Rules and Values (again...)

[Bob White]

Moses broke the tablets not the rules. What rules did Jesus break? Martin Luther did not break the rules he left the church rather than break the rules. The fact that you need to revise history in order to support your view shows just how skewed your actions are.

 

MLK and Ghandi both followed "civil disobedience". Not riding the busses was not illegal. Not buying cloth that the goverment taxed was not illegal. They did not break laws, they chose ways to protest and stay within the laws. This is what made them so effective. That is not what you are doing.

 

You are merely saying that each person gets to pick and choose what rules are important and ignore the others. That's hardly the values of citizenship that the BSA program represents or that is vlaued by any community.

 

 

To use the founding fathers is a horrible discussion device and a failure to acknowledge what actually happened.

 

Like Luther all the majority of the colonists wanted was to have representation in the making of the rules, (we have that in scouting by the way). When they couldn;t get that they asked to leave, as Luther did from the church, and have their own government. They did not set out to break the rules, when they could not change them they chose to leave. That is an option that is still available to BSA volunteers today who choose not to follow the rules.

 

Unlike England, the BSA will not stop you from leaving if you unable to function within the rules of the program.

 

Again you are incorrect in how you describe the function of a civilized society. The ability to apply the law is a task given to to the courts not to each individual. The expectation of a citizen is that you follow the laws of the community or choose a different community.

 

One does not have to be perfect to make the conscious decision to live within the laws of the community. A moral character does not require perfection, it requires only the ability to make ethical choices.

 

There is nothing ethical or responsible in choosing to say you will follow the BSA program and its policies, and then knowingly disregard them. (Especially when you base your actions on your personal likes and dislikes.)

 

There is nothing heroic in ignoring the policies of the BSA, it is just poor leadership. No one is going to carve your face in a mountain just because you lack the ethical judgement to keep your word and follow the rules.

 

Whether you kill someone or routinely ignore parking meters, you are still a criminal. The only difference is in the severity of the punishment determined by the community, but both actions show the lack of ability to make ethical decisions.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[BadenP]

The only revisionist historian here is BW. Jesus broke every rule of his Jewish culture, healing on the sabbath, working on the sabbath, dining with unclean pagans, associating with Samaritans etc, etc, however he was the son of God so the argument is mute. Martin Luther did not leave the Catholic Church he was excommunicated by it for heresy and yet he felt he was doing his duty as a priest and following the church's rules by pointing out to his bishop actions that violated the doctrines of the Church, such as the selling of indulgences and sacred relics. Even Moses dared to question God and the Israelites were forced to wander the desert for 40 years. So you see Bob OGE was correct in his analogy and you were incorrect in your criticism of him. You see a pattern here?

 

Bottom line, rules are necessary to protect and guide people, programs, and institutions from doing harm to others. Even in our legal system there is the rule of law and the spirit of the law and each has been interpreted and reinterpreted by the courts from local judges to the Supreme Court for centuries. Laws and rules have to be reviewed and reinterpreted over time as to their relevance and legality in present day society. The rules governing the BSA are no exception and have been revised over the last 100 years.

[Beavah]

So a Scoutmaster who says that in his troop the BSA uniform consists of the uniform top and jeans, then he is in league with Moses, Elijah and the prophets.... Who knew?

 

LOL.

 

Exactly why it's so absurd to claim that da BSA uniform regulations are the same thing morally/ethically/by analogy/by example as the laws of a government or society. They're not, eh? They're just the guidelines to a children's program. BobWhite's right, eh? Not usin' NSP and instead insisting that older boys mentor younger lads as part of regular patrols gets you perhaps a few boys who respect servant leadership better, but yeh don't get your face on Mt. Rushmore. That requires somethin' like ... Treason against your lawful ruler under God.

 

And just so the point is once again clear, all those heroic people didn't break just any law, nor did they break rules just to do what they wanted, although there was always an element of that. Those are all just stooooopid straw man arguments, though they're quite funny. Those good men and women just put goals, principles, and higher law above idolatry of human law and rulers. Their example is not a license to break human law willy-nilly, it's a call to serve above all else - to serve Christ the King, not Henry the King, in da language of your tradition, OGE.

 

BobWhite, you're a long way from your last Bible Study class or history seminar, eh? Time for a refresher I reckon. Let's let some others have an at-bat, though, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Bob White]

I am afraid that in your zeal to continually attack me you failed to study. In many parts of the new testament there is evidence of Jeses celbrating the Jewish rituals and following the Jewish laws. The problem was that the Jewish hierachy misunderstood the law. A good example is in the scenario you mentioned of Jesus healing a man on the sabbath. Jesus explained to those that were there that he was not working, he was healing another person. The Sabbath is there for humanity and not humanity for the Sabbath. If the purpose of the Sabbath is to worship God then how is the law broken by seeing Gods love heal a person in need whom he created?

 

Jesus explained the laws to the people of that time because they had been straying from them.

 

Martin Luther did not break the laws he pointed out how others were breaking them.

 

It was not Moses actions that caused the Jews to wander for 40 years, you need to remember that Moses was on Mt Sinai with God when the tribes of Israel angered God. As far as why they were made to wander in the wilderness for 40 years you should really discuss this with your priest or minister for a better understanding of the that as this is not the appropriate forum for a religion lesson.

 

And as you say rules are necessary, and while they might get interpreted and reinterpreted, it is not the role of the volunteer to do that himself or herself. Our obligation and responsibility is to follow the rules and NOT just pick through them and follow the ones we like.

