Progressive Parents...

[packsaddle]

I agree with Gern's instincts on the labels, 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Such labels are often employed in a dismissive manner to avoid meaningful discussion. It usually works and has succeeded in polarizing many of us.

Categories work best if they mean the same thing to everyone who uses them. This is the goal of taxonomy, typology, etc. It is not useful to apply a label if it either connotes a wrong characteristic or if people think the label has different meanings.

 

Personally, I consider myself to be extremely conservative - in the sense of conserving natural resources, financial resources, and personal freedoms. It has always struck me as odd that on this basis, I am often labeled 'liberal' by people whose politics support exploitation of natural resources, deficit spending, and also support restriction of personal freedoms by a central authority. And then call themselves, 'conservative'. Go figure.

 

But that's OK, people can call me any name they want except 'late for dinner'. I recognize the tactic as compensation for weakness in their arguments.

Oops, dinner happens to be calling right now. TTFN

[Eamonn]

Progressive parents?

I'm guessing that we are not talking about where they buy their car insurance?

 

Eamonn

(Who I'm told sounds like the spokes-lizard for that other not-Progressive insurance company.

Can someone butter me an English muffin, please?)

[Trevorum]

{chuckle}

E, now every time I pay my car insurance, I'm going to think of you with that charming accent ...

[GernBlansten]

I'm not. I'm a happy Progressive customer.

[fgoodwin]

Speaking of progressive:

 

I still haven't heard a good explanation for why Scouts Canada, who have a more "progressive" membership policy than BSA, suffers greater membership losses (%-wise) than BSA.

 

Can someone explain that one to me?

[Mr. Boyce]

If I'm not mistaken, the Progressives' origin was in the 1876 election, with dismay over corrupt federal government. Civil Service reform was key to the movement's start, which, with leaders such as Brandeis, Filene, etc., moved squarely into serious economic issues. At times, joined by Bryan, Wilson, Roosevelt the First. Ralph Nader really is the standard bearer for Progressivism in contemporary times.

 

I think liberal's the term you're after. The homosexual issue is difficult, I feel, since (a) there is no conclusive notion of how or why same sex attraction appears (it's a complex phenomenon), (b) heterosexuals are threatened by it, © homosexual practices themselves can be socially disruptive in several quite different ways, (d) homosexuality is challenging to the public health, and (e) the rate of pedophiliac incidents runs proportionately higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. There may be more problems (such as the great one I have, that homosexuals are forcing and imposing their political agenda upon us in very undemocratic ways), but these are what I can note.

 

The Progressive Parent issue is a real one. But this is chiefly because most people DON'T really study the homosexual issue: they accept the propaganda told them, and Progressive Parents are especially likely to follow the homosexual's description of their situation.

 

I suspect BSA would lose more members than gain, if they had an open-door policy. And I'm confident BSA would start having lawsuits due to predatory homosexual activity, etc.

[GernBlansten]

The younger generation clearly doesn't hold the animus against homosexuality that older generations do.

Not many years ago, we criminalized their behavior. The pendulum is swinging.

Everyday, more churches are opening their doors to homosexuals. States are recognizing their right to form legal partnerships.

I believe that within my lifetime, the genetic markers that prove that homosexuality is a physical trait and not a choice will be found tearing down the remaining house of cards against them.

 

If BSA digs in its heals against these societal changes, it will risk losing the support of the growing segment of Americans who do not share those values. BSA faced this societal change before with segregated troops, male only leadership, and co-ed programs. Each time it adapted.

 

 

[Rooster7]

Sorry to spoil the love fest here for those folks embracing these enduring values. Alas, I am not inspired by those men who chose to have sex with one another. Nor do I think it is a wonderful thing to push God out of ones mind to justify those types of choices. I know for some, this sin-free utopia is progressive But you can count me as one of those regressive types whod like to see this country go back to a time when they fully embraced God. Was it perfect during those times? No - of course it was not. We found plenty of ways to sin against God but at least as a collective, we recognized the fact that we were sinners. Today, we have redefined sin so we can deny its existence in our livesdenying our need for a Savior. What a great shock it will be for those folks when they discover that God is sovereign and His Righteousness cannot be denied or redefined. I weep for the youth of a church that would install and celebrate a gay youth leader.

[Mr. Boyce]

There are many who find it exciting to promote social change. And for many, pushing change in values justifies their existence. It's exciting, elicits comraderie, and so forth.

 

I've always been skeptical of the notion that "just because everyone's doing it, it's right." So I don't hold much truck with the whole "wave of change" idea. In fact, I don't think voting on moral questions is the right procedure for determining them.

