Ignoring Policy Makes It OK

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

The fact is that once you take away the government sponsorship element, critics of BSA have no really good argument as to why a group of religious people shouldn't form a club that is restricted to religious people.

 

Oh, FORMING one is fine (and being clear from the outset that it's a religious organization that excludes specific people); but let's say we've got a Scout group that's been around 40 years (that is, it predates even the secret, internal "no gays" memos at national). Now, in the intervening years, the BSA has increased their no gays, no atheists rhetoric and created a new, official policy that gays are not welcome (and that part, at least, IS new; it simply didn't exist as any kind of policy pre-1978). Should they scuttle their program, or keep it and just ignore the policies they disagree with?

 

And nobody here can come in and say "I'm shocked, SHOCKED that units are ignoring policy", because it's obvious public schools ignored both the gay and atheist policies before, during, and after the Dale decision. I've talked directly to some school officials who insisted their school's Scout or Venturing program did not exclude gay or atheist students (including one who was the school principal AND past chair of the Three Rivers District of the Viking Council). But they can only say this by following the law, which means they HAVE to ignore official BSA policy.

[Kahuna]

Far be it from me to get into an argument between Ed and Merlyn about anything. Nevertheless, I want to make an observation about policy. A notable and frequent poster on these forums once completely lost any credibility he might have had with a statement to the effect that neither he nor any member of his family had ever knowingly broken the law.

 

I doubt that any Scouter of any duration can make the statement that he or she has not disregarded policy with which s/he does not agree. I would also suggest that all of us have disregarded policies of government with which we disagree. I'm sure non of us has ever cheated on taxes, but have we put an item down as a deductible that we might not be able to substantiate?

 

We can argue until the cows come home (no offense to the cows), but we all follow rules we consider important and disregard those we don't. We can only pray that we have the wisdom to know which ones are important and which ones aren't. Experience, of course, is a great teacher in this area.

 

Does it make us less of a Scouter if we decide to operate in the absence of a policy with which we disagree? I don't know. It certainly makes us human and those who made the policy are certainly human, as far as I can tell. Do the policy makers then have the right to terminate our charter and our membership if it comes to their attention? Of course they do. They aren't any smarter than we are, but they're in charge.

[Eamonn]

Maybe I'm a bit of a book thumper?

I know for sure that there are a lot of things that I don't understand and as I grow older I'm starting to accept that there are some things I will never understand.

At times I wonder to myself, "Why do you do that?" Or maybe I should say "Why don't you do that?"

If someone would come up with a plan where I could get away with a vast amount of money, without hurting or harming anyone would I go for it?

The idea of a vast amount of money is nice.

Would I be tempted? You bet.

Would I go for it? I don't think so.

I know that somewhere along the line someone is going to get harmed. Someone or some organization will have lost the money.

I'm also a little scared of the consequences of what would happen if I got caught.

Then there is my values.

I really value my good name.

I kind of like the idea that I can go to bed at night and sleep well.

OK, so I don't lose any sleep when I drive a little faster than I should.

But when the Salesclerk gives me change for a $20.00 when I only gave them a $10.00 I tell them and give them back the extra.

So as far as I'm concerned at the end of the day it all boils down to values and character.

While there are at times consequences for ignoring BSA policies, most of the time the onus is on the individual.

"Men of power are admired, men of character are trusted."

Eamonn.

[LongHaul]

     IMO Trevorum said it perfectly Lying is always wrong. Lying is defined as To present false information with the intention of deceiving. Wrong is defined as Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous. So by definition Lying is always wrong. We lie to the Nazis, we spare our loved ones the harsh truths, we lie when telling the truth will do more damage than the lie but we can not loose sight of the fact that it is still a lie.

     When we strip away all the transient things in our lives, social or economic position, family, people die after all, houses, cars, even our names can be taken away. There was a joke in basic training that the DI could take away your birthday, which was about all you had left. When we strip all those things away we are left with those things which are truly our own, things which can never be taken away, not by force or through deception. There is a saying that You cant take it with you. well these things you can take with you. They are your faith and your honor and both were absolutely free of charge. One day you decide I will not do this thing because it is wrong, or, I will do this thing even though I really dont want to  I will because I said that I would. You have claimed your honor. Some of us realized at some point that we believe, we truly believe and thus we claimed our faith. Both of these are akin to being pregnant, you are or you are not. You have faith or you dont, you are a person of honor or you are not, you cant switch back and forth for convenience. When we allow the line between truth and falsehood, between right and wrong to become blurred we start to loose our honor and for some of us whether we still have faith is a question. Just because everyone is doing it does not make it right, even if it is acceptable (slavery), it doesnt make it right. Just because some of us choose to not follow every policy National adopts does not make our choice right. BW might go as far as to say that signing the adult app and giving our word that we would follow the dictates of National and then ignoring them divests us of our honor. When we say On my Honor at the beginning of a meeting what does that mean if we cant actually be taken at our word? You can trust me..unless I decide to break my word? You can trust me to do the right thing, what constitutes right to me is how you assess my character and decide for yourself if I can be taken at my word or not.

