Compromise: Good or Evil

[Quixote]

TJ,

 

Quite the contrary TJ, it is entirely unfair to ask the majority to sacrifice its morals and values for a minority that advocates allowing (in some states) avowed criminals to be members.

 

The BSA has decided (with input from their volunteers) that the issue is one of morals - "Homosexuals are not appropriate role models".

 

You ask

 

In fact, I view the question being debated right now as "Can you accept that people with slightly different moral standards than your own can participate in Scouting without effecting you?" I can answer that question with a resounding yes. Can you?

 

I can accept people with slightly different values, but i believe that morals are absolute and not relative.

 

don't care what your moral standards are, and I wouldn't dream of asking you to change them. I just don't want you to hold our (yours and mine) organization (BSA) up to a standard that significant portions of its chartering partners, members and parents disagree with.

 

Again, i argue that Morals are fixed, it is our values that are relative. I'm sorry we can't agree on the question either.

 

Quixote(This message has been edited by Quixote)

[BubbaBear]

T.J.-

 

I have to agree with Quiote on this one; is it not fair for one side to ask the other to give up its convictions in favor of the other any more that visa versa?

 

Sorry, you set this one up...I am asking you (T.J.), are you willing to give up your convictions in favor of the other side of the argument?

 

My answer to the first is "yes", and to the second; well it goes back to what I have been asking all along.."How do the boys benefit from any change?"

 

Now getting back to the question I posed (it is my thread after all)...Are ALL issues non-compromisable?

 

Do we not allow the majority to rule in the case of selection of a President of the United States? When the president elect is not the one we choose, don't we work toward change in the future so that our position prevails? Frnankly, I had to tolerate the immorality and poor example of Bill Clinton for EIGHT YEARS, I didn't quit being an American because of it (although I secretly hoped for some bad to come to him). Now, I am enjoying what I view as a really good president, while others are looking to "depose him" as soon as possible.

 

I am sorry folks, in order to this world to continue functioning in an ever so complicated fashion, we have to compromise to some extent (while secretly hoping for demise to come to that which we are against).

 

Remember that wars are fought over seemingly intolerant issues...are we willing to accept that without thought or effort to prevent it?

 

Bare in mind that I would be willing to die for the freedom we have in this country. Is YOUR personal freedoms tht important to you?

[BubbaBear]

T.J.-

 

I have to agree with Quiote on this one; is it not fair for one side to ask the other to give up its convictions in favor of the other any more that visa versa?

 

Sorry, you set this one up...I am asking you (T.J.), are you willing to give up your convictions in favor of the other side of the argument?

 

My answer to the first is "yes", and to the second; well it goes back to what I have been asking all along.."How do the boys benefit from any change?"

 

Now getting back to the question I posed (it is my thread after all)...Are ALL issues non-compromisable?

 

Do we not allow the majority to rule in the case of selection of a President of the United States? When the president elect is not the one we choose, don't we work toward change in the future so that our position prevails? Frnankly, I had to tolerate the immorality and poor example of Bill Clinton for EIGHT YEARS, I didn't quit being an American because of it (although I secretly hoped for some bad to come to him). Now, I am enjoying what I view as a really good president, while others are looking to "depose him" as soon as possible.

 

I am sorry folks, in order to this world to continue functioning in an ever so complicated fashion, we have to compromise to some extent (while secretly hoping for demise to come to that which we are against).

 

Remember that wars are fought over seemingly intolerant issues...are we willing to accept that without thought or effort to prevent it?

 

Bare in mind that I would be willing to die for the freedom we have in this country. Is YOUR personal freedom that important to you?

[Bob White]

"is it not fair for one side to ask the other to give up its convictions in favor of the other any more that visa versa?"

 

What is fair, and reasonable, would be to not volunteer to lead a program whose rules and values you do not accept.

 

You are not asking for local units to have a some choices in who their members are. They already have that choice. You are asking for every unit to be able to determine what the scouting program is. It is like allowing every NFL football team to be able to play by there own rules.

