It's not as popular as some think

[packsaddle]

"resistance is futile"

 

NJ wrote, "Look at what the BSA did to the UUA. I know you think that was a good idea, Bob, I think it was disgraceful."

Bob White responded, "Members of the UUA are to this day welcomed as members of the BSA as long as they meet the same membership requirements of every other BSA member."

 

NJ, I agree with your assessment but I add that what BSA did to the UU boys was cowardly as well. Bob, contrary to your view, my view is that by denying a UU boy (but not boys of other religions) the right to wear his religious award on his uniform, BSA does NOT welcome him or other UU boys as members equal to others. They are singled out for 'special' denial. And in my judgement that is 1) untrustworthy, 2) probably not loyal to the boy, certainly not to the spirit of scouting 3) unhelpful, 4) unfriendly, 5) discourteous, 6) unkind, 7) OK they probably do this cheerfully, 8) not brave but COWARDLY. BSA violates these points of the law, ostensibly on behalf of their own principles. In this manner BSA is hypocritical. It takes a special brand of smallness for BSA to dish consequences out to children just because BSA disagrees with some adults.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Bob White]

packsaddle you are welcome to your opinion. Having one however does not make you Right. You might have the opinion that 6 strikes make an out and not three and that the the baseball league is cowardly. But the fact is that its the leagues game and they get to make the rules. the Umpires enforce it and the players are expected to follow them if they want to play.

 

Scouting is no different. The executive board makes the rules, commissioned professionals and volunteers enforce them and the unit members are expected to follow them if they want to play.

[Fat Old Guy]

To throw another log on the fire, according to the infamous Mike Walton, if a UU Boy Scout earns the UU religious medal he may wear the purple and silver knot on his uniform but he may not wear the actual medal.

 

 

[packsaddle]

FOG, I hadn't read that before. So is that Mike Walton's rule or did the executive board make another exception that applies only to a religious minority?

[Fat Old Guy]

I'm sure that it is published in one of BSA's secret document that volunteers aren't allowed to read. The explanation is that the knot simply states that you earned the religious emblem for your faith. The fact that you cannot wear the medal is irrelevant.

[packsaddle]

Bob White, the actual story has been explained in more than one previous thread. BSA and the UUA disagreed over the wording of the UUA booklet for the UUA religious award. BSA could not stop UUA from expressing their view. The conflict was between BSA and UUA and they had reached an impass.

 

BSA then took an action that advanced no person's view, doing nothing to break the impass - but only dealt a special limitation against UU boy scouts. I characterize that as cowardly - BSA venting its wrath at UU boy scouts unable to defend themselves. If you disagree, then you must think it was a courageous action. You can't have it both ways.

Your analogy to baseball is confusing. BSA did not have to do anything. The only net effect of their action has been to place a special sanction against UU boy scouts. Your opinion that this was a courageous action is puzzling. Please explain the courage it took for BSA to do that to those boys.

[John-in-KC]

NJ,

 

I wasn't online last night. Sorry for the delay in replying.

 

At this point after the Dale decision, I would hope that the National professional staff has trained the various Council Executives. In turn, I hope the Councils have trained both their professionals and the commissioner staff.

 

My thoughts. Blessed Easter.

 

John

[Fat Old Guy]

"BSA then took an action that advanced no person's view, doing nothing to break the impass - but only dealt a special limitation against UU boy scouts. I characterize that as cowardly - BSA venting its wrath at UU boy scouts unable to defend themselves. If you disagree, then you must think it was a courageous action. You can't have it both ways."

 

Sorry packsaddle but if an action isn't cowardly it isn't automatically courageous. To continue with the baseball analogy, it may be an act of cowardice for an umpire to not take action when a coach is abusing him but it isn't a courageous act to throw that coach out of the game. It is simply enforcing the rules and maintaining order.

