Don't ask, I'll tell...

[mk9750]

littlebillie,

 

Can I admit you make a great point about the tea party without saying I agree with it? Here's why I ask:

 

Take any topic in the past that was heatedly debated: Slavery, taxation w/o representation, to name a few, and it is mostly fair to say that the majority, or at least those that held the power, believed their position was right. We now know they were wrong. How can something widely held as moral or right become immoral or wrong? And if it can happen in those cases, could it not happen with other issues, like homosexuality? Obviously, you can see that I get your point.

 

But I still, stubornly, disagree. And I think the way I defend my position is to say that those things (slavery, taxation) were wrong whether the majority called them wrong or not. Morality doesn't change. People's understanding of moralty does. When enough people have their understanding changed, society's perception of rightness or wrongness changes.

 

Could this happen to the issue of homosexuality? Yes, it could. but I don't think it will. I don't believe the majority of any society will come to accept homosexuality as normal. Other cultures in other times have done so for short periods of time, but it has never lasted. Can I be sure of my position? Absolutely not. But I am convinced I am right.

 

tj really knew what he was dong, didn't he? This discussion has provoked a great amount of interest, and creative debate.

 

Mark

[firstpusk]

"If you say the Scout Oath, add hypercritical to that list."

 

Sorry Rooster7,

 

There has been far too much talk of dictionary definitions, but, here we go again...

 

Hypercritical - adj, Overly critical.

 

Hypocritical - adj, Characterized by hypocrisy.

 

That being said, I will add HYPERCRITICAL to the scout law the next five times I recite it.

[SR540Beaver]

"cannot be assumed to be private and confidential"

 

Quixote, you conveniently passed over this part in trying to bolster your view. The ruling did not say "wouldn't", it said "cannot be assumed". It did not say that a church official is required to report if told in confidence. It said you cannot assume it will be held in confidence. It is left as a judgement call of the confidant.

[evmori]

NJ,

I don't mean to sound mean spirited but who really cares what you believe in this case. TJ posted he has told other Scouters he is gay. If that isn't avowed then I don't know what is. That being said, TJ should have his membership revoked. No morality issue just a direct violation of a BSA policy. Just like breaking the law. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

 

tj,

I am truly sorry to hear about your homosexuality. It seems you are an excellent Scouter but according to the policies of the BSA, you shouldn't be a member. Because of this, I can't invite you to my campfire unless you turn from this lifestyle. If that ever happens, you are more than welcome to sit at my campfire.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver]

(Rant turned on)

 

Oh good grief!!! Is no one reading these posts? Everyone is entitled to their personal opinions, but to try to interpret the meaning of words differently than their definition is just purely dishonest. People are taking TJ to task and saying he is dishonest by being gay and participating in scouting. Yet, to defend their position, they are reading meanings into words that simply do not apply. If you can't defend your argument honestly, don't argue. The word "avow" DOES NOT mean entrusting personal infomation to a friend in confidence. It simply does not. Quit saying it does. Find a better argument. Sheesh!!! Everyone keeps saying that they KNOW what the BSA "really" meant by what they said. That won't stand up in a court of law. Facts, not opinions. As I've pointed out two other times, the BSA used lawyers to determine the language and words they used. They surely knew the meaning of the word as that is what they are paid for. The BSA is within their right to change the wording anyime they want. So far, they have not decided to do that and seem happy with the wording. Darrel Lambert may have had friends who knew he was an atheiest for years and chose not to inform anyone. He made Eagle and was accepted as an adult leader. It was not until he publically declared his atheism that he was taken to task. He became an "avowed" atheist at THAT point. What is it some of you don't understand about the definition of the word avowed. Many many educated, Godly Methodist clergymen and lay people struggled with the same question and came to the same logical conclusion of what avowed means. BSA needs to do the same thing. I agree with the ban on gays and believe that the BSA has every right to exclude gays from scouting. But by their own stated policy, the person must be avowed.

 

(Rant turned off)

 

I don't mean to offend anyone, I just want us to play fair, use facts and not spin issues to our liking.

[tjhammer]

Rosa Parks took responsibility for her actions. She didn't try to hide from anyone. She did practice civil disobedience, but she did so nobly - out in the light, not in the dark.

 

Ignoring BSA policy while pretending that you are not, is something other than civil disobedience. It's cowardly and dishonest. If you say the Scout Oath, add hypercritical to that list.You've discovered the one area for which I do agree with you and I don't feel very Scoutlike... while I have said I feel my "Trustworthiness" is fully in check, I don't feel very Brave. That bothers me a great deal more than you might imagine, as my confidence and courage are among the greatest gifts Scouting gave me. I'm smart enough to know when and how to pick my battles, but I'm also selfless enough to know the time and place must eventually come when there are others in harms way.