 

How could we as a national program develop programs and resourses to operate by if evey unit had a different definition of what scouting was. Our values are who we are. They are approved by a large national committee made up of representatives of organizations that accept and use the scouting program.

 

In the 92 years of the BSA there have been organizations that have not sponsored scouting or dropped scouting because of a disagreement over its rules, its values, its uniforms etc. Some groups started their own version of scouting. The YMCAs Indian Guides began as scouting units as did the Assembly of God's Royal Rangers. That's fine. they have every right to do that. But the BSA has rights too. Scouting has a right to determine it's own values and rules. We have never and will never be able to please everyone, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Moses brought the 10 Commandments not the "10 Opportunities for Moral Compromise". Over the years millions have made the choice not to follow or to belong to organizations that follow those values. that is their choice. But organizations that do follow those rules (like for instance a church) can say "we will not let you teach our program if you do not agree with these values".

 

Scouting has determined what the values of our program are. They have the right to expect that the people who lead it agree to those values and rules. They have the right and the obligation to the members who joined because of those values to see that the leaders live by those values.

 

As a member of the BSA and the parent of a scout, I have no problem with that.

 

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Bob White]

Just as a point of clarificcation, Bubbabear wrote "Do we not allow the majority to rule in the case of selection of a President of the United States?"

 

Sorry Bubba, but No, we don't. As I mentioned to you in a previous posting when you mistakenly refered to us as a majority ruled democracy, we are in fact a republic governed by representatives.

 

The President is elected by an Electoral College who can vote, but are not required to vote, according to the voters of the states they represent. As we experienced in the last election, due to the structure of the college a candidate can be, and has been, elected by a majority of the College without having recieved a majority of the total votes cast nation wide.

 

In much the same way scout unit committees are not required to operate by a majority vote. And while Scouting on a national level is run by committees with representatives from scouting units and charter organization representatives, not all of it is run by majority rule. (That blows the conspiracy theories all to heck.)

 

My point being that although I realize you mean well in what you write the premises that you base them on are flawed.

 

Bob White

[tjhammer]

BobWhite, youre post is nothing short of hysterical exaggeration. I know you feel passionate about a lot of things, but simply stating something as fact (according to BobWhite) hardly makes it true (I dont think Im the first to make that observation on this board).

 

The BSA created this policy explicitly. And they did so after I joined. Nowhere in any documentation will you find this policy, or even a comment about this, before the late eighties. And nowhere on any form that I have signed has it been explained to me that I belong to a group that believes gay boys are unworthy of membership. You can claim all you want that you knew Scouting banned gays throughout your entire Scouting career, but that will come as quite a shock to the tens of thousands of gays that have been members of the program since 1910.You are not asking for local units to have a some choices in who their members are. They already have that choice. You are asking for every unit to be able to determine what the scouting program is.I can not believe you are serious. Sexuality has nothing to do with the Scouting program.How could we as a national program develop programs and resources to operate by if every unit had a different definition of what scouting was. Again, do you honestly believe that being a safe haven from gays is how we define the Scouting program? Do you think that banning gay Scouts is what allows us to build great citizens of character? Gosh, you have a radically different perspective of the value of Scouting.

 

[Bob White]

Well TJ you lapsed into your usual defense. When you cannot discuss the points made by a poster you attack him personally. Very un-scoutlike.

 

I've never said I spoke for the BSA. I pointed out that to try and manage an organization where every unit was given the local option to determine what the rules and values of the program was would be impossible. The BSA's stand on avowed homosexuals is not the only value that all people don't agree with. My point was that you cannot be all things to all people and be a national program.

 

Secondly I pointed out that the BSA has the right as a private organization to determine it's rules, values and memberships. Bubba says he would lay done his life to protect the freedoms of this country . Guess what. Scoutings right of free association is one of them.

