Should A Dead Beat Dad be a Unit Leader?

[firstpusk]

FOG, your ability to shift away from the initial issue is amazing. Since you did not disagree with my statement, you must agree that neither of these dads makes a fit scoutmaster. Thank you for being so agreeable.

 

The examples you give are red herrings, but I will respond because I think you confuse the issue. Rosa Parks is a hero of non-violence. She stood up for removing an injustice and was willing to pay the price for her courage. The resistance to the Nazis was also courageous and admirable. Many of these young men paid with their lives. We owe them a debt of gratitude. Both would have made great scout leaders. George Washington would have been fine also. People are sometimes called on to do great things and take great risks. These folks all tried to fight injustice. The examples you gave are of petty men focused on their own money or time above the good of their children.

[Fat Old Guy]

So, FirstPusk who is to decide if laws should be disobeyed? None of examples are people who worked within their respective systems to change the laws.

 

George Washington was a traitor to his country. You probably wouldn't want Ollie North or G. Gordon Liddy as Scouters and they aren't even traitors. Geo. Washington is no different than the wackos in Michigan who are preparing for WW III except that he was successful in his attempt to kick out the legally constituted government.

 

The courage of Rosa Parks and the underground Scouts is irrelevant. They were breaking the law of the time and not working within the system to get the laws changed.

 

What about the draft dodgers of the 60s and 70s? Are they to be admired for their courage?

 

I guess that what you are saying is that Scouts should obey the law except when they think that they shouldn't.

[firstpusk]

As I said before, your silence on my points means you accept that the two dads would not make good scout leaders.

 

The other examples of George Washington, Rosa Parks and resistance scouts and scouters have nothing to do with the original issue.

 

There must be no recourse to justify for taking up arms or using civil disobedience against established authority. Your two dads had recourse. To compare their situation to the historical examples trivializes truly brave individuals. George Washington had no recourse. Neither did Rosa Parks or the scouts that fought the Nazis. As I recall, the crown tax Americans without representation, housed troops in private homes and refused to consider grevences. Blacks in most of the south did not have the right to vote. The scouts and scouters had their representative government taken away and replace by a military regime of a foreign power. Your examples have nothing to do with the intitial issue. You seem to have a talent for raising inflamitory non sequiturs in order to confuse the issue.

[Fat Old Guy]

First pusk (what is a pusk and is there a second one?),

 

I didn't realize that you had raised an question that I needed to resond to. I looked back and still haven't seen one.

 

"These folks all tried to fight injustice."

 

Injustice is in the eye of the beholder. The crown didn't think that GW was fighting injustice. GW was a tax evader and a traitor.

 

" As I recall, the crown tax Americans without representation"

 

The District of Columbia has no representation in Congress but they are taxed. Should they take up arms against the government?

 

Many people thought that Rosa Parks was wrong. Was she right simply because you think that she was right?

 

The Union was right because they won.

 

My friend's friend thinks that he is fighting injustice. Is he wrong simply because you disagree with him?

 

If you want to use the Scout Law, you can't start making exceptions.(This message has been edited by Fat Old Guy)

[scoutldr]

We are to set a good example for the scouts who are examining what we do. The matter was raised by a scout. So, as Dr Laura says..."go do the right thing." The guy deserves due process, without the benefit of all of our uninformed opinions. But be ready...when they come to examine your life with a magnifying glass in one hand and the oath and law in the other, how will you fare?

 

PS: The correct spelling is "patoot". If we are going to insult each other, the least we can do is spell it correctly.

[Hunt]

Whether civil disobedience (or outright rebellion) was justified is judged by posterity. Right now, for example, the weight of opinion is that Rosa Parks' and George Washington's actions were justified, but that those of Timothy McVeigh were not.

But I also think there's a difference between civil disobedience designed to make a political point, and civil disobedience based on a belief that the law has treated you unfairly as an individual. In the first case, the person will usually be willing to take the punishment--that's part of the political statement. In the second, the person will often knuckle under and pay up when the law gets around to forcing the issue.