 

PS

Beavah, I am not as far away from those classes as you think.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle]

I for one am joyous to see Bob White's embrace of civil disobedience. After all, "The term civil disobedience was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848 essay to describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the American government to prosecute a war in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

 

Ghandi most certainly did break laws (making salt comes to mind).

http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/dandi.htm

 

And if MLK didn't break any laws why was he arrested so many times? One of the galvanizing events in the Civil Rights movement was a crime - Rosa Parks's refusal to yield her seat to a white person.

On the other hand, the equation of a violent criminal guilty of taking human life to someone guilty of petit theft is just incredible.

[Bob White]

Lots of people have been arrested who didn't break laws. If arrest was the same as guilt then there would be no need for lawyers.

 

You misunderstand by choice or by accident I do not know. I never said their guilt was the same. I said that both are criminals and both lack the ability to make ethical decisions

 

To suggest that the the laws of segration are somehow on ethical par with the advancement policies or uniform policies etc. of the BSA is inane.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Bob White wrote: "Lots of people have been arrested who didn't break laws. If arrest was the same as guilt then there would be no need for lawyers."

So I have to inform you:

1963 - "On Good Friday, April 12, King is arrested with Ralph Abernathy by Police Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor for demonstrating without a permit."

1967 - "The Supreme Court upholds a conviction of MLK by a Birmingham court for demonstrating without a permit."

http://www.lib.lsu.edu/hum/mlk/srs216.html

 

I'm only sorry the memories of some are so short.

 

And then Bob White wrote, "To suggest that the the laws of segration are somehow on ethical par with the advancement policies or uniform policies etc. of the BSA is inane."

 

Assuming you're talking about 'segregation', I agree that the importance of one to society is greater than the other. However, I didn't suggest such a thing. YOU mentioned MLK and Ghandi as examples of persons who engaged in civil disobedience. Here's what YOU wrote about them: "They did not break laws, they chose ways to protest and stay within the laws."

They didn't. I just gave examples of how you were wrong about Ghandi and MLK. My inference is that civil disobedience involves...DISOBEDIENCE.

According to your reasoning, Ghandi and MLK "both are criminals and both lack the ability to make ethical decisions."

 

And I find that to be just incredible.

[Bob White]

Lets be factual here I did not introduce these historical people into a conversation about a scouters obligation to follow the rules. That was Beavah painting his support of ignoring rules as something historic and heroic.

 

My poit was only that it was not law breasking that made these individuals the histroic people there were, and that law breaking was not what made them heroes.

 

A Scouters obligation to be trustworthy and obedient is not based on the marches of MLK or on Ghandis civil disobedience and to try and hide unethical behavior behind their efforts is ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Bob, when you said "MLK and Ghandi both followed "civil disobedience"... ... They did not break laws, they chose ways to protest and stay within the laws," you're contradicting yourself. "Civil disobedience" involves very publically breaking laws that are seen as unfair, in order to be arrested and demonstrate how unfair those laws are.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence.

 

MLK quite clearly knew he was breaking the law as he wrote in his "letter from Birmingham jail":

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/popular_requests/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

...

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'

...

[Gold Winger]

Alas Marvlen, justice is in the eye of the beholder. I consider capital punishiment for car theft to be just punishment, others disagree.

[BadenP]

Your facts are once again false Bobby,your logic is as faulty as your incorrect interpretation of history and BSA policies. Even when you know you are wrong you will try to make others believe you are correct, lol. A real piece of work.

[Gold Winger]

"A Scouters obligation to be trustworthy and obedient is not based on the marches"

 

So if the law required that all Catholics be surrendered to the government for sterilization, a good Scout would turn in his neighbors who were hiding Papists in his attic?

[evmori]

Civil disobedience is breaking the law! Our forefathers broke the law! Moses did, too! Even Rosa Parks did!

 

For some, history is what you want to remember it was. For most, it is the facts of time gone by.(This message has been edited by evmori)

[David CO]

When buying a mini cooper converable, the customer is asked to sign an agreement promising to drive with the top down, whenever climate and conditions allow. It's a sales gimmic. It's a joke. I think it's funny, but I don't consider it legally or ethically binding.

 

I suppose a person who thinks of ethics in very rigid and inflexable terms might feel otherwise.

 

Now, chartering agreements and membership applications are not sales gimmics, and they're not jokes. We should give them all the ethical consideration they deserve, but only what they deserve.

 

BSA is a corporation. While many of us would like to think of our relationship to BSA as being more than it is, we are, in fact, merely customers of a corporation. Our ethical obligations to BSA is that of a customer to a corporation.

 

In the participation of Scouting activities, we develop bonds, friendships, and obligations to others. I would never seek to diminish the value of these relationships, or the social and ethical obligations that come with them.

 

The ethical coniderations we extend to other customers of BSA should not, and do not, extend to BSA itself. It bears repeating. Our relationship to BSA is that of a customer to a corporation. We should act accordingly.

 

I suppose a Scouting zealot who believes the planets and the stars all revolve around Irving, Texas, might feel otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

David

 

Are ethics and humor mutaully exclusive? Is being ethical and being zealous inseparable.

 

Your post appears to suggest both conditions.

 

I do not see their corellation.

 

In fact it would appear that some folks can be just as zealous about breaking rules as others can be about operating within the rules.