Pornography Okay with Scout Oath/Law?

[tortdog]

Nice post, Torveaux. The first question was not supposed to be debated. The intent of the poll is merely to ask if pornography is in keeping with the Scout Oath/Law. I provided suggested definitions at the urging of NJ who wanted something definitive.

 

So, to each his own definition. I really only wanted to see if scout leaders believed you could indulge in pornography and still be viewed as obeying the Scout Law/Oath. My view is that it is like stealing - that a person engaged in it would be morally unclean. I see that all do not agree.

[johndaigler]

Tortdog,

 

your original question is causing the grey. Your definitions (the Sistine Chapel is pornographic?) are such that if anyone answers D, they're lying, yet that's your desired answer. Comparing yours to an SAT question is inaccurate, since SAT questions have correct answers and go through rigorous testing to be sure they are not culturally biased - a test your question would fail.

 

Are we talking about sexually explicit material having a place in Scouting?? That might have a simpler answer, but that's not the question you asked.

 

Are we talking about pornography in a Scouter's private life? It's no one else's business, it's legal, and the Scout Oath and Law are the individual's Scout(er)'s to interpret. Bringing "morally straight" into play is just asking for grey - causing a lot of needless angst for good Scouters. Surprise, surprise, the "morally straight" phrase causes problems, yet again.

 

 

All these Morality threads are starting to make me crazy. Try this on for mental size. By it's nature, morality is the limit of appropriate personal behavior. It's the definition of what an individual can accept as "doable". Thus, people cannot really be "immoral" - it's a verbal trap. I can't do what I can't do. If I do it, then it must not be what I can't do.

 

MY choices might not be another's choices, but they are mine to make, mine to judge. 'Legal' and 'moral' are different, so I definitely can make illegal choices, but I can't be immoral. I can only be morally wrong as judged by others - others who have no right, no authority, no place in judging me.

 

I'm uncomfortable with human sacrifice, but Christ seemed OK with it. I believe killing other humans is wrong, but then again, I pity the fool who hurts my family. I don't believe abortion is a good choice, but I've never been a teenage girl raped by my Mom's latest boyfriend. Of course, I could go on, but it's all the same, isn't it? Morality? We all would be better off if the word didn't exist. It gets used far too frequently, and never well.

 

I think we can keep ourselves busy, working on our own life paths, rather than spending time on labeling as "immoral" the directions of others' paths. Helping the boys define their life choices is what we do, but judging their choices isn't part of the game. We can only lead by modeling. We can teach them what We see as appropriate, we can teach them what's legal and illegal, we can teach them what breaks our group's rules, but we Cannot define their lifecode.

 

So, ...crazy, ... I contribute, yet again, to a thread that I know I shouldn't even read, let alone respond to!

 

jd

 

Personally, I think Dusty Baker should be fired! Oh, and Barry Bonds is a bum! And, Cubs should not have to wait till the BnG to get their earned rank badges - or feel pressured to complete rank by the BnG!

 

(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[tortdog]

Thanks for your thoughts, JD. I'd differ in that I believe there are moral absolutes. However, I don't want the BSA to start defining the morality of everything in the universe.

 

I guess, for me, I see certain things as beyond the pale. And, yes, to me it is irrelevant whether a scouter engages in moral/immoral conduct whether in or outside of scouting. I think the oath/law are to be upheld in our daily life, and not just at a team/troop meeting or at a scouting event.

 

I certainly can understand why some would disagree on my views. But, the reason these issues may start to play a greater role in everyday scouting is because BSA has taken stands against shifts in society to behavior which has traditionally been viewed as immoral. When the law pushes the BSA to the brink to where it must decide whether to accept a new morality, or hold the line, it will be interesting.

 

While I am not Catholic, I am heartened to hear of Pope Benedict's belief that it's more important to have a smaller Catholic church that holds to truth, than a larger church that accepts immoral behavior.

 

[gavvin]

OK, simple answer.

 

Pornography has no place in scouting the same as alcohol, illegal drugs and cigarettes.

 

HOWEVER, if the pornography in question is legal where you live and you are of legal age to view it and it does not violate your religious beliefs or morals, it does NOT conflict with the scout oath or law to view it on your own time. Now, there are probably not that many people in scouting who can truthfully claim that it doesn't violate at least one of those points, so the answers you get will tend to be skewed against it.

[Prairie_Scouter]

jd,

 

I can only say, "I Trusty in Dusty"

Not without limits, but for now, yeah. Ask me again in August.

 

Back on topic...

