Eagledad Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, ParkMan said: We have a steady stream of pot shots at the BSA & it's leadership. One that is fresh in my mind was from the topic on Executive Salaries. There @David CO writes: "We get a failing organization with drastically declining membership and morally bankrupt leadership. We should pay extra for this?" In this topic, we had an example from @LegacyLost: "It is better for the BSA to collapse than to persist as a vehicle of societal corruption. Particularly due to the BSA's historically wholesome and patriotic image from its past. This image makes the BSA especially dangerous, unfortunately, due to the arsenic it now carries" There's a ton of stuff like this. I can understand that you disagree or that you believe it's over the top, but I don't believe it was intended to be a personal attack at the readers. I read it more as venting. Legacylost, and many many others believe that the changes by the BSA could be more harmful to boys than before. While I wouldn't express myself in the same manner legacylost, I find his post refreshingly honest. Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireStone Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 40 minutes ago, David CO said: If you feel this way, then you should be arguing the case that BSA should have no moral code. You should not be imposing your moral code on us by insisting that we respect something that we feel is the very definition of immoral. You shouldn't be asking that we keep quiet about it either. You might be right. Morality isn't a one-directional straight line. Morality is different for everyone, and different issues fall in drastically different places in each of our own views on what is immoral and what isn't. So how does a national organization have any code of morality when we will all define that differently? 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbersnerd Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Eagledad said: I can understand that you disagree or that you believe it's over the top, but I don't believe it was intended to be a personal attack at the readers. I read it more as venting. Legacylost, and many many others believe that the changes by the BSA could be more harmful to boys than before. While I wouldn't express myself in the same manner legacylost, I find his post refreshingly honest. Barry Agreed. I NEVER assumed that any of his posts were directed at any specific person. Despite that, he was basically tarred and feathered for having an opinion. And the response he received here is likely the reason others that may feel similarly don't say anything. And then silence is equated with acceptance. And so the false assumption that there is a majority or consensus is then entered as fact. There's definitely a danger to the "shout your opponent down" tactic. You get surprises like the Nov 2016 election. Instead of honest discourse, you create your own ambush. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireStone Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 1 minute ago, numbersnerd said: Agreed. I NEVER assumed that any of his posts were directed at any specific person. Despite that, he was basically tarred and feathered for having an opinion... He told me I hate God. That's pretty direct and personal, and I don't think there are many people of faith who would take that lightly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkwin Posted May 16, 2018 Author Share Posted May 16, 2018 1 hour ago, David CO said: BSA has, in effect, declared that homosexual conduct is morally straight No, removal of a specific ban is not the same thing as an affirmative statement that something is morally straight. There are many things we don't outright ban that many faiths would believe are immoral behaviors - like premarital activities and consumption of alcohol. BSA doesn't ban either of those - but then not every faith believes such behavior is immoral. Could toss in "swear words" in that bucket too - not a banned behavior. Morally straight is and always should have been in line with your personal faith - which is why we don't have some long code of behavior that either bans various activities or states that others are allowed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbersnerd Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, FireStone said: You might be right. Morality isn't a one-directional straight line. Morality is different for everyone, and different issues fall in drastically different places in each of our own views on what is immoral and what isn't. So how does a national organization have any code of morality when we will all define that differently? Having defined rules and enforcing them with boys is already difficult enough without introducing moral relativism. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David CO Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, FireStone said: You might be right. Morality isn't a one-directional straight line. Morality is different for everyone, and different issues fall in drastically different places in each of our own views on what is immoral and what isn't. So how does a national organization have any code of morality when we will all define that differently? It can't. At least it can't have a moral code and still be inclusive. It's one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbersnerd Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, FireStone said: He told me I hate God. That's pretty direct and personal, and I don't think there are many people of faith who would take that lightly. My suggestion would be to grow a thicker skin if you're going to converse on the interwebs. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, FireStone said: You might be right. Morality isn't a one-directional straight line. Morality is different for everyone, and different issues fall in drastically different places in each of our own views on what is immoral and what isn't. So how does a national organization have any code of morality when we will all define that differently? We define it through the law and oath. Of course everyone has their opinions on scout like behavior as well, but the BSA does reference doing our best to god. God is the holding place for being a moral program. Once god is taken out, man becomes the source for morality. As I said in another post, once man takes credit for good and bad behavior, it's over because how can a scout find reference of his behavior when it depends on his scoutmasters emotions of the moment. Pragmatically, only god or God can ever be the source of morality in a values based program. Barry 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walk in the woods Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, FireStone said: You might be right. Morality isn't a one-directional straight line. Morality is different for everyone, and different issues fall in drastically different places in each of our own views on what is immoral and what isn't. So how does a national organization have any code of morality when we will all define that differently? I suppose the short answer is "pick one and live with the consequences." In 2000 the BSA picked one, took it all the way to SCOTUS, and won. The consequences were shaming in the media, law suits, and open council defiance. As a result, in 2013 the BSA picked a new morality. More outrage from the left, Trail Life USA was formed. Two years later they picked another new morality. The left cheered, consternation from the largest CO. Two years later they picked yet another new morality. Consequence, largest CO is making its exit. Next year? Who knows? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkwin Posted May 16, 2018 Author Share Posted May 16, 2018 (edited) Quote Or maybe we could remember the Scout Oath and Law when commenting on a Scout Forum Edited May 16, 2018 by Hawkwin Carebear corrected me! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post carebear3895 Posted May 16, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, numbersnerd said: My suggestion would be to grow a thicker skin if you're going to converse on the interwebs. Or maybe we could remember the Scout Oath and Law when commenting on a Scout Forum 1 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbersnerd Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Hawkwin said: Seems like your advice would be warranted for the other party too, don't you think? If or when he whines about what he thinks someone said to or about him, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbersnerd Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, carebear3895 said: Or maybe we could remember the Scout Oath and Law when commenting on a Scout Forum If you can point to any violations of either, please do so. I find it interesting that someone brave enough to stand by their convictions and say so is considered un-Scoutlike. While others will consistently downvote people they disagree with without engagement. Not surprising, just interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David CO Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 44 minutes ago, ParkMan said: The BSA gives scouts and families wide latitude in how to interpret this. No, it isn't. BSA is requiring that units accept gay youth. That is no latitude at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts