Pack 79 Policy of Acceptance

[frankpalazzi]

Eagle732 and others: When news breaks out, I'll break in!

[Peregrinator]

Exactly how recent, would you say, Pergrinator?

 

Since the late 19th century.

 

And what is your definition of democracy "in the modern sense"?

 

One person one vote, universal suffrage, etc.

[NJCubScouter]

Hmmm, Peregrinator.

 

I am not sure how pertinent it is to the discussion here, but I would say that you're both late and early, and that there's no real "bright line" for when democracy "in the modern sense" came into being. It's been developing for centuries, getting closer and closer to the "ideal" that we have now -- which is still not perfectly ideal.

 

As for your specific examples, "one person one vote" was routinely ignored in this country until the 1960's, and one could question whether we have it now. We have it in the sense it is required in the Constitution (meaning, in the House of Representatives (though even there, voting strength is only equalized within each state; between states it is as close as it can practically be without a larger-sized House, but it's somewhat uneven from state to state), and in the states through the 14th Amendment), but we don't have it for the Senate and we don't have it for the election of our presidents. I found it funny that one year New Jersey's congressional apportionment was thrown out because there was something like a 5-percent variance from one district to district, and yet someone in a sparsely populated state can have multiple-times the voting strength for president that I do. I understand it's that way because the Constitution says so, but it's not one-person one-vote.

 

As for "universal suffrage", yes it was in the 19th century that property requirements for voting were done away with. But I would like to see you go back in time and tell women in the 1900's and 1910's that we had "universal suffrage" then.

 

Oh, I remember what this was about now. Someone said the BSA is undemocratic. Well, it depends on what you consider a "member" of the BSA. I have a card that says I am a "member" but I don't get to vote on anything. (Well, every few years our troop committee takes a vote on something, but that's it.) To be a "voting member" I have to have to be an organization that has a charter to operate one or more Scouting units. But who gives me the charter? The organization that I would then become a voting member of. So the BSA decides who gets to vote on who runs the BSA. I don't think that would be considered a democracy when Parliament was just starting up in Merrie Old England, or in the Gilded Age of American Politics, or in the current climate of Corporations as Citizens, or any time in between. It's the way the organization believes is the best way to operate, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it is a democracy in any sense.

 

And frankly, I don't really care, but I do wish they would just change a policy or two and then nobody would really worry about whether the BSA is a democracy or not.

[Peregrinator]

I am not sure how pertinent it is to the discussion here, but I would say that you're both late and early, and that there's no real "bright line" for when democracy "in the modern sense" came into being. It's been developing for centuries, getting closer and closer to the "ideal" that we have now -- which is still not perfectly ideal.

 

I realize there isn't a "bright line" but I thought the XVth Amendment was as good a line as any. I think that was probably the start of the "ideal" of direct democracy. I realize that this is not how many government officials are elected in the United States, but I think if you asked the average person the definition of "democracy," he or she would respond with the definition of direct democracy.

[Oak Tree]

I don't think the example I want to set for my scouts is of one who chooses what rules to follow and which ones to ignore.

 

No place for civil disobedience? No place for teaching the Scouts that it's important to use their own judgment on whether some rules are immoral, impractical, or just ridiculous?

 

Once a policy becomes so unpopular that people just start openly brazenly ignoring it, knowing that they have the backing of others and the fact that the authorities can't or won't or don't crack down, then the policy is on the way out. As more units and councils start to profess their opposition, the avalanche will become unstoppable.

 

Why would one want to belong to a voluntary, private organization whose national policies one openly rejects?

 

Perhaps because one believes in the mission of the organization, generally supports most of the policies, and enjoys participation. Also perhaps because one does not see this particular policy as relevant to the day-to-day activities of the organization, which one likes.

 

Virtually every organization I belong to has some policy or direction that I don't think is the perfect way to do things. I'm not giving up belonging. And it somehow feels anti-American to suggest that I give up the right to speak my mind. I know the organization can kick me out if I'm too much of an annoyance, but most organizations tolerate some amount of dissent.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Oak Tree,

 

 

 

[Eagle732]

OakTree,

If you're going to quote me please don't do it in a misleading way by taking things I say out of context or buy using misleading partial quotes.

 

I did say "I don't think the example I want to set for my scouts is of one who chooses what rules to follow and which ones to ignore." Notice I used "I" meaning this is my personal opinion. I don't expect, nor do I care if you agree with me.

 

And in the very next sentence, which you conveniently left out, I said:

"I would rather them learn to follow the rules and work in a positive way to change the ones they think are wrong."

 

So since you're such a big believer in civil disobedience who gets to decide which rules are immoral, impractical, or just ridiculous, a 12 year old boy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[rismith]

Eagle, if your biggest complaints about a 12 year old is that he broke a stupid rule to accept another boy and treat him as his equal, your life must be pretty grand. Or if you ignore all context for the sole purpose of pointing to "rule breaking" your life must be ... not pretty grand.

[shortridge]

In the BSA run by SeattlePioneer, vice-president Randall Stephenson and board member James Turley would both be kicked out. Good to know.

 

SP, what most people here want is the local option. If your pack's CO wants to discriminate, it can. But my pack a few miles up the road will be happily scooping up all those families yours turns away - families with gay members and families whose heterosexual parents oppose discrimination on principle.

 

Eventually, even without a national ban on discrimination, the gays-are-yucky crowd will shrink to irrelevance as people realize two men kissing isn't contagious and the Scoutmaster isn't going to hit on them.

[Eagle732]

rismith,

I think we're talking about following rules in general. I site two cases, one involving a girl who was allowed to join a Cub Pack and the Pack 79 policy. One has to do with bending the rules thus allowing girls to join a boy program the other has to do with adult eligibility.

 

Maybe you should not be so quick to be post derogatory remarks as 2 out of you 8 total posts have been. It's easy to hide behind a computer and make snide remarks but on this site we almost always have civil, polite, conversations. Although the experienced posters often disagree we always respect each other as dedicated scouters. If you want to make things personal please feel free to PM me at any time.

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[packsaddle]

"So since you're such a big believer in civil disobedience who gets to decide which rules are immoral, impractical, or just ridiculous, a 12 year old boy?"

and then Eagle732 accuses rismith of being snide in his response. It's irony but not delicious enough to go into the collection.

 

Pot, meet Kettle.

[rismith]

Eagle,

 

The world is not black and white. Every time we talk about the founding fathers we are talking about men who defiantly broke the rules. People who signed their own death warrants in spite of the rules. If you're a Christian you know that Jesus violated Jewish law by entering the temple. You know that the rules that the Romans used to punish him were the same rules used to punish all. That doesn't make those rules fair and just. It doesn't mean that anyone who breaks them is somehow morally inferior. It often takes more courage to break a rule than it does to follow it.

 

Don't even know what to say about the e-toughguy bit.

[Peregrinator]

Every time we talk about the founding fathers we are talking about men who defiantly broke the rules.

 

Perhaps those who advocate breaking the BSA's rules should take a cue from the Founding Fathers and start their own organization.

[rismith]

And there are those that have. Not everyone chooses to do so. Even among the founding fathers there were many, particularly in the South, who opposed secession and wanted to work from within. More often than not, people don't choose to take their ball and go home. They try to change things from within. That's not something that we should discourage.

[packsaddle]

Peregrinator, would you also make that recommendation to the Tea Party and the neocons?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)