Prejudice will drive more away than it will draw near

[Bob White]

I apologize if I made the question too confusing. I will try again.

 

A) You see two drivers obeying the rules of the road. Which one is mindlessing following the rules and which one isn't.

 

B) You stop and ask one driver why he was driving the speeed limit. He answers because that is the posted limit for this street.

 

Is he the minless driver or the other one?

 

C) A third driver comes along, you see him him speeding snd running stop signs, when arrested and brought before the judge he pleads not guilty on the grounds that he is not a mindless driver like those who obet the rules, he is an innovator lokking for a better way to drive because he knows he has better ideas than the people who mad the rules.

 

Does the judge 1) congratulate him on his innovative methods and creative approach to the rules of the road rather than follow mindlessly.

 

Or does the judge 2)fine him for being breaking the laws of the community.

 

 

[evmori]

No Bob, the driver in c) was breaking the law! Not even a good example!

 

Try this, the driver in your example c) broke the law by running a stop sign. Now let's say that stop sign was in the middle of a street with no cross street for miles. So the driver appealed his fine for breaking the law by running the stop sign and in turn got the sign removed because there was virtually no reason for it. Now the driver was still guilty of breaking the law but he decided to try to change the law. Not mindless.

 

Are all those rules & regs the BSA has so definitive that there is no room for individual interpretation?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Finally Ed

 

The guy who ran the stop sign was guilty even if HE THOUGHT it didn't belong there and worked to change it. He still has to obey the law. So the one who stopped because he followed the rule was right to stop. Whether the sign may be moved in the future or not, the ones who obey the rules and stop are right and the one who disobeyed is wrong.

 

If you obey the rules it doesn't matter why because the right thing to do was to obey the rule.

 

So who is mindless the law keeper or the law breaker?

 

So to bring this back to the topic, following the rules is good, trying to change the rules is good if that is what you bekieve needs to be done.

 

Complaining but taking no real action is bad

 

Following a program that works is good,

 

not following the program is...bad.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Hunt]

I don't think it matters whether BSA allows COs to be more restrictive or less restrictive--in both cases,the CO is allowed to have a policy that is in conflict with BSA's general policy. BSA's policy--presumably based on principle--is to have leadership open to men and women. COs are allowed to have a different policy based on their own principles. BSA is totally nonsectarian--but COs are allowed to set sectarian limits on unit membership.

But hey,if this is a distinction that matters to you, I think BSA should make the same change it did with women leaders--open leadership to gays, but allow COs to be more restrictive if their principles call for that. That would be totally analogous to the female leadership decision, right? Now can we talk about whether we think that change would be right or wrong, or a good idea or not, which is really the only issue worth talking about?

[Bob White]

Now you seem to overlook the minor point that the BSA doesn't want to open the program to homosexuals and has no intention to.

[Prairie_Scouter]

So, when you say "BSA", Bob, is that "BSA" representing all of us, or some small group of decision makers in support of their own, possibly politically motivated, agenda?

 

Since the stance on gays in U.S. Scouting is contrary to the philosophy of the majority of the members of Scouting Worldwide, I have to wonder if something else is going on.

[Bob White]

What does what other countries do in their scouting program have to to with the BSA? How come the only elements of scouting anybody ever talks about when the want to be like other countries is having homosexual leaders and different uniforms uniform.

 

Gay men and fashion... is anybody else giggling right now?

[Eagledad]

>>How come the only elements of scouting anybody ever talks about when the want to be like other countries is having homosexual leaders and different uniforms uniform.

[DugNevius]

um... not really Bob, what is your point?

[evmori]

If you obey the rules it doesn't matter why because the right thing to do was to obey the rule.

 

Mindless statement.

 

The BSA has no rules that prohibits gays. It is an interpretation of Clean in the Scout Law. And I for one am happy with that interpretation.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

We seem to go around in circles on this, but here goes:

It's perfectly fine to say that you agree with BSA's current position to exclude gay leaders and members, and to give all kind of reasons why you think their decision is the correct one.

But it's something else to suggest that because "BSA" takes a particular position, the discussion is over. As has been noted ad infinitum, BSA has changed its position on matters of principle before (presumably because the decision makers either changed their minds or because new decision makers came into office). Furthermore, BSA takes steps to find out what its members think about issues like this (by taking polls, at least). Third, it seems pretty obvious that at least to some extent the moral values of BSA reflect the moral values of the religions to which the vast majority of BSA members belong. If those religions change their position on an issue, you would expect BSA to at least take a fresh look at the issue.

Finally, it's worth discussing on a forum like this because I'm sure readers here include current leaders at various levels, as well as future leaders. To the extent that leadership grows out of the rank and file, the opinions of the rank and file on various issues will gradually become dominant.

So, for the nth time, if you think BSA should maintain its current policy on gay leadership (or anything else), tell us WHY you think that's the best viewpoint. If you disagree, say WHY you do. Your opinion may influence the future Chief Scout Executive.

[acco40]

But Hunt, surely you know that for some the reasons or "whys" as you state can be fairly obtuse. Some are really afraid of that scary frightening monster called "change." Others just get beaten down trying to defend things they firmly believe in from outsiders that they see as constantly chipping away at those beliefs. The lazy mans response then becomes - go away, if you don't like it the way it is start your own group. Reminds me of the "America, love it or leave it" crowd. When challenged with ideas, battle back with bumper stickers and vindictiveness. That way is much easier than to battle back with their own well thought out ideas.

 

On the flip side, Scouting values should not be determined by a majority vote. Standards should be just that, standards that do not change. However, the world does change and some ideas - slavery, indentured servitude, racism, etc. do belong on the trash heap of history.

 

Last, remember that Scouting is a business. Many individuals livelihoods depend on it. In other words, money talks and BS walks. My wife served as the district popcorn chair and both her and I have been involved in unit fund raising (popcorn) at both the Cub and Boy Scout level for ten years or so. At one of our Scouting colleges I told the council Scout Executive/CEO that a handful of the stores that used to grant us (units) permission to do show and sell, i.e. store sales, had refused in the recent past stating specifically the reason was because of Scouting's stance on homosexual leaders. I did not add my opinion (Is this good? Is this bad? How should we respond? etc.) just stated the fact. He got defensive and his main response was purely from a dollars and cents perspective.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Bob,

What other Boy Scout organizations do in their countries is relevent because we are all a part of the worldwide Scouting movement. If BSA is out of step in a large way with what is going on in other Boy Scout organizations around the world, that should at least cause us to pause and wonder if BSA is right. Not that we necessarily have to follow in lockstep with what the rest of the Scouting movement does, but there should be a snicker test, and I have to say, whenever virtually ever other Scouting organization, and Scout-like organization, has managed to come to terms with this issue, I have to wonder if BSA has the right answer.

[Trevorum]

Acco says, "Scouting is a business."

 

Alas, this is all too true. Would that it was different, but I feel that many BSA policy decisions are made primarily from a corporate perspective. On this issue specifically, I strongly suspect that BSA accountants have "run the numbers" and concluded that - at the present time - BSA membership (and hence, revenue) would suffer more from the loss of religiously conservative COs than would be gained by taking the moral high ground.

 

Acco also points out that previously held "truths" about the human condition, such as the legitimacy of slavery, are now universally rejected. What he tactfully omitted is that many of the same religious arguments that were used 150 years ago to justify slavery are now being used to justify the anti-homosexual agendas.

[Bob White]

Prairie

 

I would like to know about how different the BSA is from the other WOSM members. Of the reamining 152 countries exactly how many other countries have a policy that allows for avowed homosexuals to be unit leaders?(This message has been edited by Bob White)