Jump to content
Hawkwin

National, Religion, Membership, Oath and Law

Recommended Posts

From the 1911 edition of the Scout Handbook (emphases is mine):

Quote

A scout is reverent.
He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion.

Being scout like requires us to show respect to those who's religious beliefs are different from ours. Respect does not require agreement. Just be careful about throwing words like "evil", "immoral" and "corrupt" around when referring to the beliefs of others.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that liberals would love to be able to aggressively promote their agendas without getting any opposition from conservatives. It isn't going to happen.

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

I'm sure that liberals would love to be able to aggressively promote their agendas without getting any opposition from conservatives. It isn't going to happen.

 

*sigh*  and this is why the USA is in the state it is currently....

 

It's not a zero sum game.  There must be discourse and compromise in all things.  Your (the group you - not just David CO) truth is not the same for everyone else.  The same goes for your moral code - no one has the right to enforce their code on anyone else.  

 

We are a nation of laws, supposedly built in compromise for the best interests of us all as a group.  Some may do slightly better than others because of it, but none have win or lose all.

Share this post


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

I'm sure that liberals would love to be able to aggressively promote their agendas without getting any opposition from conservatives. It isn't going to happen.

 

Feels to me like we've got an impass on some of these topics.  Both sides believe their positions.  Both see national decisions as significant enough to leave the movement.

Given that you have to make a choice on these topics - girls in Scouting, gays in Scouting, religion in Scouting, we appear trapped as a movement.  Choices either make the traditionalists/conservatives happy or make the progressives/liberals happy.  My preference would be for local choice - don't impose your morals on me and I won't impose mine on you.  But, even that is controversial.

In my mind, Scouting is so much bigger than these choices - as important as they are.  I would have my kids in Scouting regardless of whether they allow girls, participants who are  gay, or require a belief in God.  My community generally matches my views and the people I Scout with generally do as well.  That's good enough for me.

It just feels like we're pulling ourselves apart as a movement.  I grant that our society is in a time where these issues are not settled nationally.  I just wish Scouting could stay outside that fray, let us do our own thing, and let me just focus on having a good program for my kids.

Share this post


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

Feels to me like we've got an impass on some of these topics.  Both sides believe their positions.  Both see national decisions as significant enough to leave the movement.

Given that you have to make a choice on these topics - girls in Scouting, gays in Scouting, religion in Scouting, we appear trapped as a movement.  Choices either make the traditionalists/conservatives happy or make the progressives/liberals happy.  My preference would be for local choice - don't impose your morals on me and I won't impose mine on you.  But, even that is controversial.

In my mind, Scouting is so much bigger than these choices - as important as they are.  I would have my kids in Scouting regardless of whether they allow girls, participants who are  gay, or require a belief in God.  My community generally matches my views and the people I Scout with generally do as well.  That's good enough for me.

It just feels like we're pulling ourselves apart as a movement.  I grant that our society is in a time where these issues are not settled nationally.  I just wish Scouting could stay outside that fray, let us do our own thing, and let me just focus on having a good program for my kids.

What about scouting for you makes the program bigger than the changes being implemented on it.?

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

What about scouting for you makes the program bigger than the changes being implemented on it.?

Barry

To me - I've always felt that Scouting was about developing self confidence and leadership skills.  Over their time in the program they go through all kinds of life challenges that they overcome - camping, earning awards, etc.  In the process, they develop the skills and tools that stay with them for life.

I've always used the example.  Because I was a scout, someone could plop me down anywhere - in a city, in the desert, in the middle of the forest, and I felt confident that I could find my way home.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cgail said:

It's not a zero sum game.  There must be discourse and compromise in all things.  Your (the group you - not just David CO) truth is not the same for everyone else.  The same goes for your moral code - no one has the right to enforce their code on anyone else.  

We are a nation of laws, supposedly built in compromise for the best interests of us all as a group.  Some may do slightly better than others because of it, but none have win or lose all.

