Of moral authority

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I like to think that BSA has used the "don't ask/don't tell" policy because they realize that singling out a single group as somehow being "bad" is wrong, and this is their way to save face while providing a mechanism for allowing gays in Scouting. I would think that if BSA really thought gays were an undesirable element, they'd be trying very hard to root them out, yet they don't appear to be doing that. That's different, of course, than openly welcoming gays, but that's probably too much to expect at this point. I hope that at some point BSA will come to the realization that gays are not "all bad" any more than straights are "all good", and get to the point where I think we should be, and that is welcoming everyone of good intent into Scouting, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. The world is made up of shades of grey and explosions of color. Seeing everything as simply black or white just doesn't work, regardless of how much our present government would like us to think so.

 

Regards acco's scenario, that's a young man who is indeed in a tough spot. He probably doesn't feel comfortable talking about this with anyone, let alone his Scoutmaster. However, if he were to come to me, my counsel would be to carefully consider his feelings and follow his heart. If he wants to remain in Scouting, he'll have to deal with the reality that, in the present world of Scouting in the U.S., he won't be able to be open about his sexuality. He'll have to decide whether the value of the program is worth remaining "in the closet", so to speak, when it comes to Scouting activities. There's no easy answer here, any more than there are easy answers in any other area of his life if he's dealing with this.

[Rooster7 11]

I like to think that BSA has used the "don't ask/don't tell" policy because they realize that singling out a single group as somehow being "bad" is wrong, and this is their way to save face while providing a mechanism for allowing gays in Scouting. I would think that if BSA really thought gays were an undesirable element, they'd be trying very hard to root them out, yet they don't appear to be doing that. That's different, of course, than openly welcoming gays, but that's probably too much to expect at this point. I hope that at some point BSA will come to the realization that gays are not "all bad" any more than straights are "all good", and get to the point where I think we should be, and that is welcoming everyone of good intent into Scouting, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. The world is made up of shades of grey and explosions of color. Seeing everything as simply black or white just doesn't work, regardless of how much our present government would like us to think so.

 

Yes, its pure genus. Interestingly, the BSA seems to have the same policy pertaining to liars and adulterers. To my knowledge, they are not actively encouraging its members to expose these folks either. If we dont ask, Are you an adulterer or a liar? They are not forced to reveal that they are such, and thus another persecuted group is spared the embarrassment of being singled out. This is just yet another example of the BSA being ahead of its time. After all, not all adulterers or liars are all bad, and not all faithfully married people and truth tellers are all good, and to get to the point where we should be, that is, welcoming everyone of good intent (interesting choice of words, but meaningless when there are no standards to measure good intent) into Scouting, regardless of ones self-serving conduct, deceitfulness, and desires to abolish any standards of moral behavior. The world is made up of shades of grey (its amazing how depressing that can be) and explosions of color (ah yes, diversity is a fine thing). See everything as simply black or white just doesnt work, regardless of how much our present government would like us to think so. Yes, its quite a shame that a majority of voters put those rascals back in office. How do you think that happen? My guess isthose color blind fools thought they were pulling the blue lever?

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Ok, Rooster....

 

You're right, and maybe we should ask prospective leaders for their income tax returns to make sure that they haven't taken any "liberties" with their deductions, too.

 

So, are you saying that gays allowed into Scouting would be "self-serving, deceitful, and desiring to abolish any standards for moral behavior"? You're expecting, what, gays in Scouting to come to meetings dressed in drag? That wouldn't be in keeping with the uniforming method, would it? Maybe starting orgies at campouts? BSA would probably have to add a section to the tour permit for that.

 

Regards the last election, I could give you some reasons why "those rascals" got elected, but for the purposes of this thread, I'll just say that their election probably didn't have much to do with "moral authority".

[johndaigler 10]

R7,

What about THIS boy???

What do you want to do with him?

I know what you think about homosexuality. The question about this particular boy remains.

 

You can't wish him away. He's there. He's troubled. Do we want him to see his SM as a Trustworthy life-guide who might at least listen? Or maybe, we want every boy to understand that SMs are not the kind of people with whom you can safely discuss these things?