 

There is no constitutional right for people to belong to a private organization just because they want to. You have a right to choose (and I feel a personal obligation) not associate with groups whose values you do not share.

 

Has scouting banned all gays over the years? No. Have they banned avowed gays over the years? Yes. This is not new. The fact that you didn't know what scouting saw as positive moral influences says more about your general lack of knowledge of scouting than it says about the BSA.

 

I have kept my involvement in this conversation to a minimum, mainly because of your behaviour. You want others to show tolerance for the people you want to include in scouting, and yet you show no tolerance for people whose opinions do not agree with you. You avoid logical discussion in favor of personal insults.

 

It is my personal opinion that you are not actually a scout or scout leader mainly because your posts show far more knowledge of rude behaviour than of scouting methods.

 

This issue affects very few people in the scouting program, and even fewer units. It's like a New Years party, it causes alot of noise but it really doesn't change anything. If you want to make a difference talk to your local scout executive and ask him to recommend you as a national board member. I'm certain with your obvious charm and leadership skills he will rally to your cause.

 

Knock'em dead in Irving,

Bob White

[BubbaBear]

Bob White-

 

OK, so I take it that your vote is for."compromise is evil"?

 

You say,"How could we as a national program develop programs and resources to operate by if every unit had its own definition of what Scouting was?"...well, that is a very good question...actually, the one I asked in my doctoral thesis for the Univeristy of Scouting Arts.

 

How can you take a program as simple in theory and pure in nature,and lend it to COs to manipulate it to their own purpose? Whether promoting citizenship of spreading their particular "word of god", it is the COs "own definition" (in your words).

 

No sir, what I am asking is for all of us, whom profess to profess the beauty of Scouting, to not impose their definition of Scouting on us all.

 

Furthermore, thanks for validating my argument about "majority rule". What should be majority rule (in the U.S. or the BSA,as you have set me straight) is in fact policy dictated by a the consensus of organizations whom supposedly represent what we as volunteers think. Please tell me that they speak for us all.

 

I take offense to your suggesting that I leave Scouting because I do not wish support the "rules and values". That was an arrogant and pompas statement. You have no idea of the good I have done in Scouting as a volunteer, nor do you have any idea how much personally needed money I've sunk into Scouting.

 

You are right about one thing, however; "Scouting has a right to determine its own values and rules". And that I might add, should be a consensus of everyone whom supports scouting, not just its biggest supporters.

 

I would like to know what faith you belong to, if that is not too much of an imposition Bob White. I would like to ask a local CO of that sect if you speak for them in your arguments.

[BubbaBear]

Bob White-

 

If we are a "republic governed by representatives" (USABSA), and we know that there are immoral and deceitful representatives in our government, then it would follow that some of the representatives governing Scouting are immoral and deceitful... is that what you are saying?

[Rooster7]

I've stayed out of this thread...not because I don't have my own opinion (as if anyone thought otherwise). I just didn't have the energy.

 

Any way, I have a confession to make. I have had the guilty pleasure of watching TJ and Bob White engage in this bitter debate. As someone who has debated them both, it's been a most enjoyable spectacle. ...I'm just teasing guys; so don't get your shorts in a knot. Having exposed my sin here, I'd like to side with Bob White (not that he necessary wants me on his side).

 

Hang in there Bob...(sorry TJ).

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Holy Cow Batman, Robin mooed bovinely

 

With the 4th of July tomorrow I am sure we all have barbeque on our minds, but I am not sure a roasted bobwhite will serve a lot of people.

 

And for those who think I may be the pot calling the kettle black, you are correct. I have unfortunately participated in more than my share of charactor attacks and personal insults, one such barrage was against Bob himself. However, I do understand where Bob is comming from and respect his opinions. Yes, Bob tends to express himself in Black and White only, however, for those of us who dabble in grey so much, its a good idea to have a reference point of what is BSA policy and what is not.

 

I think the BSA position on homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe a private organizaiton has the right to make up its own rules. I see so much value in the scouting program that I would not publicly challenge the Gay position of BSA.

