Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[tjhammer]

Bob White:

 

I don't want to ignore your point... it is a very fair one. My answer, directly, is that I believe the principles taught by the Scout Movement should be obeyed over the principles set by the BSA organization. The Scout Movement teaches boys to stand up for what they believe to be right and "...to be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open, you should respect and defend the rights of all people..." (source, page 46, BSA Handbook, under the definition of morally straight).

 

And because the BSA has a Congressional monopoly on the Scout program in the USA, I don't have a choice to start another Scouting program identical with the exception of correcting this policy.

 

 

[Bob White]

tjhammer

Abain you bend the truth to suit you. The principles of the program are one in the same as the principles set by the BSA. They are inseperable. The program belongs to the BSA, we as volunteers and Charter organizations have created this program and at the same time pledged to abide by it. You have done neither. You try to change it through meaningless rantings on web forum, when even by your own admission the program you promised to follow requires yoou to use appropriate channels to seek change.

 

It is time you either fish or cut bait. If you want to change the program contact a member of the national executive committee and state your argument as to why the Supreme Court is in error. Otherwise follow the rules you agreed to, or find another organization that suits your beliefs.

 

 

[tjhammer]

Bob White said: principles of the program are one in the same as the principles set by the BSA. They are inseparable. The program belongs to the BSANo, Bob. The Scouting Movement exists in 157 countries around the world and is completely separable from the BSA, which is the corporation in the US that has the exclusive right to run programs based on the Scouting Movement. The BSA is in the minority of Scouting programs that claim their entire effort is based on whether they can exclude gays.

 

As I've said, your point is fair, but I can't accept it unilaterally. I believe that obeying this BSA policy is both a violation of my religious convictions AND a violation of my convictions to the Scout Movement (larger than the BSA corporation). If a boy came to you and made this point, would you just say "nope, youre wrong and Im right, sorry"?Bob White said: Abain you bend the truth to suit you. Suddenly this is now a new refrain from my opponents in this debate, that I am a liar and bend the truth to suit me. Though I don't know that a specific example of me "bending the truth" can be made.

[Rooster7]

Bob White,

 

Your last post was right on target. I agree with it whole heartily.

 

"TJ",

 

I think you have received the answer to your original question. Can we agree (to a compromise or some sort of resolution)? By all appearances the answer appears to be "no". That being the case, why don't you start your own organization? Regardless, it does not appear you have the plurality that you were seeking to support your stance.

 

Speaking of which, per your vision of the perfect world, morality should be determined by plurality. If it's not by simple majority, then please explain how this wonderful system will work? I am anxious to hear your answer. I am convinced that it will be non-sense, but I have a morbid sense of curiosity. I want to see the "logic" that would govern such a system. If I am right, it will be so convoluted that others will have to shake their head in agreement with my assessment. It surely will be a very subjective system susceptible to human whims. Nevertheless, do tell! I really want to hear it explained in cogent manner.

 

While we are on the subject, I'd like to be on record as saying - "I do NOT believe morality can be separated from God". Without God, we have no true purpose...Each new generation would merely be worm food for the generations to follow. Without his influence, morality is purely subjective, governed by flawed people seeking to serve themselves (that would include all of us). Without God, love and all other emotions are merely chemical reactions that occur within one head. Why should we bother to pursue what is right (or moral)? So we can boast about ourselves? Stay up one night and think about it. A world without God is not a world that one should seek. Having said that - The day we decide morality is subjective, will be the day we create just such a world.

 

Regarding this specific debate, it matters not what you (or the plurality) might label as moral or immoral. BSA has determined homosexuality to be immoral. It's there choice (as Bob White, DD, and others, have indicated time and time again). Our government ensures them that right.

 

Just to emphasize my previous question, please explain to me how your system of "morality by plurality" works? What happens when your nation is divided on an issue? Does that make the issue amoral? If it's not a matter of simple majority, then what governs the outcome? Please explain, if you can.

 

[Bob White]

jthammer

Again you skirt the issue. The other Scouting movements are not the BSA. Each country has its own organization, contolling body and methods. The issue here is not the rules by which any other program operates only the one that you chose to join and agreed to follow.

 

Sorry about the typo "amend the truth".

 

You chose the tactic of avoiding facts, and misdirecting responses around the true issue.

 

We have rules you agreed to follow. If cannot do so in good conscience then either take the appropriate steps by informing the executive board as to why you are right and the Supreme Court is wrong, or do yourself a favor and quit violating your word, join an organization that agrees with you. This organization does not.

