Jump to content
Hawkwin

National, Religion, Membership, Oath and Law

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

That is my quibble. Earlier you state lead by example, for which I fully agree, but we don't get to impose our morality as it pertains to membership. You don't get to exclude a scout from membership based on your own personal and religious morality and more than an Orthodox Jewish scouter would get to impose their morality on scouts as a barrier to membership for not following their religious dress code while not in uniform.

 

If the Chartered Organization is an Orthodox Jewish group, it has every right to impose its dress and dietary laws on its members. It can also restrict the units membership to those of its own faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

That is my quibble. Earlier you state lead by example, for which I fully agree, but we don't get to impose our morality as it pertains to membership. You don't get to exclude a scout from membership based on your own personal and religious morality and more than an Orthodox Jewish scouter would get to impose their morality on scouts as a barrier to membership for not following their religious dress code while not in uniform.

 

Actually the CO's do it all the time. Many COs use the scouting program as their youth program. In general families looking for a troop already know this by the CO's name or reputation. But having specific expectation of their scout unit members and imposing their behavior expectations is not unusual. 

Barry

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

How does a unit accepting gay youth cause any scout to violate the Scout law or oath?

 

 

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

How does a unit accepting gay youth cause any scout to violate the Scout law or oath?

 

Before  the change on gay youth with our troop it was a subject that we did not bring up or discuss.  Since the change it is a subject that the adult leadership has discussed.  Kids will be kids an make dumb decisions at times and our normal scout is attracted to girls for the most part so as a program we have rules in place that hopefully if followed will keep dumb decisions from taking place.  The issue that our adult leadership has discussed concerning gay youth within the Troop is that know, how do we deal with boys that are attracted   to boys.  and what rules do we need to put in place for this issue. 

As a troop we have not had to face this issue but it is a concern.  

As far as Gay adults, nothing has changed with our troop with the BSA policy change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

That's silly.  There is a ton of things that were different in 1907 and not used in the BSA.  We use them all the time now.

To follow a strict interpretation of only what was done then doesn't make sense.

Facts are just that and I said they should take precedence (ie, back seat) over opinion. Interpretation is influenced by the opinion of the interpreter. A very subjective outcome. I notice throughout this thread lots of mention of 'interpreting' things. Is there something offensive about facts and objective statements that makes them so discountable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FireStone said:

He told me I hate God. That's pretty direct and personal, and I don't think there are many people of faith who would take that lightly. 

I would go back and re-read what he wrote then. Nowhere did he say "Firestone hates god" or anything like that. Fighting irrational with irrational doesn't really work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took numbersnerd's suggestion and looked back to see what was actually said.

Quote

You can go ahead and hate this God, but you cannot pretend that He approves of what the BSA has done over the last few years. And now we see consequences.

The use of the word (you) in this context is somewhat ambiguous. Did he mean to specifically identify firestone, or did he mean it generally, as in "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? 

His second use of a pronoun (we) is certainly a general term. When he says, "And now we see the consequences",  he means everyone, not anyone one person or group in particular.

Edited by David CO
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

I would go back and re-read what he wrote then. Nowhere did he say "Firestone hates god" or anything like that. Fighting irrational with irrational doesn't really work.

He quoted me. His reply was directed to me, in response to what I had said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, David CO said:

I took numbersnerd's suggestion and looked back to see what was actually said.

The use of the word (you) in this context is somewhat ambiguous. Did he mean to specifically identify firestone, or did he mean it generally, as in "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? 

 

I was under the impression that if you quote someone in a response, you are directing that response to the person quoted. Is that not how this forum works? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FireStone said:

I was under the impression that if you quote someone in a response, you are directing that response to the person quoted. Is that not how this forum works? 

Not always. For example, I just quoted LegacyLost, but I was not directing my response to him. I was responding to numbersnerd.

In that post, I was careful to make this clear by putting in a comment before the quote. At other times, I have separated my comments into two back-to-back posts to make it clear they are not both in response to the same quote.

Not everybody does it this way. It is more a matter of writing style than a hard-and-fast rule.
 

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, FireStone said:

I was under the impression that if you quote someone in a response, you are directing that response to the person quoted. Is that not how this forum works? 

To file a complaint (I should have added), go back to Chapter 16.1 of this topic where that response appears and click on Report post in upper right corner next to IP address.

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

Not always. 
 


Yes,  in the forum Issues & Politics , it is a little less scoutlike.

@NJCubScouter , @Sentinel947

 

Edited by RememberSchiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

To file a complaint (I should have added), go back to Chapter 16.1 of this topic where that response appears and click on Report post in upper right corner next to IP address.


Yes,  in the forum Issues & Politics , it is a little less scoutlike.

@NJCubScouter , @Sentinel947

 

I disagree. It is not at all unusual for someone to respond to a post with the first sentence/paragraph directed in response to the person being quoted, and then continue with a general discussion in the subsequent paragraphs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

Two years later they picked yet another new morality.

I didn't realize that exclusion of girls was compelled by morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

I didn't realize that exclusion of girls was compelled by morality.

It wasn't. 

The change to include girls might have been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eagledad said:

And please, I'm not trying to turn this into a gay leader debate...

I'd say it turned into that about five pages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David CO said:

I disagree. It is not at all unusual for someone to respond to a post with the first sentence/paragraph directed in response to the person being quoted, and then continue with a general discussion in the subsequent paragraphs.

 

Agreed, but as you and others pointed out LL (and we all) should have been more careful with words so there is no ambiguity.

You can go ahead and hate this God, but you cannot pretend that He approves of what the BSA has done over the last few years. And now we see consequences.

One can go ahead and hate this God, but one cannot pretend that He approves of what the BSA has done over the last few years. And now we see consequences.

IMO, Cotton Mather would have used the latter.

My $0.02

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×