 

When I was at the National Jamboree last year (WOW, its been a year already) I got in a pickup game of softball. Players were from all over the states, and maybe world, I am not sure. But we all played a game because we all knew the rules. Three strikes and your out, a ball caught on the fly was an out, and even the ethereal "infield fly rule" was invoked and honored. How could such a disparate group play a complicated game together ? Because the rules are standard and our participation implied we would follow those rules. Now, personally I would have preferred that if you fielded the ball on one hop it would be an out, or if you hit a runner with a thrown ball the runner was out(would have certainly improved my stats as a fielder) and the people playing the game could have agreed to those rules changes, but then it would not have been softball.

 

[Bob White]

BubbaBear,

I don't think compromise is right or wrong. I think think compromising one's values is wrong.

Believe in who you are and what you stand for and act accordingly.

 

To say that since the USA works by a representative governent and has bad people and that the BSA works by a representative system it too must hve bad people is not a logical argument. The ocean is full of water and and has sharks, the Missouri river is full of water so it too must have sharks? I don't believe that's true. There are good people and bad people in all walks of life. I hardly feel either the government or the BSA has cornered the market in that respect.

 

I do not profess to be a spokesman for my religion only for my faith, and have not represented myself as such. I do not understand how it is pertinant to this topic?

 

This is about agreeing to follow the rules of a organization you volunteered to serve. As unit volunteers, and like you I have been one for many years, we serve the BSA and its youth members. We do not run the BSA. We are not Chater organizations of the BSA.

 

You made an interesting statement. "Scouting has a right to determine its own values and rules". And that I might add, should be a consensus of everyone whom supports scouting, not just its biggest supporters."

 

Who better to have input on the future of the program than the organizations who use it the most. The national committees are made ov unit leaders, youth members, charter organization reps, major contributors, a whole variety of people from alll walks of life. You have national reps from your council, let them know your position.

 

I never suggested you should leave scouting. I said I would not join an organization, or stay as a member of an organization whose rule and values I did not agree with. There are other organizations out there to join that would embrace those same values.

 

What you have done for scouting is not the relevant point. The point is that scouting is what the BSA says it is. Just because a person supports scouting does not qualify to determine national policy. I support the Easter Seals, but I volunteer my time to them just as I do in scouting. I do not profess to be qualified to determine Easter Seals National Policy. If I did not like their program I would not have chosen to continued to support them.

 

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[BubbaBear]

I think you would make a good politician. Bob White. At least you did not dispute the arrogant or pompas remarks.

 

The question was: Is compromise good or evil?

Notice that it did not say :"Is compromise good or evil, but if the chicken crosses the road and a watermelon is there...". I am trying to speak in generalizations and you and others insist on bringing the topic back to your moralities.

 

There is true logic in the USA-BSA anology I made,it is a simple logical inference. Matter of fact, I know my argument to be a truism in the real world.

 

Your logical connections alude me.. I spoke of taking offense to your inferences and you used those remarks in the light of my determination of national policy. How did you arrive at the link?

 

Bob White,you have made your point; you will not compromise. Good for you. You can rest assured that you are true to yourself.

 

As for your civics lessons; we have a duty to civil disobedience in this country...remember? It is what allowed us to seperate ourselves from the King of England. Disagreement is healthy in society, whether you agree or not. That is what will protect this country from a religious dictatorship.

 

Now, for the rest of you whom have not responded to the origional question of this post; Is compromise good or bad?

 

 

[Rooster7]

You need to be specific. There has to be a reference. Are we talking about compromising one's opinion, one's morality, the charter of an organization, or what? How is it being applied?

 

This is like asking, "Is debate good or evil?" It depends on the subject and your motivation. There is nothing inherently evil about "compromise" or "debate". They are tools. Are you using those tools to destroy or to build? This is the characteristic, which defines the morality of such a question.