 

You knew the rules when you joined.

[Bob White]

tjhammer

 

PS

"If a boy came up to me and made this argument would I say No your are wrong and I am right"?

 

No, I would say "sorry those are not the principles of this organization or the rules you agreed to when you joined". "If you feel you cannot live up to those rules then you will need to seek membership in another organization".

 

It's unfortunate no one made these rules clear to you earlier on.

 

 

[tjhammer]

Rooster7 says: I do NOT believe morality can be separated from God.Nor do I. But, I refer you to my original post where...I said: Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. All Scouters have religious convictions because all of us agree that the Duty to God is a pillar of what Scouting is about.

 

But in defining what we mean by "Duty to God," we have - after long and hard thought - said it is not narrow, it is not Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, Episcopalian, Catholic, or even Judeo-Christian. It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few.

 

 

Rooster7 says: That being the case, why don't you start your own organization?I have already answered that question. We can't. The BSA corporation has a monopoly protected by the US Congress to operate the program of the worldwide Scouting Movement within the USA.Rooster7 says: BSA has determined homosexuality to be immoral. It's there choice (as Bob White, DD, and others, have indicated time and time again). Our government ensures them that right. Rooster, please say "It's our choice" and the government ensures us that right. The others and I that are members of this organization and disagree with you and the National Relationships Committee were given just as much right as you to make this choice, and debates like these are a part of that process. And please, I have conceded from the very first post that I support the Supreme Court decision.Rooster7 says: please explain to me how your system of "morality by plurality" works? What happens when your nation is divided on an issue? Well, I would suggest instead of restating all of this again, I just refer you to the comments in the other thread. I think we covered all of this pretty thoroughly there.

[Dedicated Dad]

By that line of reasoning a woman raped is assumed to have consented simply because she didn't "ravage" her attacker. That's silly. Not really, man is capable of higher communication skills than animals, we dont communicate disapproval or non-consent with ravaging, we simply say no. Nope. I've already answered that point several times, plurality of opinion on what is or is not moral is not as simple as +50%Sorry, that is a little over my head , what exactly is plurality of opinion, I missed that one? What is the correct % that alters your moral relativity? How is this an erroneous premise, you've never even answered the question? You know well and good what premise this refers to but if you want me to answer this question Ill be happy to.

how it was possible that God could give me one truth and you another, and how you would answer a boy in your troop who might ask that very question of you. I would tell him God has given us free will to choose right or wrong, good or bad and truth or prevarication. To say your truth is divinely manifested is truly a miracle. Does He reveal any other facts to you? OK, so is this now your fundamental premise? Moral equivalency? Since the morality of incest can't be proven or disproved, neither can morality of homosexuality? You believe that both behaviors are equal, and by linking homosexuality to incest you feel you have proven your point that homosexuality is immoral because so many more people believe incest to be? Lets see here, NO, Yes, NO and NO.

 

 

 

[tjhammer]

Bob White said: You chose the tactic of avoiding facts, and misdirecting responses around the true issue.Please refer to the ten facts I listed in the first post on this thread. I stand by each of them as fact, and I do not believe there is any "misdirection around the true issue" buried within those bullet points (or in any of my posts).Bob White said: [if a boy came up to me] I would say "sorry those are not the principles of this organization or the rules you agreed to when you joined". I've made this point before, but placing such a priority on teaching the immorality of gays really cheapens the rest of the teachings of our organization. I can't imagine saying to a boy "yes, it's important for you to stand up for what you believe in, but that's not as important as believing gays are immoral". Come on, can't we agree that the lessons of the BSA are not all predicated solely on keeping gays out of the organization?

[tjhammer]

DedDad, where is your credibility? Are you planning to just gloss over the fact that you called me a liar, and that you have added words (both homosexual and immoral) to the definition of perverted to make your leap? Your method of debate is very troubling.DedDad said: I would tell him God has given us free will to choose right or wrong, good or bad and truth or prevarication. To say your "truth" is divinely manifested is truly a miracle. Does He reveal any other facts to you? You have said that your truth is intrinsic and given at creation. Is that not exactly the same as "divinely manifested"? Who created you?

 

I agree completely with God given "free will". Do you reject that God gave gays free will?

[Bob White]

tjhammer,

And yet again you avoid the the subject.

 

You signed an agreement to follow the rules and policies of the BSA. If you knew at the time that you signed that you could not in good conscience keep your word then you should not have joined. If after you signed the agreement you decided that that the rules did not suit you then you owe it to yourself to either notify national of your concern and let them determine the direction of the program or resign. Your current actions are not within the rules of the program. Policies will not change because you send posts to a forum.