 

I'm not violating the BSA policy as it's written, nor do I feel obliged to "guess" at what the spirit of the policy really is. And while my silence is compliant with the policy, it bothers me greatly to think my silence can be interpreted as support for the policy. I'm bothered enormously by the pain BSA inflicts on young, gay boys, and that I am complicit through my silence.

 

So far I've convinced myself that I can accomplish more to change the policy from "the closet" than I could if I were no longer in the room at all. But more and more, I doubt how courageous that really is, and how my approach may be inconsistent with the lessons Scouting taught me. I'm not Rosa Parks, but Scouting did create me to be a leader.It is not an easy journey. Sometimes friends will mock you; test your resolution often. All the world will seem against you, and the path seem dark and lonely. All your strength will be required, as you face the isolation that a leader often faces. -Kichkinet, the guideI must have said those lines in a hundred OA ceremonies as a Scout, and they meant more to me each time I delivered them. Not because I felt isolated or alone, but because I felt like a leader, and because I understood how tough that sometimes becomes.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[SR540Beaver]

MK,

 

You mentioned in one of your responses to slavery once being considered moral and over time not being considered moral anymore. Paraphrasing, you also said that morality never changes, just the way we perceive it. Here is a question that I've struggled with in my Christian life for many years and I would like to have my fellow Christians perspective on it. The Bible never declares slavery to be immoral or sinful. The Bible speaks out on a multitude of sins such as murder, stealing, adultry, etc., but not about slavery. It appears to be an accepted practice in both the Old and New Testaments. The only restrictitons God put on slavery were laws for the ethical treatment of slaves. God even told his people that they could take slaves from their surrounding countries. Is the abolishment of slavery a man-made moral or a God made moral? We see no slavery as extremely moral and right. Does God? In His Word, He does not seem to have a problem with it. This isn't a trick question and I'm not trying to hijack the thread off topic. The issue of civil disobedience and what was once considered right being changed and now considered wrong is what brought this to my mind.

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says to me:

 

NJ,

I don't mean to sound mean spirited but who really cares what you believe in this case.

 

Well, Ed, it sounds to me like you succeeded in sounding mean spirited, regardless of whether you meant to or not. We could all take the attitude of who-cares about what the other person thinks, but then what would be the point of having the discussion.

 

TJ posted he has told other Scouters he is gay. If that isn't avowed then I don't know what is.

 

Not to sound mean-spirited or anything, but I'll partially agree with you: You don't know what it is. From TJ's description, he has not made his orientation generally known. He has not "officially" told the BSA. He has told several individuals in confidence, and it sounds like so far, they have respected his confidence. Now, some have said that TJ has placed these Scouters in a tough position by telling them. I agree. If it were me, personally, I would not have told anyone connected with Scouting, even though I believed they would keep it a secret. Not only has he presented these Scouters with their own case of divided loyalties, but he also has taken a risk that the information will in fact become "officially known." I do not mean that as a criticism of TJ, and I doubt that he would disagree with it. I also suggested earlier, and I don't think TJ responded, that if one of his Scouter friends did in fact "drop a dime," and inform the BSA, then he would have become "avowed."

 

That being said, TJ should have his membership revoked. No morality issue just a direct violation of a BSA policy.

 

As you interpret it. Does anyone think it's a coincidence that most people who favor the policy also interpret so it will have the greatest effect, while we who oppose it, interpret it so it will not. That might be seen as a criticism of both "sides," including myself. It's a natural human reaction to give ourselves, and not the other guy, the benefit of the doubt.

 

But the bottom line is, if you base a policy on whether someone has "avowed" something, and you know that someone has violated the policy, but you don't know who it is, has it really been "avowed." My tree-in-the-forest analogy still stands. (So to speak.)

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

I think the "Rosa Parks" analogy is an interesting one. Ms. Parks was indeed a courageous woman. But notice, she did not have the option (as TJ does) of concealing the characteristic that caused people to discriminate against her. Everybody could see that she was black, and therefore by the "law" of the bus company, she had to stand in the back of the bus. For the same reason, actual laws prevented her from going certain places, educating her children as they should have been educated (probably), exercising her right to vote (probably), and many other things. The "rules" of society dictated that she work at a menial, grueling job that tired her out, and one day she decided she was too tired to stand, she didn't have to stand, she was a human being and had the right to sit regardless of what the "rules" said. Thus is history made.

