone be thrown to the wolves - well, the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

So - while I think that in the short term setting local or community standards might very well start allowing greater gay participation in the scouting movement, I'm not sure that i can fully support that approach. I say this sadly, because too many issues are at conflict here.

 

Regardless of my 'gay symp' position, my community rights position makes me worry that once one community allows something, certain militant factions would then take this as legal precedent to ram an open door policy down everyone's throats.

 

Doors should be opened with a hand of welcome from within, not beaten down from without. So I think there may be danger in *forcing* a church to 'allow' gay leaders in its pack or troop before its faithful are ready. When the individual can trample on the rights of the community, we all lose.

 

So - limited compromise? Not if it ultimately means unlimited loss of community and neighborhood rights.

 

So it looks like I gotta just keep trying to get Irving to re-evaluae its position statement!

 

:-)

 

 

 

[BubbaBear 11]

littlebillie-

 

For what it is worth, I think that your summation of the question is the best I've read from anyone (to date).

 

On another note, I am ready to pass the knot.

[Bob White 20]

When you stop to think about it, scoutings doors are far more open than most other youth activities and as open as any get. Can just any boy be on the high school football team? In all most every case no. Can anybody join International Rotary who walks in off the street? Does your company employ anyone who applies? Does your schools accept any child regardless of age, residency or behaviour? Does the military accept every applicant.

 

Every group has some criteria for joining. The basis varies from group to group but all have expected standards. Scouting has set standards that allow a huge variety of ages, abilities, religions, nationalities, and income and background. They draw the line at behavior and values that they determine best achieve their goals. Coaches, employers, the governement, even parents, make these same kinds of decisions every day. We even serve you if you don't have shirt and shoes. If there is a boy on the block whose behavior you don't want your child exposed to, then you don't allow your child to play with him. Our restrictions are minimal compared to most.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[KoreaScouter 13]

BubbaBear;

 

Geez, you get away from a thread for a day and it gets completely away from you!

 

Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to personally attend any World Cup games. Contrary to rumor, the tickets were available, and if you planned properly, not expensive. But, my military duties lie mainly in the area of anti-terrorism, and I was on a fairly short tether. The only way I could take my troop to summer camp last month was with a cell phone and the fact that our camp was in a military training area 20 minutes from home. All's well that ends well, though. No hooliganism, no terrorist activity, and the USA and Korea did better than anyone expected...I realize I'm off topic, but you asked!

 

Back on topic, a big Amen to Bob White. My $.02: Gay leaders are none of my business, unless I happen to believe the BSA assertion that they are not acceptable role models for youth...which I do. If I didn't believe that, I'd get into a different youth movement.

 

I'll certainly compromise on any number of things, such as aluminum vs. cast iron dutch ovens, or dome vs. a-frame tents, or whether cobbler should be made with fresh fruit vs. pie filling. But, I won't compromise my values, which is what this seems to be about. If BSA changed the national policy, would I stay or go? I don't know, honestly, and I don't know what my son would want to do. We've had several "birds/bees" conversations, but not on that specific topic as it relates to Scouting.

 

From a practical standpoint, a person can't just walk away from any setting where gays are present (assuming you know they're gay). A former school nurse (male) was quite open about it...drove a pink Dodge Neon, lipstick, rouge, the mannerisms, the voice, everything. What to do, find another school? He may have been gay, but was not a pedophile (as far as we know). School had pretty good YP policies; chaperones, open door, etc., so it wasn't an issue as far as that goes. Now, when it was time for the sexuality portion of their health curriculum, and he was one of the lecturers, I took advantage of my right to opt my son out of that block and discuss it with him myself.

 

I spent three years living in the Netherlands and serving alongside their military, which allows open homosexuality. That and other things took some getting used to, but get used to it we did...after all, had to go to work or go to jail. My kids were little then, so I didn't have to have any of the "lifestyle" discussions with them -- it would be more awkward now, I think, just as when you have to explain anything your kids see that runs counter to your beliefs and values.

 

Anyway, a gay Scoutmaster is no different from a straight one? I guess that's what gay sympathizers want you to believe. But, the hordes of deviants marching in gay pride parades last week don't support that argument. Are they the lunatic fringe? Maybe, maybe not, but they're getting all the press.

 

KS

[BubbaBear 11]

Korea-

 

Well said.

 

I respect you opinion just as I do everyone's in this forum (with the exception of maybe Bob White who hurt my feelings).

 

I want to suggest a "compromise"...that is if anyone has the intrepidy to accept...I will discontinue debate in this forum (not give up my principles) if say, Bob White or Rooster will equally withdraw (without compromising their morals). Whatsay? We are not going to decide this issue anyway.

 

Willing to begin disbanding this open debate...or do you prefer it to go on? I'm hoping that if it starts with us, others will follow our noble lead.

Wouldn't everyone like to see this debate off the air??

 

By the way, Korea...thanks to you and all over there defending our freedom! Essayons!(This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

[evmori 11]

As Americans, we have the right to question anything of any organization. We might not get an answer or the organization might toss us out, but it is our right as Americans to question. If we just blindly accept what an organization tells us, then we might as well live in the old USSR! Blind obedience serves only those making the rules.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

Happy 4th of July