 

 

[Bob White]

Packsaddle,

Were did I qualify the rule as cowardly or heroic, good or bad? I simply said it was the rule, made by the people authorized with setting the rules of the program. As I pointed out, you have an opinion on the character of the rule, and you are welcome to your opinion whatever it may be. But if you want to play the game, you have to obey the rules.

 

Some people have a responsibility to make the rules, some the responsibility to follow them. Yours if you are a volunteer member of the BSA, is the latter.

[packsaddle]

OK, that was too subtle. Bob White, I could be wrong but I thought you disagreed with my characterization that BSA was cowardly in their action. Was I wrong? I was sarcastically using a favorite tactic that I see in these threads - the one where one person states a certain idea and the opponent responds with a statement along the lines, "...if you think _____, then you must think __[some opposite thing]___, you can't have it both ways..." You must remember reading a few such instances (hint, hint).

But since FOG is improbably galloping to your rescue I mention to both of you that a UU boy scout CAN play by the rules and still be the object of special sanctions by BSA. If you're uncomfortable with the 'cowardly' characterization, I'll be glad to substitute 'contemptible'. How's that work for you?

 

I do follow the rules. And when I see something I think is wrong, I state my objection. Or do you have a problem with that? Is there a 'turn a blind eye to injustice' clause somewhere?

[Bob White]

Agian packsaddle, you are welcome to your opinion and the BSA is welcome to set their rules as they see fit for their program.

 

What I find contemptable are members of the BSA who stay members while they bad mouth the very organization that serves them. If you come into my house and insult my choices in how I run my home... you know where the door is, use it. You have a right to your opinion but I have the right to show you to the curb.

 

I like the BSA. I like the program, I like their values, I like the what it teaches and how it teaches. It's not for everyone, youth or adult.

 

Why would anyone stay in an organization that it found cowardly or contemptible, unless you were utterly hypocritical?

[packsaddle]

I would react the same way to a bully picking on a child whether I was a member of the club or not.

However, I am a member and I consider it my scouting duty to protect the child, and coincidentally through my criticism aid the program. You may think BSA merely needs a corps of toadies. I think that if BSA can't accept criticism, then that indicates the weakness of the ideas.

 

Incidentally, it isn't YOUR house and YOU can't show me the curb. You don't own BSA and I serve in standing equal to yours. I'm staying. And I'll continue to be heard on this subject - assuming someone starts more threads on it.

[Fat Old Guy]

"But since FOG is improbably galloping to your rescue I mention to both of you that a UU boy scout CAN play by the rules and still be the object of special sanctions by BSA."

 

No special sanctions involved. No part of Scouting is closed to this boy simply because he is a member of UU, please remember the Religious Emblems are not a part of BSA.

 

BSA may need critics inside of it but you go beyond criticism. You disagree with fundamental parts of Scouting. I ask Bob White's question, why are you involved? Is it a selfish reason like you want your son to make Eagle so he can get into a service academy?

 

 

[pdunbar]

BobWhite

 

I can only speak for myself, but I do follow the rules of scouting laid down by the almighty BSA executives when I work with the boys. I do, however, have every right to question any of their rules, and bring about change to BSA policies. Scouting is a dynamic entity which only will get better with time. I can only hope that if a change is made to the rules that you don't like, that we will all honor your right to fight for change.

[eagle54]

I am proud that Boy Scouts of America has stood for morality. For a long time the BSA has had to take actions against folks who have abused the youth scouts.

 

May I say something there are certain moral positions that are unchanging. Historical nations fell when the moral positions were not upheld.

 

I could not in good conscience allow one scout to use say an Axe in a unsafe manner because he would in most cases cause injury to himself, other scouts, and adults.

 

My troop is chartered to a church which in accordance with the bible says that homosexuality is a sin.

 

Another thing that I have observed is that Boy Scouts staying true to it's ideals sets an example for others to follow.

 

For instance when camping was deemphasized in the 1970's the scouts became just another youth club.

 

 

 

To me the old testament is filled with a lot of examples of what happened to God's people when their morality became gross they ended up being disciplined for their immorality.