But it is a zero sum game in its current incarnation.  Ask the baker in CO or the florist in WA if their rights are being respected or if somebody else's moral code is being imposed on them.  All laws enforce somebody's moral code, enforced by a gun.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

To me - I've always felt that Scouting was about developing self confidence and leadership skills.  Over their time in the program they go through all kinds of life challenges that they overcome - camping, earning awards, etc.  In the process, they develop the skills and tools that stay with them for life.

I've always used the example.  Because I was a scout, someone could plop me down anywhere - in a city, in the desert, in the middle of the forest, and I felt confident that I could find my way home.

Well said.

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

But it is a zero sum game in its current incarnation.  Ask the baker in CO or the florist in WA if their rights are being respected or if somebody else's moral code is being imposed on them.  All laws enforce somebody's moral code, enforced by a gun.

"Whites only" was also an acceptable sign to hang on your shop until the 1960s.. it doesn't make it right.  Many people in the early 20th century thought that non-whites were inferior in all respects. 

As I understand it, the shopkeepers deeply believe that homosexuality is a sin.

I find it hard to believe that those shopkeepers are able to associate and do business with people who were wholly without sin (depending on your interpretation).  

Given that, would they refuse service to a known adulterer, a thief, someone who blasphemed?    What makes one worse than the other?

 

Share this post


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

It's not a zero sum game.  There must be discourse and compromise in all things.  

nonsense.  our very foundation as a nation held certain truths self evident.  There is no compromise for self-evident truths and inalienable rights.  Should we compromise on murder?  On pedophilia?  where else should we compromise?  This is a silly statement that is not grounded in reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

nonsense.  our very foundation as a nation held certain truths self evident.  There is no compromise for self-evident truths and inalienable rights.  Should we compromise on murder?  On pedophilia?  where else should we compromise?  This is a silly statement that is not grounded in reality. 

I think the quote is:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Edited by ParkMan
Removed unintended bold of text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is bigotry an inalienable right?

I've heard this "slippery slope" argument countless times, and it's still as made of straw as always.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.. it's far different than fact.  

Example:  "Thou shalt not kill" is I believe how it's written - but people must kill in many settings:  Military in war, police in the line of duty, etc.   Killing is different than murder, but sometimes it's a fine line.  We justify it based on the laws we have set for ourselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cgail said:

Is bigotry an inalienable right?

I've heard this "slippery slope" argument countless times, and it's still as made of straw as always.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.. it's far different than fact.  

Example:  "Thou shalt not kill" is I believe how it's written - but people must kill in many settings:  Military in war, police in the line of duty, etc.   Killing is different than murder, but sometimes it's a fine line.  We justify it based on the laws we have set for ourselves.

 

How it's written is actually thou shalt not murder.  but non the less, show me your compromise on pedophila.  You said, and I quote "There must be discourse and compromise in all things."  this is not a straw man.  this is not a slippery slope.  all things. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We as a nation have determined that pedophilia is unacceptable and illegal.  I don't see anyone advocating for it except for a certain senatorial candidate (sorry moderators!)..

States set the legal age of consent however - some are younger than others.  Those that are younger would be considered children in others.  

The compromise comes in when there is a large group on either side of an issue.  All things must be adjudicated at some point - we regulate either by law or by social compact.  Otherwise we have anarchy. 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

We as a nation have determined that pedophilia is unacceptable and illegal.  I don't see anyone advocating for it except for a certain senatorial candidate (sorry moderators!)..

States set the legal age of consent however - some are younger than others.  Those that are younger would be considered children in others.  

The compromise comes in when there is a large group on either side of an issue.  All things must be adjudicated at some point - we regulate either by law or by social compact.  Otherwise we have anarchy. 

 

I don't even know where to begin. 

 

So if a community at large decides murder is acceptable and therefore legal,  this is a point of compromise for you and you accept it?  um, ok. 

Share this post


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

×