Ignoring Policy Makes It OK

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

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.

 

So you agree the BSA has lied to schools?

 

And part of my unconcern about people lying to the BSA is because the BSA obviously allowed it; they knew for years that public schools couldn't exclude atheists from BSA units, yet they continued to issue charters to them. It's hardly different for another BSA unit to ignore the policy when the BSA tacitly allowed thousands of public schools to do so.

[LongHaul]

Prairie_Scouter,

I didnt see the gray areas you were referring to in your examples. Doing something in the name of God doesnt make it right. National never said that they wanted all the gays and atheists weeded out. We are under no mandate to search out undesirables within our program. For the sake of discussion please identify some of these gray areas.

 

Packsaddle,

Had to look up persiflage thanks I learned a new word today. You wrote; 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. Referring to it as one more careful deception means you know its wrong. Whether it will cause damage or not has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong. You go on to say; I have seen this in action, for example, where the 'zero tolerance' rules in schools are 'bent' to avoid tragic results in certain situations. This just says that the school administrators can not be taken at their word. The school does NOT have a Zero Tolerance Policy what they have is a loop hole which allows those in power to deal harshly with some offenders but not with others. The honorable thing to do would be to amend the policy, not bend it. Just because the results would be tragic does not make the bending of the rule right, once you start to bend you then have to rewrite the rule every time because you have already established that zero tolerance is a fallacy. The hard thing to do is rewrite the law, the easy thing to do is to justify breaking the law. If in the situation you are referring to the guilty parties violated the zero tolerance policy then bending the rule is an injustice to those who obeyed it and those who have been punished under it. If on the other hand the ruling body decided that the infraction didnt fall under the zero tolerance rule then the rule wasnt bent. But to say yes this is a clear infraction but we are going to ignore the rule in this case because the result of not ignoring the rule would be tragic sets precedent and should then be reason to amend the rule so that it is applied this way in the future. Rules may not be perfect but they should be applied equally and when they can't they should be changed so that they can be applied equally.

LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[evmori]

So you agree the BSA has lied to schools?

 

To my knowledge, the BSA hasn't lied to schools so I wouldn't agree.

 

Have you ever considered the BSA was upfront about their membership requirements and the schools are the ones who chose to ignore them? If that's the case, it is the schools themselves who are at fault, not the BSA.

 

Lying is wrong regardless of the reason. And lying to someone because they lied to you unethical!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

"But to say yes this is a clear infraction but we are going to ignore the rule in this case because the result of not ignoring the rule would be tragic sets precedent and should then be reason to amend the rule so that it is applied this way in the future."

 

The problem comes when the people who must enforce the rule are not the ones with the power to change the rule. If the rule is unjust, what should they do? They can enforce it, and respond to any criticism by pointing out that they were "just following orders." They can openly defy the rule--perhaps the most honorable way to respond, but there may be unacceptable impacts on other people. This may justify a third course, secretly violating the rule--this is what people did when they hid Jews from the Nazis, or when the Underground Railroad helped slaves escape from the south. I maintain that people who lie and break laws in such situations are not committing "wrongs" at all--these are righteous acts.

[Rooster7]

National never said that they wanted all the gays and atheists weeded out.

 

Well, yeah, they did. Are you insinuating that they do not care if folks lied or slipped through the application process? Your slant seems to be, they dont really careas if these BSA policies are merely placeboes, to keep their conservative base happy.

 

Heres my take. They dont openly encourage members to weed out gays and atheistsnot because they dont care, but because theyre more fearful of the witch-hunts that such encouragement might generate. In short, your conclusion is akin to saying; the police dont care if rapists are not caught because they dont actively encourage citizens to conduct their own investigations. Vigilantism at any level leads to witch-hunts. The police are not the only folks who are sensitive to this. I give the BSA credit for being wise in their approach.

 

Lastly, despite the constant yammering of others (mostly liberals trying to find a loop-hole), the BSA has never openly embraced the notion of dont ask, dont tell. Specific to the homosexual issue, the word avowed has been interpreted in a number of creative ways. Interestingly, none of these fine legal minds seem to recognize that the policy does not say - self-avowed, only avowed.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Hi Rooster,

Regards "don't ask, don't tell", my district professional told me that it is the official BSA policy. For what it's worth. And, do you think it's only "liberals" who are looking for loopholes? I remember a certain President who's supporters spend a good deal of time trying to figure out what counts as torture and how to get around the Geneva Conventions.

 

Hi Torveaux,

I agree on Biblical translations. According to at least some biblical scholars, it goes far beyond whether the commandment says "kill" or "murder". I think that that's why Biblical literalists have a problem; what translation are they saying is the absolutely correct one that they're supposed to take word for word? Regardless, in this example, whether someone was killed or murdered is largely a matter of perspective. In WWII, the Allies were killing their enemies. The Germans were seeing their citizens being murdered.

