National, Religion, Membership, Oath and Law

[numbersnerd]

20 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

It's not just that he insulted forum members - it's the blatant attacks on the BSA, it's leadership, and by inference those that support it.  Calling the BSA and its leaders immoral and wishing it's demise is a problem.

There are many more ways to make your point without having to revert to that.

What's the difference between criticism and insult? The element of personal perception. You saw it one way, I saw it another. 

You can express your dissatisfaction with his behavior, yet you would restrict the manner in which he expresses his? Honestly, it only ratcheted up once he began to get flak for his stance. The escalation was not entirely upon him.

How do those that require objective compliance reconcile that with their own subjective behavior?

[Peregrinator]

On 5/14/2018 at 7:14 PM, ParkMan said:

It matters just as much.

No, actually, what B-P actually did do matters much much more than what you or I or anyone else thinks he might do today.

[ParkMan]

5 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

What's the difference between criticism and insult? The element of personal perception. You saw it one way, I saw it another. 

You can express your dissatisfaction with his behavior, yet you would restrict the manner in which he expresses his? Honestly, it only ratcheted up once he began to get flak for his stance. The escalation was not entirely upon him.

How do those that require objective compliance reconcile that with their own subjective behavior?

The difference is in how you refer to people and the institution.

You can explain in lots of ways why the BSA decision is wrong without rooting for it's demise or calling it's leaders morally corrupt.

[Eagledad]

30 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

The moral code is for the scout, not for the scouter to impose on the scout. This is where there is no religion test when it comes to Duty to God. The scout is asked if they did it, not if it meets the specific requirements that the scouter would like to impose on the scout.

Additionally, we have a very strong moral code. The Oath and the Law well define our code. It simply doesn't demand a specific behavior regarding sex. We can certainly have a strong moral code even when it doesn't cover ever single thing a scout might encounter.

Again, we don't have a moral code as it pertains to premarital sex. That doesn't mean that the individual scout is absent their own code (based on their faith) regarding such. Just means you don't get to exclude them from membership based on it.

You're confusing your statements. We have a very strong moral code. The Oath and Law define our code. But the code is for both the adults and scouts. The program is based on scouts learning from their decisions and from watching their role models. The role model adults are the judges of the scout 's decisions. I'm not sure how you think adults don't impose their moral code. In fact, the strong impact of role modeling is why I don't agree with allowing gay scout leaders. They don't have to perform actual sex in front of scouts to express agreement for the behavior. And please, I'm not trying to turn this into a gay leader debate, it's just an example of how adults impose morality. Or immorality I guess.

Barry

Edited May 16, 2018 by Eagledad

[Peregrinator]

On 5/14/2018 at 11:48 PM, The Latin Scot said:

Great, thank you! Um ... what exactly is the "flash?" Sorry I have never worn a beret before, lol. 

The insignia (badge or patch) that is on the beret.

[ParkMan]

1 minute ago, Peregrinator said:

No, actually, what B-P actually did do matters much much more than what you or I or anyone else thinks he might do today.

Everyone's actions are influenced by the norms and culture of the day.  BP is no different.  What's important is to understand the aims he had and to interpret them correctly so we can implement his program correctly. 

[numbersnerd]

6 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The difference is in how you refer to people and the institution.

You can explain in lots of ways why the BSA decision is wrong without rooting for it's demise or calling it's leaders morally corrupt.

So if someone can't express themselves in a manner that conforms to your style or sensibilities they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Doesn't sound very inclusive.

[ParkMan]

19 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

Taurus Excretus.  BSA had a moral code to be envied; until '"acting like a Boy Scout" became a pejorative. 

And some used that latitude to the extreme.  "My moral code is to have no morals, but since that's my moral code; I can be an Eagle scout!"  And BSA allowed it.

The basic strength of a good morale code is that it doesn't change.  Through good times and bad, whether popular or unpopular, these are my morals.  Some things I will always do.  Some things I will never do.  You get strength and affirmation from others who have the same code that you do.   BSA hasn't changed their fundamentals?  You're right; BSA completely abandoned their fundamentals.  

I said it does not have a rigid moral code.  It has a very good moral code based in living to your best potential.

It talks about being reverant - but doesn't say you have to be an altar boy.  It talks about being physicslly strong, but doesn't say you have to run 3 miles a day.

 

[DuctTape]

The problem here is the insistence that everyone needs to follow the same moral code vs the idea that each may have a different moral code. 

[numbersnerd]

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Everyone's actions are influenced by the norms and culture of the day.  BP is no different.  What's important is to understand the aims he had and to interpret them correctly so we can implement his program correctly. 

Revisionist musings will, and should, always take a back seat to facts. Anything ascribed to B-P with a leading, "I think" is meaningless.

[ParkMan]

5 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

Revisionist musings will, and should, always take a back seat to facts. Anything ascribed to B-P with a leading, "I think" is meaningless.

That's silly.  There is a ton of things that were different in 1907 and not used in the BSA.  We use them all the time now.

To follow a strict interpretation of only what was done then doesn't make sense.

[JoeBob]

13 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I said it does not have a rigid moral code.

A flexible moral code?  That's not a code.  That's a wish-list for being undisciplined.

[Hawkwin]

24 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

it's just an example of how adults impose morality.

Barry

That is my quibble. Earlier you state lead by example, for which I fully agree, but we don't get to impose our morality as it pertains to membership. You don't get to exclude a scout from membership based on your own personal and religious morality and more than an Orthodox Jewish scouter would get to impose their morality on scouts as a barrier to membership for not following their religious dress code while not in uniform.

 

[ParkMan]

9 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

A flexible moral code?  That's not a code.  That's a wish-list for being undisciplined.

I didn't say flexible moral code.

Show me thus rigid moral code you speak of.

[mashmaster]

44 minutes ago, SSScout said:

 

Our Jewish and  Muslim and  Hindu and Taoist brothers and sisters must be enjoying this.   Anybody want a BLT for lunch?  Left hand Scout Handshake?  Working on your Karma account?  

 

 

Enjoying it?  no.  As a Jew living married to a Christian, living in the Bible belt, I hear this stuff often.  Many people pray for me because I haven't accepted Christ.   I just try to take the high road by smiling and being courteous.  I have a feeling if I were to say something along the lines of "you believe in a false prophet which is against gods teachings" they might have a different reaction.  I believe in my faith and I respect others that believe in their faith.  Being in the "majority" doesn't make you right/or wrong it is something outside of our judgement.  I try to teach my scouts to be open to accepting others for the people they are and not their faith. 

The fact that he decided to bring up the issue so much after the fact has high risk and zero reward.  He decided to come to a place where we have zero impact into the issue to complain about it so much later.  I don't see the point.  Kinda like going into local high school and complaining about the election results.  Neither are effective other than causing a ruccus.   As my grandmother would say "Oi vey, don't kvetsh!" 

Shalom my fraynd , shalom.