 

jd

[Trevorum 24]

Rooster,

I think you're being tongue-in-cheek (but I'm not sure) when you write, "ah yes, diversity is a fine thing". Do you honestly think the world would be a better place if we were all the same?

[Rooster7 11]

Diversity is a fine thing, but its given way too much emphasis - to the exclusion of more important things. For many, the concept of diversity has become their God. For others, its individual freedom. Both are great ideas, but neither should be the ultimate goal for humanity. Lastly, I dont see all differences as being something to celebrate. For example, when a man takes another man into his bed (to put it in the most benign and inoffensive wording), I see no reason to rejoice and/or to seek their inclusion. Perversity does not equate to diversity.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster says:

 

Lastly, I dont see all differences as being something to celebrate. For example, when a man takes another man into his bed (to put it in the most benign and inoffensive wording), I see no reason to rejoice and/or to seek their inclusion. Perversity does not equate to diversity.

 

Rooster, you are entitled to your opinions about who is to be included or excluded and what "perversity" is, and you are entitled to your own personal likes and dislikes regarding other peoples' behavior. The problem occurs when the BSA takes your opinions, personal likes and dislikes, etc. -- which may be shared by a majority but are not shared by a significant minority -- and makes them the policy of the entire organization with no room for local choice. What should be your own business -- who and what you like and dislike -- now intrudes into my life because now I am, at least in theory, complicit in the exclusion of people I don't think should be excluded. I just wish you and people who think like you would just run your own lives and stop running mine.

[Rooster7 11]

NJ,

 

I just wish you and people who think like you would just run your own lives and stop running mine.

 

Thats an interesting statement. Has it ever occurred to you that the hierarchy of the BSA feels the same way! Regardless of what a significant minority may desire (if in fact such a minority exists) or even what the major may desire - the BSA is not managed, controlled, or administered by the latest poll. They are run by those empowered to do so. As has been said before, time and time again, they are a private organization. That being the case, you should take your own advice. Stop telling folks (the BSA hierarchy) who dont think like you, how to run their lives (or rather, the private organization that they oversee). What you really resent is this My opinion is the prevailing opinion in the BSA (or at least, its more representative then yours), and contradicts your personal desires for the organization. No ones telling you how to run your life. You're trying to tell the BSA how they should run their organization, and thus far, they are not conforming to your demands. I suggest that you learn to live with the current reality or at a minimum, stop stomping the ground like a pre-schooler thats not getting his way.

 

[Trevorum 24]

Rooster, I know we disagree on some 3G issues, but I am genuinely relieved to know that you do in fact appreciate the value of diversity in human social groups. Things would be so much less interesting if we were all the same, looked the same, thought the same, believed the same, voted the same.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

There will always be those in any organization, including BSA, that think that the status quo is just fine, and those who think that changes are needed. On both sides, you have people who are just trying to force their personal beliefs on everyone else, and those who act in what they believe to be the best interests of their organization. Organizations that are willing to hear opposing views, and give them an honest review to see if changes are needed or not, are the ones that will survive for the long term. Those that stagnate put themselves at risk of being marginalized to the point of irrelevence. That doesn't mean that change is always necessary, but it does mean that organizations need to be able to look at themselves in the mirror honestly, and be willing to make changes if necessary.

 

Gays aren't prohibited from Scouting because of some "timeless value" that's being supported by the organization. It isn't written anywhere in the Scout Law or Oath. It is an interpretation of wording in the Scout Law or Oath, and interpretations should always be open to review. Rather than being subject to some subjective religious view, wouldn't it make more sense to view ANYONE's participation in Scouting in terms of Youth Protection? If someone can make an objective case that gays are a threat to the Scouts under our care, then fine, that's at least something that can be discussed rationally.