      Does Ignoring Policy make it OK? Define OK.  Are we breaking the rules? Yes Are we acting without Honor? Not usually. When we error in a BOR unless we are doing it deliberately to harm a scout or to show favoritism it isnt dishonorable. When we say National has said female youth under 14 are not allowed in BSA programs but I enrolled my daughter anyway even though I know it is wrong. Are we dishonorable? Maybe. When we say National has said females youth under 14 are not allowed but I disagree so Ill enroll any girl who comes to me because I think it is the right thing to do. We have crossed the line. Like them or not we have agreed to follow the R&R of the National Council and if we can not in good conscience do that we should decide. In or Out. LongHaul

[Hunt]

Merlyn, your last post proves my point--it's always been part of BSA that you had to believe in God, and until pretty recently it would have been unecessary to state that gays weren't welcome. Your argument really makes no sense--if a voluntary organization to which you belong changes its rules so you're no longer welcome, you think it's OK to lie so you can stay it?--and so, you turn back to government sponsorship again, because that's the only part of your argument that does make sense. Sure, we understand that you don't like BSA's exclusionary policies. You're perfectly free to join or start a club that you do agree with.

 

LongHaul, I'm sorry that I don't really understand what you are saying. Just to take the specific example that's been mentioned several times, are you saying that it was "wrong" for Christians to lie to the Nazis about the whereabouts of Jewish families they were hiding? If it was wrong, in what way was it wrong? What should they should have done instead?

[LongHaul]

Hunt 

     Again we must define terms, I began my last post with the dictionary definition of "wrong". By definition it would be "wrong" to lie to the Nazis. What should we do? We should do the honorable thing and lie through our teeth with a smile on our face and sleep like a baby. My post was intended to point out that lying is lying no matter why you do it. It's when we say it isn't lying that we start on the slippery slope. Ignoring the policy as written is a breach of our agreement when we signed the adult application. When I invite Webelos' to camp with me at a Camporee it is against policy. If I say yes I know that but I see the benefit to the Webelos' as out weighing my breaking my agreement I have done what I believe is the honorable thing. You then judge my character by what I hold to be honorable.  If instead I search for the wording loophole i.e. The Webelos are accompanying me on a Troop Overnight which just happens to coincide in time and place with the District Camporee, I've crossed the line because now I'm trying to say I'm not breaking my agreement. In my opinion this is not acting honorably it is deceitful.

 Right and Wrong is most often Black and White the grays are introduced because we need to justify the wrong things we do.  The fact that we are trying to bend the wording or cloud the issues just shows that we knew it was wrong in the first place.

LongHaul

[Kahuna]

LongHaul: That's very well put.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

Merlyn, your last post proves my point--it's always been part of BSA that you had to believe in God, and until pretty recently it would have been unecessary to state that gays weren't welcome.

 

Actually, I disagree. The BSA certainly didn't make it clear that you had to believe in at least one god when I was a member and my atheist mom was a den mother.

 

Plus, just by your phrasing "had to believe in God", do you mean that polytheists can't be members?

 

Your argument really makes no sense--if a voluntary organization to which you belong changes its rules so you're no longer welcome, you think it's OK to lie so you can stay it?

 

Given the way the BSA has dishonestly "changed its rules" while allowing (and even encouraging) public schools to charter BSA units, yes, I'd say it's OK to lie, because the BSA wasn't honest about its own policies. By cutting off public school charters, I've actually helped greatly reduce the number of such dishonest units, so I've done more to correct this than anyone else here. But units chartered to private organizations can still lie and ignore the BSA's policies as far as I'm concerned.

 

And as you yourself said in the other thread, it doesn't really affect how the program is run (which is pretty obvious by the number of units that ignore, or have ignored, the policy).

[Trevorum]

Re: the ethics of lying, I am reminded of a thread we had some months ago on the source of ethics. Some posters were of the opinion that all ethics were based on religion. Others, including myself disagreed.

 

This is a case in point. The scientific method insists upon accurate reporting of observations; lying is unethical. In science, lying is ALWAYS WRONG. This ethical rule would have to exist even in the complete absence of religion. But that's beside the main point.

