A President of the United States not endorsing the BSA

[Rooster7 11]

Acco40,

 

Here's an analogy...

 

If the federal government gives funds to the Catholic Church for its "feed the hungry" program (I assume they have such a program), the Catholic Church is not going to lose its status as a church or a non-profit organization. An argument can be made as to whether or not a government agency should be providing monies to a church, but the outcome of that debate should not affect the status of the church in question. At worst, depending on one's perspective, an organization or individual within the government will get their hand slapped for breaking the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Of course, this doctrine, in and of itself is debatable in regard to its legal impetus, interpretation, and application.

 

So, those who chose to do so can criticize Congress and/or the President for publicly endorsing the BSA. Without doubt, some will present legal challenges as to whether or not the BSA and the government ought to help out one another. Yet, in the end, the BSA will be and always has been a private organization, without any of the hindrances that the government imposes on publicly owed and controlled organizations.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[dsteele 20]

Actually, the Red Cross is not a public organization. They're private, too. I don't know if they have any membership policies, but they're not a public organization any more than the Salvation Army or Girl Scouts of the USA.

[Hunt 11]

"Liberal moral leader is an oxy-moron. Liberals dont lead, nor do they embrace morals. They pick and chose their stances based on the political climate of the day. In other words, the tail (i.e., the collective power of on-the-fringe political interest groups who are willing to sell their souls to achieve their narrow-minded ends) is wagging this unconscionable dog."

 

I sure get tired of this view, that anybody who disagrees with you has an ulterior motive--of course, I see it from both political sides (i.e., conservatives are just greedy). It's a lazy way of thinking, because it means you never have to try to understand why somebody might have a different view of something. You really think that nobody has an honest view, based on their own ideas of morality, that BSA is wrong to discriminate against gays and atheists? You can disagree with that view as long as you want, but it's just insulting and wrong to suggest that nobody can really think differently from you.

 

[Rooster7 11]

You really think that nobody has an honest view, based on their own ideas of morality, that BSA is wrong to discriminate against gays and atheists?

 

I dont have a problem with anyone taking the view that the BSA is wrong for having such policies. I just dont agree with them. You really think that nobody has an honest view, based on their own ideas of morality, that opponents of the BSAs policies against gays and atheists are wrong?

 

You can disagree with that view as long as you want, but it's just insulting and wrong to suggest that nobody can really think differently from you.

 

I never said people cannot think differently than I do. Some peoples opinions reflect a view on life that I disagree with, and I will voice that disagreement as I am prompted to do so.

 

Perhaps your real point of contention with me, are my thoughts on liberal leaders (i.e., those currently leading the Democratic Party). If so, I stand by my comments.

 

[Hunt 11]

Your statement-which I quoted verbatim-refers to "liberals" in general. If you're really referring to Bill Clinton, well, I won't argue with you too much. And there's no reason to try to turn my question around on me, because I never suggested that your opinion wasn't genuine or wasn't based on morals. What I dislike is the type of argument that impugns another's motives rather than engaging on the merits of the issues. On the main topic, I don't think you'll hear Kerry criticizing the Boy Scouts--Kucinich might have, but that's simply an example of why Kucinich won't be the nominee.

[Rooster7 11]

Hunt,

 

If you reread my post, youll note that my statements refer specifically to leaders of that political ilk, not just liberals in general. If it makes you feel better, I will grant you that these so-called leaders have morals; theyre just not the kind that I would teach a God loving, God fearing person. And that, my friend, is the true issue. To you, this may be a polite debate about civil rights. I acclimatize to that idea like cold water to hot grease. This discussion has nothing to do with civil rights. Accepting homosexuality as normal and acceptable is about redefining our society. Thats not the kind of society that I want to embrace or have my children enter. Similarly, while an atheist may live a perfectly normal life (i.e., live by standards that do not harm others), they have adapted a mindset that denies the existence of our creator. That is a mindset that I will not accept as normal. Nor do I want my children around those folks who think in this way. So, yes, my reaction may be a bit stronger and more personal than you feel is warranted. However, were not fighting for the same things. As for John Kerrys willingness to criticize the BSA, I believe firmly that he would criticize his grandmother if he thought that it would get him elected.

 

[KunatahKid 10]

Hey, everyone.

 

I'm somewhat new to this forum (I posted one time before as Kunatah Guy, and have actually been lurking here for several years). And I am not really a "kid" (I'm 32 yrs. old, actually) - just had to use that name to differentiate myself from my previous username. Long story. Or perhaps wishful thinking?

 

Anyway, my basic answer to this question is that NO president would in his/her right mind, go to the American Public and actively choose to not endorse the BSA. Despite its sometimes association with an idealized, pre-Vietnam view of America, the Boy Scouts is generally seen by all but the most ideological as a helpful, useful organization. I think most politicians, even the supposedly leftist ones, respect the BSA's positive attributes, even if they disagree with some of its policies with regards to homosexuals, atheists, etc.

 

Btw, I am a born-again Christian whose beliefs, theologically, would probably be considered "conservative" - inerrancy of the Bible, absolute right and wrong, against same-sex behavior, etc, and I even voted for George Bush (though I consider myself a political moderate)....and even I am tired of the idea that being "liberal" automatically qualifies ones as being immoral or amoral. Really, I think some of my conservative christian brethren need a refresher course in the ministry of reconciliation and christian discipleship, as well as some as self-examination.

[johndaigler 10]

The President doesn't get elected by the far-right or the far-left. Those voter bases offset each other every election. Their representative spokespeople generally turn off more voters than they bring into the fold. You've seen the myriad political talk shows that say they're giving you both sides. It amazes me that they can find so many great talkers who are deaf! Most Americans tune them out because their "strength of conviction" is shown only by intolerance, rudeness and an inability to accept or collaborate with thinkers who don't agree with their thoughts. Occasionally, some of us slip into this category, as well.

 

Anyway, my point is . . . it's that grand chunk of voting mass in the middle that elects Presidents and sets public opinion and agenda. Presently in the US, that mass of humanity is not 100% behind BSA's hardened stances. I don't think we should be looking to either extreme to see from where Leadership and new directions will come. Americans are growing tired of all this blue state vs. red state crap! The guys we need to think about are going to be talking about purple states, etc. Where those people land on the issues is where much of the middlin mass will gravitate.

 

In truth, maybe we don't need to worry anyway. I know we all feel strongly about what we do, but that doesn't mean others care. I'm thinking we're not as much on the minds of non-Scouters as we often think. To see ourselves as "politically important" or even "politically charged" may well be an arrogance that doesn't serve us well.

 

Maybe that was only worth $.01, but . . .

 

jd

(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[Backpacker 11]

Gentlemen

 

I think you miss the deciding factors about who becomes or stays president. It is all about economics, as long as unemployment is down and the economy is relatively strong and people are mostly content then the democrat or republican is a hero. When things start to go bad, runaway inflation or a recession, massive unemployment, etc. people will scream for change be they liberal or conservative, history bears this out.

 

Like it or not the reason Bush was elected and then re-elected was because a good number of democrats voted for him, why, because for many democrats Gore and Kerry did not represent their own middle of the road brand of "liberalism" and leadership they felt our country needed. As this economy continues to slide downward, as it did at the end of Clintons second term, people will be looking for a new direction and a change in leadership. If you study history you will see that economic issues have always trumped moral issues in elections, that trend has never changed and never will. So for all you religious zealots your arguments do not hold water on this issue, Bush, like every other president, was elected by the big money interests, not the religious right, to think otherwise is just plain naive.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Rooster,

When you made your comments about the methods/activities of liberal political leaders, were you implying that conservative political leaders don't have the same mentality and use the same tactics?

[Hunt 11]

I didn't notice that this thread was a year old until I saw one of my own posts in it!

 

 

[johndaigler 10]

LOL

 

Hunt, I didn't notice, till you told me to notice!!

 

Welcome, KunatahKid!!! At this point I'm thinking that's the important part of this thread! Glad you could (re)join us!!

 

 

Is there a smiley face for shaking my head, feeling a bit silly????

 

jd

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Fodder for the machine.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Rooster,

 

I applaud the strength of your resolve on these matters; it really does make the discussion more honest and invigorating. However, I think that it's possible to have these discussions without having to denigrate those "on the other side".

 

Do you really think that all conservative political leaders always take the high road? I'm inferring this from your statement that liberal political leaders "don't lead, nor do they embrace morals", therefore the assumption that conservative political leaders do lead and do embrace morals. Dick Cheney did take the high road in regards to his gay daughter in the last election, saying that it was a personal matter that should be outside of the political debate. On the other hand, we had a candidate running for senator in Illinois who publicly rebuked his own gay daughter, and he later said that many of his statements were said strictly for political effect. Wasn't there a problem during the 2000 primaries with Bush supporters spreading untrue statements about John McCain when he was the frontrunner, statements which later were retracted (after the damage had been done)? Isn't Tom DeLay in all sorts of trouble right now, even within his own party, because of his actions as a political leader? You can put together a similar list, I'm sure, for liberal political leaders. The point is, it's difficult to make general statements such as you have. Jimmy Carter was a liberal political leader. Do you think there is anyone, anywhere, who wouldn't say that he is a moral man of good character?

 

Regards presidential endorsements, President Bush will endorse the BSA because, I think, (1) he honestly believes it is a good organization, (2) it provides a good photo op, and (3) he knows that in a country so evenly divided on social issues, criticizing BSA is bad politics. I think John Kerry would have done the same thing for the same reasons, should he have been elected.

[Kahuna 172]

I'm betting there will come a time when a POTUS will not endorse (or even denounce) the BSA. Clinton got very close by snubbing a jamboree that was practically in his back yard. Many liberal politicians believe they're better off with the support of the same groups that oppose the BSA.

 

However, every sitting president so far, as far as I know, has received the annual report of the BSA from it's uniformed youth members.