 

Hi LongHaul,

Not sure about your request. I didn't say anything about BSA asking leaders to weed out gays. Not sure where you got that from. I was trying to speak of "gray areas" at a more generic level. Regardless, I don't think the world is made up of simple right and wrong, black and white. And, I don't think it's as simple as people looking for loopholes to be able to do things that are clearly "wrong". Are there some absolutes? I suppose there is, but there are people that would even disagree with that.

 

"Killing in the name of God"? People have been doing that, thinking that they are in the right and doing the bidding of God, for centuries. They absolutely think that they are right. Are they? I suppose it depends on which end of the sword, or machine gun, or bomb, you happen to be on.

 

 

[Rooster7]

Regards "don't ask, don't tell", my district professional told me that it is the official BSA policy. For what it's worth.

 

No offense, but its not worth much. If the only way a policy can be verified as official is through word of mouth (i.e. my district professional told me, or at a council meeting, blah, blah, blah, or something else along those lines), then I have no confidence in it. If its official policy, then it can be found in writing somewhere. Otherwise, its a bunch of conjectureusually to support somebody elses idea of what official policy should be, vice the reality.

 

And, do you think it's only "liberals" who are looking for loopholes?

 

No. Conservatives can find loopholes with the best of them. However, in this particular case, Id like to point out three facts as I see them: 1) this loophole is imaginary, 2) the cause is dubious, and 3) liberals [yes, liberals We are the world, Cant we all just get along, ban all guns, make love not war, lets open the jails, and kiss the trees liberals] are behind this little effort.

 

I remember a certain President who's supporters spend a good deal of time trying to figure out what counts as torture and how to get around the Geneva Conventions.

 

Youll have to elaborate; I dont read the Washington Post, New York Times, or the LA Times. Although I realize these are fine newspapers for lining bird cages and wrapping fish.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Ah, Rooster, you have such a way with words

 

So, are you telling me that I should question the validity of things that my district professionals are telling me? What am I supposed to do? Tell them I think they're lying unless they can show me chapter and verse? The Scouting professionals are our source of information for so many things regarding Scouting. You don't think that they're a valid source of information? I find that a little hard to swallow. (Kind of like that last bit of turkey leftover.....)

 

I don't think that liberals are looking for a "loophole" to allow gays into Scouting. I would think that they believe that the whole concept of disallowing gays from Scouting is misguided and based on misinformation.

 

You draw your caricature of liberals with a pretty broad brush. Let's provide a bit of reality on what mainstream liberals are more likely to believe....

 

"We are the world"

Well, no, but liberals might be more atune with the general world view than an administration that thinks it's on some sort of divine mission.

 

"Can't we all just get along"

Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no, but liberals probably won't contrive reasons to go to war.

 

"Ban all guns"

Something only extremists believe. Sort of the offset to the "the more guns, the merrier" crowd.

 

"Let's open the jails"

Nope. On the other hand, not trying to "renovate" people while in prison is a recipe for disaster.

 

"Kiss the trees"

No, most liberals are in favor of sound management of forest land. That means not having the Forest Service sell lumber from forest lands at huge losses to lumber companies (almost every sale in the past 10 years has been at a loss), and not clearcutting forests without requiring replanting. You wanna kiss a few along the way, you go right ahead.

 

Elaborate? Sure.

Two years ago, this administration had a discussion, documented, that looked for definitions of torture that would be allowed by international law. Their conclusion, also documented? That unless the amount of pain caused is akin to that that would cause death, it didn't violate their interpretation of international law. They backed away from this when it was disclosed publicly, although the Sec. of Defense now is trying to derail legislation currently before the Congress that would outlaw torture. His second choice right now is to exempt the CIA.

 

This administration is also on record as using what I would describe as "creative definitions" to label prisoners in order to keep their detention secret and prevent them from having their families contacted or have access to counsel. This, remembering that we don't even know if these prisoners have done anything wrong. And, now, they are in court saying that the president has the sole authority to label such prisoners.

 

And so, here is where we are, at the hands of an administration that's fighting to keep their right to torture prisoners at their discretion. Something for every American to proud of? I think not.

 

[LongHaul]

Hunt,

Once again our differences have come down to defining terms. When we use the word right in connection with the word wrong we limit ourselves as to word meaning in that discussion or we end up going in circles. The beginning question of is it OK to ignore policy shifted to is it OK to lie about whether you ignore policy. This puts the definitions of right and wrong into the truth and non truth sections of their respective definitions. Righteous, though it sounds the same is not about truth itself but what is morally correct, something without guilt or sin. Using the Nazi reference, denying knowledge of Anne Franks whereabouts is an un truth and therefore wrong by definition yet it is also morally correct and you could do it without guilt or sin and therefore it would be a righteous act. We must not allow ourselves to lose sight of the differences because that is how we end up thinking about what degree of torture is morally acceptable. We dont want to admit we have lied so we say it isnt lying or we say its the righteous thing to do but never actually get to the admission of lying. If you know where Anne Frank is and the Nazis ask you where she is is it a lie to say that you do not know where she is? Yes or No We must separate the act itself from our reasoning for the act. What we do and why we do it are two different things. In this case what we do is a negative thing (lying)and why we do it is a positive thing.