 

If anything, a good procedure on moral values would help RESTRAIN selfish and inhuman impulses. Even if everyone wanted them. This is the old query (sure, that's a pun): if everyone were made happy by killing Bill, should we still kill Bill? Or does Bill have an innate, inalienable right to live, even though he makes us sore?

 

I think thinking homosexuals at this point might question whether there may be a sobering up, and a push-back, to their efforts by the general public.

[Trevorum]

Anyone who sincerely wants to live in a country where "God is sovereign and His Righteousness cannot be denied or redefined" can always move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. I hear they take religion pretty seriously over there. It's even the same god.

[evmori]

Actually, "God is sovereign and His Righteousness cannot be denied or redefined" applies to every country throughout the globe! God isn't of this world. He created it!

[NeilLup]

The idea of "Traditional" is interesting.

 

To me, the tradition of Scouting is embodied in the Scout Oath and Law. The traditional idea of Scouting was, I believe, that one pledged oneself to doing ones best to following the Scout Oath and Law (On MY Honor, I will do MY best). Scouting welcomed anyone who agreed to do that and wasn't guilty of certain rather grievous felonies or other sins against society. One was one's own judge of whether one met the standard and striving to meet the standard was what was expected.

 

There were, I believe, always gay leaders. They stayed in the closet. I knew some of them. Some were particularly effective as Scout leaders because of the time that they had to spend.

 

What is different is individuals wanting to proclaim loudly that they are gay and that being gay is OK and still be Scout leaders. Of course in "traditional" times if one has said "I'm homosexual and I want to be your Scoutmaster" if they were lucky they would have gotten a 10 second head start out of town.

 

So there are at least two things happening that are non-traditional.

 

1) An individual's own adherence to the Scout Oath and Law not being deemed a sufficient standard for being a Scout or Scout leader. A 3rd party standard has been imposed where a person can do something that is not illegal and in some areas not contrary to community standards and still be disqualified from Scout leadership. Selection by the chartered organization is not sufficient. A person can say "Yes, I agree to do my best to adhere to the Scout Oath and law" and be told that's not good enough, their publicly proclaimed sexual orientation disqualifies them.

2) Persons who are openly gay wanting to be Scout leaders

 

Thus far, as best I can tell, Scouting has reacted to non-traditional influence 2) by no longer honoring traditional precept 1) which was, I believe, one of the very basic principles of BP and the other founders of Scouting and the BSA. The result has been that the composition of the membership of Scouting has remained what it traditionally was but, I believe, a significant amount of the traditional societal privileges and benefits Scouting has enjoyed and societal respect it has enjoyed have been compromised or lost. What would have happened if Scouting had reacted differently can only be a matter of speculation.

 

Changes in societal norms in the past have forced re-evaluation of Scout membership and leadership. One example is woman leaders. Another obvious example is racial segregation. At one time, I believe that there were not only segregated units but even segregated councils.

 

That changed as society changed. Scouting, particularly in the US, has been a consensus organization rather than a lead organization in social areas. This may be somewhat different from the original Scouting of BP which was really pretty radical in terms of mixing and inclusion of different social classes.

[NeilLup]

Hello Mr. Boyce:

 

"(e) the rate of pedophiliac incidents runs proportionately higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals."

 

May I ask you list references or data to substantiate this statement if possible. I have never heard that individuals who are homosexual in their ADULT sexual orientation are more inclined to pedophilia that persons who are straight in their adult sexual orientation. In fact, I have heard that pedophiles are most commonly males who are straight in their adult sexual orientation.

 

Of course, that doesn't take into account that homosexuals are thought to be (pick a number ) 5-10% of the population and in that group it is possible that pedophilia is proportionately greater. But I have never seen data indicating this.

[TheScout]

A well stated critique of the folly of moral relativism. What is right is always right and never changes.

[Rooster7]

"Anyone who sincerely wants to live in a country where 'God is sovereign and His Righteousness cannot be denied or redefined' can always move to Saudi Arabia or Iran."

 

And if that attitude was adopted by our forefathers about 250 years ago, you'd probably be speaking a different language and doing it from another spot on the globe. This country was founded by folks who embraced God, not by those who rejected Him.

 

You're free to define Him in your mind and with your words as you please - but the God of the Universe is real and changeable. Eventually everyone will know that. As for my desires to see our country embrace Him again its just that a desire a hopebut I am not endorsing a society that imposes religion on anyone such as Iran. Youre free to paint me with that brush (i.e. religious fascist), but I think most folks understood what I was saying. If not, I cant make it any clearer for them.