 

In the case of "compromising" BSA policy on homosexuality by deferring it to local units, I would say it is "evil". Why? Because the purpose of such a compromise would be to tear down BSA as a national organization and to eliminate it's standards.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer]

BobWhite -- My previous post was not character assassination (certainly no more than your subsequent one where you still insist on trying to suggest that I lack credentials to be involved in this discussion, or for that matter Scouting; conversely implying of course that your own credentials are far superior to my own. I'm simply exhausted with explaining over and again my own very significant involvement in Scouting at local, council, regional and national levels for much of the past twenty years. I have, in fact, sat in many of those different national committee meetings you reference, though as a support or task force member, not as a committee member.) I suspect you are one that likes to wear a lot of knots on their uniform breast, just to make sure we all get the point. Ive never been much good with the knots-R-cool crowd, so youll have to forgive me if I get a bit frustrated with discussing whose dossier is bigger with you.I pointed out that to try and manage an organization where every unit was given the local option to determine what the rules and values of the program was would be impossible. The BSA's stand on avowed homosexuals is not the only value that all people don't agree with. My point was that you cannot be all things to all people and be a national program.But this is the only "value" we are debating. You like to imply that changing this one "policy" to the local level would be tantamount to changing every or any policy, and that's just not what we're discussing. Stay focused on just this one issue, please. And for the record, I'll repeat the standard defense against your comment is that it certainly had no ill effect on the standards of the program 15 years ago when local units were granted the ability to allow women leaders. It has no ill effect on the values of the Mormom units when all the other units decide to stay through Sunday on a camporee instead of going home to their church (something the Mormons value strongly). At some point each of these values were debated or discussed individually, just like were now discussing the matter of homosexuals in Scouting.Secondly I pointed out that the BSA has the right as a private organization to determine it's rules, values and memberships.Another red herring from BobWhite, to try to discredit me. I, too, agree with this statement (you imply otherwise). I have said no less than a dozen times on this board that the BSA was right to win the Supreme Court case, but wrong in its choice of swords to fight it with; before we die on our own sword, I believe we need to drop it as an organization and leave the decision up to the local parents. (I've never understood how conservatives, of which I consider myself to be more aligned than liberals, could be so against the idea that decisions of morality and value education should be left as close to the parents as possible... to subjugate that authority to a national body seems completely inconsistent with true conservative thinking!)You have a right to choose (and I feel a personal obligation) not associate with groups whose values you do not share.And actually I do make such a choice. As someone else mentioned on here, I've already had this conversation with many of the people that I associate with in Scouting, and I know that we're of like minds on this issue. My personal obligation is not to abandon an organization (and really a program and movement) because I disagree with their new policy on one issue. My obligation is to continue to work within the program to change that policy, and that includes providing articulate debate for other adult leaders to fully understand the implications of the situation.Has scouting banned all gays over the years? No. Have they banned avowed gays over the years? Yes. Bob, this is patently false. This is really the essence of my previous point that you simply can't state something as fact when it is not. (I have said before that I have a lot of respect for most of your posts and contributions to this board... I recognize, as do many others, that you have a good mastery of the official program. So when you make statements like this, which are in no way accurate, people are inclined to believe you must know more than them and accept it as fact.) There is no history, recorded or otherwise, dating back beyond the late 1980's to show that Scouting had a blanket ban on homosexuals (avowed or not). Scouting, throughout history, has always selected leaders based solely on their character, and at no time was there an official policy (or even a preferred position statement) regarding homosexuality. This is a new "rule" implemented by BSA national resulting out of the National Relationships Committee.I have kept my involvement in this conversation to a minimum, mainly because of your behavior. You want others to show tolerance for the people you want to include in scouting, and yet you show no tolerance for people whose opinions do not agree with you. You avoid logical discussion in favor