Rules and Values (again...)

[Bob White 20]

"It implies that you giving your word is the same as God giving His word - that you are, in your own eyes, God."

 

That's ridiculous Beavah, its not even on par with your other attempts to twist logic.

 

If you see giving your word, the same as your wife giving her word, does that then make you your wife? That is the same logic equation you used.

 

What an absurd thing for you to say.

 

This is more smoke and mirrors on your part. Your thread starts out with another false premise. Start with with a mixed statement about rules and program features, and then introcuce human rules without defining it, Then you switch again and caution us not to see program features as moral imperatives.

 

Who did that? Who suggested that a "program feature" lets say a puppet show at a Pack meeting, was a moral imperative?

 

Or are youredifioniong "program feature" for us as well?

 

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I sort of like Merlyn's contribution, eh? Thanks, Merlyn.

 

BobWhite, I can't even begin to follow your logic anymore. You said:

 

I find keeping your word to be a single ethical choice whether it is about my Duty to God or my Duty to others

 

which seems to be da basis of the ethics you are proposin' we exemplify for kids. Most Christian churches would consider your viewpoint heretical, a form of personal anarchism. Judaism and Christianity at least would put following your Duty to God ahead of followin' your word or duty to others, includin' da laws of the state. Unless of course keepin' your word is da same as keepin' God's word, because you are God.

 

Dat's the same thing BSA means by duty to Higher Power bein' the best form of citizenship, eh? That natural law as discerned by informed and rational personal conscience must be pursued in spite of da dictates of human law.

 

Like many of da other Scouters here are tryin' to tell you.

 

Only thing that changes when we move to a kids' program from da laws of the Nation are that da rules are much less important and therefore much less binding, eh? They yield to a broader range of higher priorities.

 

Ever watch kids playin' ball who aren't in a league? When Billy's little brother comes up to bat, he gets tossed easy pitches and gets to swing until he makes contact. Bein' kind and servin' the goals of havin' fun trumps da formal rules of a kids' game, but not of Major League Baseball.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Gold Winger 9]

"Ever watch kids playin' ball who aren't in a league? When Billy's little brother comes up to bat, he gets tossed easy pitches and gets to swing until he makes contact. Bein' kind and servin' the goals of havin' fun trumps da formal rules of a kids' game, but not of Major League Baseball."

 

Once again, you're comparing apples and oranges. I earlier gave an example of how a local league can change rules if they wish. You kids game is one step below that, if not two steps.

 

Now consider the local Little League. I don't mean Little League in the popular sense of youth baseball, I mean a Little League that is affiliated with Little League in Williamsport, Pa.. In Little League there are commissioners, directors, LL Umpires, and all sorts of people who are there to make sure that the rules are followed. Why? After all, it's just a kids's game, right?

 

Why? So that the playing field is level (methaphorically speaking) for all involved. So that a championship game you don't hear, "my pitcher allows wore a white glove at home" or "if the batter/runner kicked the ball on the baseline, we just called a foul."

 

If Scouting wasn't a national program with national standards, you ccould play fast and loose with rules. If the guidelines for a BOR simply said, "a group of people who understand the requirements for first class shall comprise a BOR" you could have a first grader on that BOR.

 

Just like a franchisee doesn't get to redesign the Big Mac, a CO cannot redesign the Scouting program (except for Mormons).

[David CO 1783]

Not everything I put my signature to is legally or ethically binding. My signature does not always not always convey a "promise" or "giving my word". It often does, but not always.

 

When we purchased our last home, the deed included covenants that were not legally or ethically binding. Did I sign it? Yes. Was I legally or ethically bound by these covenants? No.

 

 

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

"When we purchased our last home, the deed included covenants that were not legally or ethically binding."

 

Hmmmm . . . maybe a different state but my lawyer told me that they were binding.

[Beavah 205]

David CO, did yeh buy a house from GoldWinger?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Illegal covenants aren't binding, like racial and religious restrictions on reselling the property.

[Gold Winger 9]

I doubt if Denver had something illegal in his covenants.

[David CO 1783]

One of the covenants prohibited Cub Scouts/Girl Scouts (and other types of meetings).

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Since restrictive covenants were ruled unenforcable (as opposed to illegal), they aren't automatically removed and require legal action to delete. Since they have no effect and cost money to get rid of, most people don't bother. William Rehnquist owned some land with old restrictive covenants dating back to around 1930, which was brought up during his senate confirmation for chief justice.

[Gold Winger 9]

I don't have a problem with banning meetings. I do have a problem with banning RVs and dead cars.

[David CO 1783]

The restrictive covenants are legally unenforceable and have no effect. Thank you. My city officials told me the same thing.

 

Ethics is a different question, and ethics is a topic of this thread. I believe myself to be acting in a perfectly ethical manner when I disregard these restrictive covenants.

 

Some might even say that ethics requires me to disregard them.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Doubtless many have surmised I have no legal background at all, so keep that in mind with this question.

 

If restrictive covenants were ruled unenforcable, why does the purchaser have to sign them in the first place? Is that not silly? I shall sign this paper saying I will not do X when everyone in the room knows I certainly will do x and have no reason not to and nobody is going to do anything about it because they couldnt if they wanted to

 

Do I have that concept down?

[Gold Winger 9]

I would argue that unless you were under duress when you signed the papers, you have a moral and ethical obligation to abide by the rules that you agreed to even if they are unenforceable.

[nolesrule 58]

Not all covenants are unenforceable by default, however there are federal, state and local laws that can supersede some or all of of the rules. And even after certain covenant rules have been ruled unenforceable in court, they still continue to keep those rules in place even though they can't be enforced.

 

Since most people will sign anything put in front of them at the closing rather than walk away from the table and forfeit their deposit, the unenforceable rules are kept in place by HOAs and CAs in order to make the buyers think they can't do something, such as installing a satellite dish, even when they can. It's a deceitful practice.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)