Do you agree 100% with BSA policies?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The national BSA seems to think there was a problem, and now they explicitly state to avoid them:

http://www.scouting.org/relationships/34196/01.html

...[Note: Public schools and government organizations do not serve as chartered organizations]...

 

But it seems a lot of people in this thread suggest that the best way to address a potential problem is to ignore it and hope it doesn't get worse.

[evmori]

I would love to see this go to court. That would put an end to this crap & I would bet, the ruling would go in favor of public schools being able to charter BSA units. The reason for stating it is a violation is a stretch in the first place.

 

The unit I was affiliated with was chartered by a church, Merlyn, so this was never an issue.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[hot_foot_eagle]

Backing up a bit, BrentAllen said, "Most of the Troops are chartered by churches, so the Chartered Organization Reps (the only members who have a vote at Council) are, for the most part, members of churches. "

 

So just thinking out loud, I can't imagine why evangelical Christian churches (even conservative ones)would be keen to exclude atheists that might be saved through scouting and consequent exposure to worship. Not that evangelical Christian churches are the only CO's, but I think the point is clear enough.

 

Couple that thought with this: I understand the statement where BSA used the term "best kind of citizen" and am at least empathetic with the position. I might have been able accept it on its face but for a gravestone I saw in a national cemetery with an atheist symbol (logo?) on it. I thought to myself, "Just what more could I possibly ask of this citizen?"

 

So no, I don't agree 100% with BSA policies. I think the DRP is paradoxically un-Christian and wastes precious resources via legal defense and damage control marketing.

 

I find my situation a bit like an American soldier sent to fight a war he doesn't believe in. The volunteer soldier fights, but he votes his conscience when and how he can.

 

 

 

 

[Joni4TA]

comply support comply support comply support....

 

Wow LongHaul, I think it's a shame you are so adamant that I didn't agree to support the BSA policies, but merely comply when I signed my application for BSA membership. Seems to me you weren't present, and you have no idea who I made my agreement with or in what context. Actually, it was an intra-personal agreement I made to support BSA policies whole-heartedly. I never said it was written on the application, I just said when I signed that application, I made the agreement.

 

Besides that, I am not the kind of person who can comply with something I don't support in an organization where I have free will to come and go as I please. No one forces me to be a volunteer leader with the BSA. So as I said, if there were a policy that bothered me so much that I wanted it to change, I would no longer be a member.

 

It's cut and dry for me.

[LongHaul]

Joni4TA, Try reading my post again. Find the part where I said that you did or didn't dosomething and re post it for me. As for being the type of person that can't comply with something they don't support you must have one %^&*( of a time living in a country where the political ebb and flow is subject to change at every election. If you can tell me with a straight face that you support every last policy, law or ordinance in your local then I'm sorry for you as a person. NO offense meant but following the lead of others to that point seems like a very unproductive life.

LH

[Aquila]

OGE has the best answer: "Just because I disagree with a BSA policy does not mean I dont follow it."

 

100%? No. But I *DO* agree with 100% of its core values. The rest of the stuff can be dealt with. If I could not in good conscience agree with the fundamentals, I would find a group that better fit my family.

[Trevorum]

A lot of folks in uniform do NOT consider exclusionary membership to be a core BSA value.

 

 

 

"BSA is a fine organization. I dont agree with all of their choices, but I do what I can to influence them. There are a couple of policies I think are bone-headed but I put up with them because the kids learn a lot and really enjoy the fun. I dont agree with everything but I stay because the many positives far outweigh the few negatives. I disagree with a few of their positions but in general, our values overlap significantly. Some of the people are on the fringe but most are pretty reasonable. "

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

Hey Trev, I appreciate your compilation there. A nice tidy summation of many Scouters' views. Mind if I borrow it from time to time? With due credit of course.

[Trevorum]

Lisa,

For context, please see the full text in the 1st post of this thread.

[Lisabob]

Oh yes Trev, I saw that and liked it. Nicely done.

[Joni4TA]

Sure thing -

page 4 -

two posts down from mine

 

"Joni4TA, I don't know where you got your adult application but it must have contained a typo. It should have asked that you agree to COMPLY with...... big difference between comply and support."

 

No - there is no difference to me. I believe since I stay a member, I am supporting the policy, not merely complying with it.

[Gonzo1]

Joni,

There's a BIG difference between complying and supporting.

 

Look at the kids in the open truck.

Complying with the "no kids in the back of truck" policy, you could simply not allow it in your truck, but supporting it might be that you wouldn't allow it in your truck AND would discourage it from others in your unit, at council events and so forth. you might even emphasize it if you were conducting training somewhere.

 

 

[Beavah]

Complying with the "no kids in the back of truck" policy, you could simply not allow it in your truck, but supporting it might be that you wouldn't allow it in your truck AND would discourage it from others in your unit, at council events and so forth. you might even emphasize it if you were conducting training somewhere.

 

Nah, I'd think about it differently myself, Gonzo.

 

I'd say "complying" with the BSA no paintball rule means that you would not allow it in your troop and would discourage others in training and other units. But you might very well take your kids and their friends and go play paintball on Saturday.

 

Supporting the policy means you wouldn't take your kids to go play paintball and would discourage other parents from doin' so on their own time, because yeh really do think it's dangerous or leads to Columbine shootouts or somesuch.

 

Same with da truck, eh? Comply means what you said. Support means you wouldn't do it on your own at a non-Scouting event, and might even stop a stranger to say "What are you thinking?"

 

I'd guess we'd all prefer organizations where we really supported everything. But we accept some things where we just comply because the majority we support, and the rest we can live with or even learn from.

 

Beavah

 

[Gonzo1]

I guess I was typing BEFORE coffee.

 

[LongHaul]

Sorry Joni4TA I still don't see where I said that YOU did or didn't do something. The post you quote very plainly states that the application you signed should have said COMPLY. I fail to see how that warrants the tone and/or content of your reply. "Adamant" would indicate an attempt on your part to clarify and a refusal on my part to acknowledge your position. (See the Merlyn and Ed debates)

 As for this being a PRIVATE organization yes it is and I was a paid up member long before ANY of the current executive board. Can't speak as to how my tenure stacks up against the CO voting members, don't have a list of those names. As long as my dues are paid I can object all I want so long as I comply until the rules are changed.

Also noticed you dodged the question of SUPPORTING every politician that wins and law that is passed.

LH