of personal insults. Bob, Im quite tolerant of your viewpoint and opinion. I am content to let you pursue your own opinion. I just dont want you to state your opinion as fact, when it is not. And I dont want you to force me to accept your opinion in order to remain a member of an organization that we both jointly helped build. Bob, I try very hard to ONLY provide logical discussion and AVOID any personal insults in this debate. It is very difficult to continue, time and again, to address with articulate and logical response the posts of some others, particularly those that never include logical discussion, just repetitive statement of personal opinion. And while I would not classify you in that group, you do slip into it on rare occasion, and I can't just sit back and let you insert opinion as fact. You carry too much credence as a "fact" guy on this board (even in my own eyes) for me to allow you to get away with bending those facts on these rare occasions.This issue affects very few people in the scouting program, and even fewer units.I've noticed that you had no response when we discussed how it deeply effects those few people and few units, though. It's funny; you were in adamant opposition to making a Scout sing for a lost pocketknife, because of the potential harm it could cause that one young boy. But you either don't care or just want to pretend it doesn't exist when we discuss the very real harm caused to a young gay Scout growing up in Scouting (one of the three specific examples I have given of how this policy touched someone in my life). Maybe you prefer to just think that it's a lie, so you can go back to focusing on the real damage we do as an organization by making Scouts sing.Knock'em dead in IrvingAs said before, I am already quite involved in Irving on this issue, and do participate through official channels in the discussion, particularly as an associate of the "group of nine" metro councils. I didn't get active on this board to discuss this topic until the National Relationships Committee appointed a stacked task force of twenty "diverse" members to reaffirm this policy six months ago. That's when I decided that debating the matter solely behind closed doors with people that havent seen the inside of a tent or the middle of a unit meeting for decades, if at all, was not getting me real perspective. However, it's quite funny (in a sad way) to observe that many of the personalities that exist on this board in this debate are quite similar to those sitting around the table in the National Relationships Committee:There's the very religious, and quite boisterous, "my religion is the only real religion... I'll pretend to tolerate your religion as long as I think it's cute and harmless to you" bunch.There's the "I can't tell you why I believe this way, it's just my opinion, but my opinion is never wrong so I'll do nothing but just restate it over and again" bunch.There's the "well, who am I to disagree with the Chairman" bunchThere's the "this issue is too hard to worry about, can't we focus on something else" bunch.There's the "well, I don't feel strongly one way or the other, so I guess I'll just go with the group" bunch.There's the "it's always been this way, and thats reason enough for it to always be this way" bunch.There's the "we're under attack by leftist guerrilla activists, circle the wagons and protect the young folks" bunch.There's the "well, if we give in on this issue the next step is to allow people to have sex with beasts" bunch.There's the "if we let local units decide it will be sheer pandemonium and an utter break down in the entire program of Scouting" alarmistsThere's the "I know we say theres no correlation at all between homosexuals and pedophiles, and we talk a good game about how we believe our Youth Protection policies work regardless, but *wink* *wink*, we all really know the score, right? All gays are just pedophiles waiting to rape a kid, let's keep 'em out for that reason (but don't let anyone know that's really the reason)" bunch.Theres the "we fought so publicly to win this important right of association, well look silly if we now change our minds on this issue" bunchTheres the "I dont want some gay guy swimmin in the same summer camp pool as me" bunchTheres the "heck, gays are all just recruitin... they wont be happy till they "convert" my kid to be gay too" bunchUnfortunately there aren't many members of that committee who represent the significant portion of the membership and a good number of the chartering partners and local councils that disagree with the policyThere are, though, several pompous members of the committee that believe "we can't allow parents and CO's to set a standard on something this controversial... they aren't really smart enough to do that for themselves, we better do it for them"

 

It's funny how the same vocal personalities hold true whether you are behind the closed door of a small meeting setting policy or on this board debating policy. Surely you recognize more than a few folks from the board that fit into the categories above?

 

 

 

 

Happy 4th of July to All! Enjoy the sun, family and friends. And thank God we have the freedom and free will to believe in our own God (in the USA and the BSA!).(This message has been edited by tjhammer)