If you are interviewing candidates for a position which would require them to enforce rules and policies set by you and the person you are interviewing says to you that they do not feel that the rules apply to them, that they believe in anarchy and dont acknowledge your having the power to dictate policy to them, that they will interpret your rules as they see fit and implement them according to their own interpretation on a case by case basis, would you hire them? In the Zero Tolerance scenario what we are saying when we support the bending of the rule is that we are in favor of vigilante justice, because when we look up what vigilante means we find that ignoring the rules and taking justice into our own hands makes us a vigilante. How far do we allow this policy to extend now that we have said it is what we advocate? The school board has the duty of establishing the rules and the school administration has the duty of enforcing those rules. What is the purpose of a Zero Tolerance policy? Why would we vote in a school board that would set such a policy? If this is what we want then why condone anything other than Zero Tolerance. In reality we dont want Zero Tolerance we want the flexibility to look at the actual facts and decide what level of tolerance is appropriate but we cant do that. We have problems ever time a case comes up because we decide on a per case basis. We must make rules that are clear and then enforce them blindly or we must be ready to admit that we support vigilante justice. Does the administrations bending of the rules seem as acceptable when we recognize it as vigilante justice. Its when we assign a very negative label to the act, even though that label is 100% accurate, that we start to look for gray areas because we dont want to admit the truth.

If we all had William F. Buckleys repertoire of words maybe we could understand each other better, because we could chose just that right word to express our intent. (the fact that fewer people could converse with us and many would be hampered by the constant looking up of terms is something completely different) Instead of asking is it right to lie to the Nazis we should ask is it good to lie to the Nazis, or is it acceptable to lie to the Nazis. Right and wrong, good and bad, positive and negative, righteous and unrighteous what exactly are we trying to decide, they are all different. If we are to have a serious discussion we must clarify our definitions and separate our terms, if on the other hand we are interested in , as packsaddle put it airy persiflage then we simply acknowledge that and lets all have fun.

LongHaul

[Hunt]

"Using the Nazi reference, denying knowledge of Anne Franks whereabouts is an un truth and therefore wrong by definition yet it is also morally correct and you could do it without guilt or sin and therefore it would be a righteous act."

 

Here's what I don't understand: what do you mean by "wrong" in the sentence above? If it doesn't mean morally incorrect or sinful, what does it mean?

[LongHaul]

Hunt,

From my post of 11/25/2005, "Wrong is defined as 'Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.'" There are usually several entries for words in the dictionary, what I'm saying is that we need to pick one and stick with it through the discussion.

LongHaul

[ljnrsu]

Rooster you forgot another important use for the NY Times,Washington Post and LA Times...house breaking puppies

."Can't we all just get along" Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no, but liberals probably won't contrive reasons to go to war.

Prairie_Scouter  Pres Lyndon Johnson and the fake incident in the Gulf of Tonkin on Aug 4,1964 comes to mind. It makes me wonder how many Presidents have taken their cue from that event.

[Rooster7]

In reference to the Anne Frank analogy, a third option exists.

 

Dont reveal her location and be truthful about it. Of course, there are few men that I know that could or would do this, because the end result would likely be their own execution.

 

Morally right by human standards, and morally right by Gods standards, are two separate things. Certainly we can sympathize with the telling of a lie in order to save innocent people and/or ourselves from suffering evil at the hands of others but that doesnt make it morally right. It just makes it understandable.

 

[LongHaul]

Requiring that you forfit your life rather than speak an untruth? That's got to be the definition of "tough love".

LongHaul

[Prairie_Scouter]

Hi ljnrsu,

 

Good point on Johnson. I think, tho, that he didn't come up with the idea of steering event to allow entry into a war. I think that much of same happened in WWII, and probably other wars where the U.S. wasn't directly threatened. It's always difficult, I suppose, to recognize the "real threat" from the "perceived threat" from the "concocted threat", and how to respond to them in an appropriate manner. The history on the Iraq invasion remains to be written, but I suppose it will end up like many others, where, 10 years later, we'll be scratching our heads and wondering "how the heck did we end up there?".

 

Regards the idea of refusing to divulge Anne Frank's location while at the same time admitting that you know the location, that supposedly being the "morally right" action....I don't think it's that simple. Making such a statement would be akin to suicide, since you'd know the almost certain result. That, then puts you into the realm of "two-fold effect", where-in you weigh the relative "wrongness" of telling a lie vs telling a truth that would result in your death and act accordingly. Whichever one you pick at that point, I think, would be the "morally right" thing to do.