 

So let us see if you can answer 3 direct questions.

1. Did you sign a membership application form?

2. Do you intend to abide by the rules and policies you agreed to when you signed.

3. Will you do the right thing and contact the national executive board with your recommendations?

 

 

[Dedicated Dad]

DedDad, where is your credibility? Are you planning to just gloss over the fact that you called me a liar, and that you have added words (both homosexual and immoral) to the definition of perverted to make your leap? What are you talking about? Your method of debate is very troubling. Im sorry, how can I make it better? You have said that your truth is intrinsic and given at creation. No I have not! I even gave you the references on my last post, cant you read? I didnt say it is MY truth and I didnt say it was GIVEN at creation, this is a lie, purposeful falsehood, false witness, what does that make you? Is that not exactly the same as "divinely manifested"? NO! Who created you? My mom and Dad. I agree completely with God given "free will". Do you reject that God gave gays free will? No why would I?

 

 

[tjhammer]

Policies will not change because you send posts to a forum.

 

I disagree. I believe the only way the policy will change is if the 900,000 adult leaders and 3.2 million parents of the organization realize exactly what the policy is and that they have an opportunity to affect change if they so desire.

 

1. Did you sign a membership application form?

 

Yes. I joined Scouting at the age of eight. It was not until just a few years ago that I (and many BSA members) had any clue that an expressed policy existed. There was no expressed policy banning gays published by the BSA in 1910, 1950 or 1980. It was only in recent years that the BSA has clearly declared their policy, based on outside pressure on both sides (gay activists and the Mormon Church).

 

2. Do you intend to abide by the rules and policies you agreed to when you signed.

 

I intend to adhere to the lessons of the Scouting Movement, and disobey (in as orderly of a way as possible) the BSA corporation on this issue.

 

3. Will you do the right thing and contact the national executive board with your recommendations?

 

I already have. And I have been privy to a series of high-level discussions that have prepared other Scouters who have testified before the National Relationships Committee "task force". This is the first time I have raised this issue in a semi-public conversation with other "regular Scouters", and I do so now because I think eventually this debate will have to go to the entire membership and break beyond the boardroom of twelve to twenty people that have affirmed the policy.

 

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

You just love to spin around in a circle. Frankly, it is tiresome. In the previous thread, which you pointed me to, you said morality should be determined as follows:

 

By plurality and relative perspective on mores. And by mutual respect for each other, tolerance and standing on common ground. Ironically, that's the same argument some use to kick gays out of Scouting.

 

However, in that thread, and as you have repeatedly done in this thread, you have failed to expound on that simplistic answer. Let me ask again. I will consider future avoidance to mean that you cannot answer in a logical manner (which, I pretty much figured was the case anyway) -

 

If it's not by simple majority, then please explain how this wonderful system will work? Who has final say over what is right and wrong? How would you implement it in BSA? AND REMEMBER - You said it was not a matter of a simple majority vote (which is good, because that would really cause your argument to suffer a quick death).

 

[Bob Russell]

Bob White, you have asked the following question of tjhammer:

 

"2. Do you intend to abide by the rules and policies you agreed to when you signed."

 

The application that I signed a long time ago contained no policy regarding homosexuals that I recall. So to determine the exact rules and policies that we are to follow, I went to the BSA website and searched it for BSA's policy regarding homosexuals. I confess I could not find one. Imagine that, the most important policy in the public eye and it's not clearly set out on the website for all to see. I would think that this important policy would be easier to find. Maybe I'm just missing it. And I will confess, I've never seen it in writing anywhere. And at the time I first became a leader, which was before the Dale case, I had never heard of the policy, nor has anyone I have talked to. The closest I could find on the website was the following statements:

 

"The Boy Scouts of America makes no effort to discover the sexual orientation of any member or leader. Scouting's message is compromised when members or leaders present themselves as role models whose actions are inconsistent with the standards set in the Scout Oath and Law."

 

"The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices." Press release, February 2002.

 

I have gone to the apparently unchallengeable merriamwebster.com site for the definition of "avowed" and found the following definition for "avow:"

 

"1 : to declare assuredly 2 : to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame "

 

It would therefore appear that unless a person declares assuredly or declares openly, bluntly and without shame that he/she is homosexual, the policy expressed in the press release is not violated. Would everyone here agree? And could anyone help me out here and point me to a clear official written statement of the BSA policy.