This is, like many, a very grey area. Like jd said, "Morally Straight" comes back to bite us, again. Who gets to decide what meets that highly subjective phrase? In this case, some folks in Irving, Texas, who I don't know, and don't know whether they're speaking in the best interests of Scouting or on behalf of some special interest. Although I don't agree with their views, I at least hope it's the former.

 

Legally obscene material has no place in Scouting for obvious reasons. Pornography, I think, is in the eye of the beholder. One person's pornography is another person's art.

[OldGreyEagle]

Nothing like defining your terms whether its by-laws or pornography. There was a time when Thomas Hardy's Tess of the D'Ubervilles and Alexandre Dumas's Camille were considered porno.

 

Tortdogs definition was for graphics/pictures. What about literature ?

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[packsaddle]

I agree with Kahuna. The act of viewing something is, in and of itself, neutral. Light reflected off the surface (or emitted from it) is detected by us and our brains convert the nervous stimuli into visual information. Regardless of what IT is, simply viewing it cannot be a matter of morality.

However, to fantasize about something with the most prurient, debased, and violent of thoughts COULD be considered immoral, even if nothing is being viewed.

The better question has more to do with what is in our hearts and minds, rather than what is on a printed page.

 

And no one can truly know that for another person, ever.

 

Edited part: You know, I could have sworn (oops, a little immorality leaking out there) that Maxim was a brand of coffee.

And furthermore, I'll have you know that there is a rich literature on genitalia. I happen to view genitalia quite often, and not on the printed page either. I get to see the real deal, up close and personal - with all the smells and iridescent colors and everything. Except usually on microscopic plants and animals. Some fish. OK, a few snakes and an occasional bird. Yep, and the horse across the way sometimes shows some proud flesh. Big deal!

OK, for the microscopic organisms, it's a really little deal.

But let me tell you...not for that horse!

As Bob Dole says, "Down boy!" (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[tortdog]

I was considering making another thread, for fear the discussion might get buried under this title. But the thought came to me as I considered more the diverse opinions brought forward here regarding pornography and scouting:

 

The BSA has set a standard that homosexual leaders are not acceptable to Scouting, as their conduct violates the Scout Oath/Law.

 

But, the BSA has NOT set similar standards for anything else, right? There is no automatic removal of leaders who cuss, use pornography, lie, cheat or even steal. Or am I wrong? If not, why did the BSA draw a line with homosexual activities but not these others?

[DugNevius]

what would you propse they do? Should the BSA be allowed to have surprise home morality insepctions, seeking out "contraband" deemed immoral, such as playboy, Maxim, and other "immoral" possesions? If a scoutmaster is found with any photogrpahs of scantaly clad women he will no longer be allowed to participate in scouting?

[Trevorum]

That's easy. They're homophobic.

 

 

[Kahuna]

Correction, Tortdog, BSA says OVERT homosexuals can't be leaders. It they are "out" as gay, they are out as BSA leaders. Like the military don't ask don't tell.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Tortdog, the possible answers I can identify are:

1) they're thoughtless, or

2) they're hypocritical, or

3) they're homophobic.

Which one is the good one?

[Trevorum]

Pack, good points. I guess I just assumed that they were "mentally awake" and "trustworthy", but still intolerant.

[tortdog]

>what would you propse they do? Should the BSA be allowed to have surprise home morality insepctions, seeking out "contraband" deemed immoral, such as playboy, Maxim, and other "immoral" possesions? If a scoutmaster is found with any photogrpahs of scantaly clad women he will no longer be allowed to participate in scouting?

 

We could relegate this to be silly basket, but I think it's a legitimate (and serious) question. Certainly we can agree that certain conduct should disquality someone from BSA leadership, e.g., murder and child abuse. I cannot fathom the BSA standing by and allowing a Scouter to remain while engaging in such conduct in his private life.

 

>Correction, Tortdog, BSA says OVERT homosexuals can't be leaders. It they are "out" as gay, they are out as BSA leaders. Like the military don't ask don't tell.

 

Maybe this is the key. If you start to stand up and scream "I am gay!" then the BSA says you are out. Maybe the BSA will never send out a secret squad to determine our private sins, but if a Scouter starts producing pornographic movies while proclaiming he is a BSA leader, the BSA would act to remove him.

 

Similarly, the BSA may not remove all people who abuse children (it doesn't know), but if it finds out that leader is gone. Even with that requirement of "outward expression", hasn't the BSA still drawn a line in the sand by saying you can do lots of things in public but yelling you are gay is not one of them (or perhaps making pornography)?

 

Thoughts?

[DugNevius]

"There is no automatic removal of leaders who cuss, use pornography, lie, cheat or even steal."

 

again, how would the BSA know if an adult leader owns porn or curses?