 

Now, suppose for a second that Rosa Parks had had the ability to pretend that she was white. That, of course, is not a fantasy, many black people who happened to have the "right" skin pigmentation did exactly that. There is something most people don't realize about the ongoing controversy over the descendents (allegedly) of Thomas Jefferson and a slave, Sally Hemings. You look at photos of some of these people and wonder what the issue is, because they sure look like white folks, and not surprisingly, because Sally Hemings herself had 3 white grandparents. (Her father, her owner, was also Jefferson's father-in-law, and her mother also was the child of an owner and a slave.) She herself "passed" after she was freed, as did her children, who were (as the result of their Jeffersonian paternity (Thomas or otherwise), only one-eighth black. More generally, until the "Civil Rights era" starting in the 60's, "passing" was something that many black people tried to do.

 

So what? Well, in "passing," they were at times breaking the law. They were going where the rules said they should not go, and sometimes they were marrying who the law said they should not marry. What would Rosa Parks have done if she were able to pass as white? Would she have still stood in the back of the bus after a long day of work, in order to make a point and support her less fortunate brethren? (Er, sisteren?) Or would she have kept her seat as the usurping white straphanger moved on to other seats in search of a black person to humiliate? We don't know. But more importantly, would we blame her if she took the "easy way out?" I wouldn't.

 

And it's difficult for me to blame TJ. Why put up with discrimination if you don't have to? In the past, I have seen a number of people on here ask, basically, "why do gay people have to announce who they are, why can't they just keep it private?" Well, here is a guy who keeps it private, and the reaction is still negative.

[littlebillie]

ummm - how many of y'all ever dip in here, read and post on your bosses' dime? you know - at work, without his knowledge?

 

trustworthy? loyal? obedient?

 

just a question, no answers needed...

[littlebillie]

mk9750 - Mark, if I may.

 

See, part of the problem is that to date, when a religious organization has gone out on the gay limb like the UUA did, the BSA says, well - we don't accept your religion! (yeah, I've simplified it). In order to keep one door locked, they've themselves have locked another. Exclusion has thus given birth to religious INtolerance - which Scouting officially decries, but has in fact embraced.

 

The last time this happened, the Mormon Church re-evaluated its views on race; I suppose they hope they can do the same with sexuality.

 

Regardless; the issue is never whether or not a change WILL happen - it's always really about whether or not it SHOULD happen.

 

(ever notice how mythology is a term that applies to something you don't believe in?)

 

Anyway - I do appreciate your balance in consideration, regardless of any ultimate disagreement.

[littlebillie]

tj, I can appreciate you wondering about bravery, but remember, that by staying 'in', you'll get closer and closer to helping all gay America. Coming out now will stop the ultimate good you can do for so many others - you may feel better about yourself, but you also end your efforts on behalf of folks who don't even know you!

 

Sometime, years from now, when they throw you a big ol' thanks-for-all-the-years dinner - THEN you can let them know who they're thanking!

 

'k, 'sjust a thot.

[evmori]

NJ,

I really didn't mean to take a shot at you. Just trying to make a point. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[slontwovvy]

kwc57,

 

Check out the book of Philemon. In it, Paul asks for a slaveholder to forgive his slave and treat him as an equal because he is a Christian.

[mk9750]

kwc57,

 

I said earlier that I probably should bow out of this discussion and let more intellegent people carry on. I probably will wish I had heeded my own advise, but here goes:

 

Scriptures were written by humans, inspired by God, but framed in the context of their understanding of the world. Hence, there are a lot of examples of things that seemed acceptable in the day they were written (stoning people comes to mind, in addition to slavery), but are not acceptable now. Your question I think is good acedemically, but I can't believe anyone in this forum would take up the arguement that any of the things that were acceptable in Biblical times but are not now should still be OK. Can anyone here really say that there is any chance God allowed slavery because he thought it was good? Rather, I think He allowed it because he determined that humans should have free will, and this free will allowed humans to make many mistakes, even on the magnitude of slavery.

 

littlebillie:

 

Please feel free to call me Mark or MK9750, or late for dinner (not many have called me late for dinner!). We disagree, but we are friends both in Scouting, and on this forum.

 

I am sorry to say that I have to profess ignorance - What is UUA? I am not familiar with them or the issue that you mention. And it's stuff like this that makes me even more certain I should back away and let more knowledgable people continue.

 

Mark