 

Hunt has given us a thought experiment in which lying, although wrong, would be justified as the lesser of two evils. LongHaul has astutely pointed out that attempting to redefine some lies as "right" is a dangerously slippery slope. In my view, to knowingly tell a lie we must consciously choose to violate a basic rule so as to achieve some greater good. The conscious evaluation of that balance point is essential.

[evmori]

Given the way the BSA has dishonestly "changed its rules" while allowing (and even encouraging) public schools to charter BSA units, yes, I'd say it's OK to lie, because the BSA wasn't honest about its own policies.

 

I love these type of statements! All they do is justify a persons behavior because "someone else did so why shouldn't I do it." Why? Maybe because it's wrong! If someone shoplifts a pack of gum is it OK for you to do the same thing because someone else did it? No!

 

Basing your actions on what others do doesn't make it right! All it does is lower your standards.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

There are many twists on this theme. While I agree with Trevorum, science has a very narrow and inflexible view on the topic and therefore offers little guidance for other human activities outside science.

So we now ascend into the airy persiflage of situational ethics. It is easy to imagine or remember situations in which our mistakes and deceptions cause problems. In some cases the most direct and just solution is indeed to commit one more careful deception. While (in agreement with Trevorum) this is inherently undesirable, the option of doing much greater damage through rigid devotion to truth may be even less desirable. I have seen this in action, for example, where the 'zero tolerance' rules in schools are 'bent' to avoid tragic results in certain situations. There are so many other examples as well.

 

But a simpler twist has been suggested by Merlyn (perhaps unintentionally) in which the 'rules' change after the agreement has been signed. In one rigid view this is simply an action by an authority not to be questioned. In another view, this is a betrayal of a previous agreement, therefore plunging the relationship into the morass of deceptions we know all too well. In both cases the choice is simple, either play the game or leave. I find it difficult to view either of those options as somehow benefitting the boys.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You're right about one thing, Ed; I wouldn't want to lower my standards to the BSA's level of dishonesty.

 

You'll notice I never stated I myself would lie (I'd make sure the BSA knew I wasn't going to follow their policy); I only said I don't think it's terribly dishonest to lie to a dishnoest organization like the BSA.

[evmori]

You're right about one thing, Ed; I wouldn't want to lower my standards to the BSA's level of dishonesty.

 

You'll notice I never stated I myself would lie (I'd make sure the BSA knew I wasn't going to follow their policy); I only said I don't think it's terribly dishonest to lie to a dishnoest organization like the BSA.

 

Actually, Merlyn, your standards could never rise high enough.

 

You might have never said you would lie but endorsing it is practically the same thing! To lie to someone because they lie to you shows a lack of morals. And teaching this type of behavior is reprehensible.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter]

Ed, Merlyn.....easy does it, ok? It's the holidays.

 

I agree with Pack that situational ethics come into play in these areas. I don't agree that most matters of right and wrong are clearly black and white. This is certainly true in some areas, but not all. There's plenty of gray areas, and people sometimes use the gray for their own purposes. As the old joke goes, to quote "God", "I said "Thou shalt not kill". What part of that is so hard to understand?" And yet, people have killed "in the name of God" throughout history.

 

For example. In my own mind, the BSA stance on gays is, well, let's just say "poor judgement" . And yet, I'm a registered leader. The topic never comes up in our troop meetings, and I pointedly redirect discussions that head that way. I've never had the "opportunity" to have to act on that policy, having never had someone in my troop come up to me and say that they were gay. So, am I violating the policy? I really don't know, but I think that I can do more good from within BSA than outside of it.

 

But, what would I do in that situation? I've given that a lot of thought, actually, and I've concluded that I can't ignore the policy. If a Scout were to come to me and tell me, say, that they were gay, I would give them a chance to retract that statement as a "mistake" after explaining to them what the repercussions would be according to BSA policy. If they didn't want to retract their statement, I'd feel obligated to report the matter to the troop committee for further possible action. Same with the "God" question.

[Torveaux]

As mentioned earlier, the reason the BSA didn't have an explicit policy excluding gays before is that they didn't feel they needed one. Using the reasonable man standard, and placing oneself in the period prior to the 1980s, morally straight would include, well, straightness.

 

I have noticed a good deal of "presentism" in these discussions. Some people seem to enjoy applying the cultural and moral norms of today to earlier times. This is one of the cardinal sins of historical research and would result in quite a poor grade if used in a paper.

 

I guess on the lying issue, I see a lie such as responding tactfully when my wife asks a loaded question as a personal matter between she, I, and God. When one lies when representing the moral and ethical principles of others, it rises to a public level and becomes reprehensible.

 

Even if you believe that someone else is being dishonest, that does not justify dishonestly in retaliation.

 

BTW, the wording of the English language Bibles is poorly translated. The commandment is more accurately, "Thou Shalt Not Murder".