 

Rather than taking the view of Rooster, which seems to be "it's our game, so if you don't like the rules, why don't you just go away?", I'd like to think that at least some people in Scouting want the organization to continue to be the best it can be, and would welcome these kinds of discussions. Right now, BSA is shielded by a Supreme Court decision that says it's a private club, but Supreme Courts change, and decisions change. Wouldn't it make more sense to address this now, rather than gamble that the Court will continue to agree with BSA? What happens if that decision changes and BSA is forced to change? Is everyone going go quit? Doesn't it make more sense to come to an agreement ourselves that we can all live with before something is forced on us? BSA shouldn't want to be seen as some "private club". It should be pushing it's message to as many people as possible, by welcoming as many people as it possibly can.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster says:

 

Stop telling folks (the BSA hierarchy) who dont think like you, how to run their lives (or rather, the private organization that they oversee).

 

As I have said many times before in answering the same kind of comment, the BSA may be a "private organization" (it doesn't always act like one) but if so, it is a private organization of which I happen to be a registered, dues-paying member. Of course I realize that that status does not give me any decision-making power within the organization. One of the things it does do is to cause me to think of the BSA not as a "they," as you apparently do, but as a "we." I think that gives me the right to request that the national leadership live by the BSA's own principles, which they are not doing on the gay issue. Instead, they are "taking sides" on a religious issue, and that is a violation of the Declaration of Religious Principles.

 

What you really resent is this My opinion is the prevailing opinion in the BSA (or at least, its more representative then yours), and contradicts your personal desires for the organization.

 

Let's say your opinion is the "prevailing opinion" in the BSA. So what? I suspect that it is also the prevailing opinion (or for those of you who might be offended by that, the prevailing belief) within the BSA that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That is not a belief that I share. But the BSA does not force that opinion on me, or consider me any less of a contributing member because I do not share it; to the contrary, the BSA has explicitly stated that it is nonsectarian in matters of religion. In other words, the BSA will not impose the prevailing view on everybody else. Perhaps a less "charged" example is partisan politics. I suspect that a majority of adult BSA members, nationwide, voted for our current president (of the USA) and probably believe he is doing a good job. That may not be the prevailing view in certain states, but because of the nationwide demographics of the BSA, it is fairly safe to say that this is the "prevailing view" in the organization nationwide. Again, however, the BSA does not impose this "prevailing view" on its members; to the contrary, there are explicit prohibitions against the use of Scouting for partisan political ends.

 

So, saying that the exclusion of gays is the "prevailing view" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the non-sectarian nature of the BSA prevents its current national leadership from imposing that "prevailing" religious viewpoint on the membership as a whole. And when the current, temporary national leadership violates that principle, I don't think there is anything wrong with "we" members of the BSA speaking up about it in the manner of our choosing.

[acco40 95]

NJ, Rooster & others - I think it boils down to this - is the judgment that "being gay" (or more correctly an avowed homosexual - I still have not seen a definition of what that means) is "wrong" (i.e. not suitable for adult role models, not "clean", etc.) a "traditional value" such as trustworthy, friendly, cheerful, etc. or is it a peculiar belief of certain religious organizations?

 

NJ - you seem to believe that it is a tenet of certain religions (maybe the majority?) and therefore with a claim of being non-sectarian, the BSA should not use this particular "quality" as a qualifier for membership.

 

Rooster - you seem to believe that it is a basic "traditional value" and therefore, should be included in the basic value system of the BSA.

 

Am I close guys?

 

My complaint is that "traditional values" is a marketing slogan. It has a lot of "goodness" panache. I'm guessing that such things as separation of the races, dueling with pistols, male only voters, etc. doesn't come to mind when most think of traditional values but why not?

 

I think that as soon (if ever) the major contributors to the BSA (Catholic Church, LDS Church, majority of FOS folks, etc.) change their minds on the issue the BSA will follow along.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Acco40, I must respond (while sporting a Mephistophilean grin this Sunday morning), that evidently Rush Limbaugh is correct, "It's all about money." All I can say is, "Ditto." Now that's a traditional value for you.

(sorry NJ, couldn't resist)

 

Essentially what you suggest is that the market decides...policy, interpretations of rules, ethics, morality, everything. What could be more American than that?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[evmori 11]

I suspect that it is also the prevailing opinion (or for those of you who might be offended by that, the prevailing belief) within the BSA that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That is not a belief that I share.

 

And in my opinion, Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Trevorum 24]

Ahh, I see ...

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)