How about this--would you support a person for a troop leadership position if he had been arrested several times at anti-WTO demonstrations?

[firstpusk]

FOG, there are a number of pusks. I am first because I begot them.

 

The question you can't find is crux of the issue on this thread. You provided two examples of fathers and child support. One refused to pay because he felt the mother did not need the money. The other paid but did not involve himself with his son in a significant way. I said neither father should be considered for the role of scoutmaster. The instance raised at the start of the thread is whether a man who does not pay court ordered support and brags about it to a scout should have the role of scoutmaster.

 

It seems everyone agrees that if both parts of the story is true, the troop should seek someone else as scoutmaster.

 

You now want to impugn the character of George Washington, Rosa Parks and insist on an uprising in the District of Columbia. By the way, the District of Columbia does have a representative in Congress - Eleanor Holmes-Norton. I don't think the situation between DC residents and the revolutionaries is comparible.

 

I am using the scout law to help make the correct decision. It is not foolproof, as shown by your posts. But if not applied foolishly, with disgression it works well. Your friend thinks he is fighting injustice. I don't see it that way. He decided not to fight at the time of his divorce. His poor choice cost him a judgement he now finds unfair. He ignored counsel's advice, but it was his decision. If he fails to pay and brags about not paying that judgement to a scout, I would think a troop could do better than him for scoutmaster. End of discussion.

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"there are a number of pusks. I am first because I begot them."

 

So am I to infer that your father was/is not a pusk?

 

 

" By the way, the District of Columbia does have a representative in Congress - Eleanor Holmes-Norton."

 

Just goes to show how little that you know. I believe that her proper title is Delegate, not Representative, and she has no vote. DC has neither Representatives nor Senators. That's why their license plates say, "Taxation Without Representation."

 

Would you want Ben Franklin as a Scouter? Not just a traitor but an adulterer of the first order. SHameful.

[buffalo2]

What happened to that 48 day idea...

[Hunt]

There are people that most of us would consider "great" that might nevertheless have moral failings that might make us prefer not to have them as leaders of our children. Benjamin Franklin might be such a person, for example. I do think we have to be careful about casting the first stone when we judge somebody's fitness, because the microscope can be turned on anybody. Is a divorced person fit to be a SM? How about someody who lives with a person of the opposite sex to whom he is not married? Or somebody who is a habitual gambler? Or somebody who typically speeds? I'm not saying we can't make judgements--far from it, they have to be made--but you have to look at the whole picture and proceed with some humility.

[matuawarrior]

It took awhile but we, the COR and myself, met with the applicant. He answered most of our questions. This young man has an attitude issue.

 

He did not think it was anyone's business regarding his private life. I told him that I agree but when he starts bragging about his personal life to the youth members of the organziation. It becomes our concern.

 

Apparently, he has issues with the mother of his child and her parents as to why he hasn't paid any child support for the last 3 years. I explained that two wrongs don't make a right. If he really cares for his child, He'll make payments via the court. If, he has any issues as to how the money is being spent. I suggested that he inform the court and let them deal with it.

 

I informed him that because of his child support issues. The Charter Organization will decline his application. I further explained that I could not trust him with our youth members if he was not responsible for the care of his own child. But, I did leave him the opportunity to reapply should he decide to pay off his outstanding balance and change his attitude.

 

Matua

[Bob White]

Tough situation but the right thing to do.

[EagleInKY]

Well done Matau. This had to be a difficult and awkward situation. I congratulate you for the courage it took to carry through with solid Scouting ideals.

[RobK]

Thanks Matua. You did the right thing in the right way.

[Davej775]

Run a background check. It might cost $10.00 at the local Police Dept. Isn't it a requirement anyway? Any warrents will show up and the rest will be history. Why take chances where there's doubt? If he passes the check, his comment was just inapropriate. If he fails the check he'll be picked up and somebody like me, in Corrections, will be feeding him lunch. Good hunting! Dave J!