Scouters as communist weapons dealers

[eagle90]

Does the fact that I set my cruise control on 70 instead of 65 mphon the way to lst weekend's campout mean I cannot teach good citizenship or am not a "morally straight" person? I guess that 5 mph indiscretion in some minds overrides 40+ years experience along with being an Eagle Scout and Silver Beaver recipient. Come on - again, a little common sense here.

[Bob White]

Thanks for the tip, should I ever be pulled over for speeding I will show the officer my BSA veterans pin, and Silver Beaver lapel pin. I had no idea that those were free passes for breaking the law.

 

When a scout ignores a troop rule are they excused if they have the Eagle rank as well or does that just work for you? That is the question everyone keeps avoiding.

[evmori]

It seems we need to define what is a rule. Is it anything written in any BSA handbook or manual? Is it only the bold print in these handbooks & publications? What's the difference between a rule & guideline?

 

When a scout ignores a troop rule are they excused if they have the Eagle rank as well or does that just work for you? That is the question everyone keeps avoiding.

 

Everyone is answering the question. Just not to the liking of the asker.

 

What I am getting from most posters is the rules need to be put into perspective. When the rules become the focus of the program over the program itself is where the problem exists.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Another total end run. No one has suggested that rules should be, or are, the focus.

 

The still avoided question is how do you explain to the scout that you can pick and choose which rules you can ignore based on your personal preference, but that they cannot do the same with the troop rules.

 

We have a scout leader as an example who feels that having scouting awards such as the Eagle rank gives him superior discretion of the speed limit laws. Does he tell boys as they earn the Eagle rank that they can now choose to ignore the speed limit as well based on their discretion?

 

It's a slippery slope that has long term effects when we do not set the example we expect the scouts to follow.

 

 

 

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

So Ed, you said

 

"When the rules become the focus of the program over the program itself is where the problem exists."

 

Which BSA rules, and by your definition, the bold face printed ones, are a hindrance to you running the program?

[SeattlePioneer]

Well Bob, I think everyone agrees that rules have value, the question is how much.

 

I'm sure you're aware of the contributions Eamonn makes to his Scouting organizations. Suppose he chose not to wear regulation BSA socks, or was obese.

 

What actions would you take over these issues? I have to assume from your comments that you would prefer to have him excluded from Scouting if he didn't shape up after being warned about these rules violations?

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[evmori]

WOW! The mis-interpretations are flying now!

 

Which BSA rules, and by your definition, the bold face printed ones, are a hindrance to you running the program?

 

None and I never inferred any were. I also never posted or inferred the bold faced ones were the only rules. I was asking a question not making a statement.

 

Another total end run. No one has suggested that rules should be, or are, the focus.

 

Completely ignored everything up to that point in my post.

 

We have a scout leader as an example who feels that having scouting awards such as the Eagle rank gives him superior discretion of the speed limit laws.

 

Interesting interpretation. I think the poster stated they set the cruise 5 mph over the limit. I don't think they posted they did this because they are an Eagle Scout & don't need to abide by the law.

 

Since you originated this thread, Bob, what is your definition of a BSA rule? I think this could be where the sticking point is.

 

BTW FB, I can smell your socks! RULE BREAKER!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Hunt]

Let's imagine that a person says the following: "I typically set the cruise control for 60 when the speed limit is 55. What's wrong with that?" I see the following possible answers:

 

1. "As long as you don't get caught, there is nothing wrong with it." No one on this thread has made this argument.

 

2. "Because the police don't ever enforce a 55 mph speed limit, there's nothing wrong with violating it." No one made this argument, either.

 

3. "The 55 mph speed limit is not enforced, and most traffic is going even faster. Even though you shouldn't do this, it's not a very big deal in the grand scheme of things." This is my personal view.

 

4. "You can't pick and choose which laws are important and which aren't, so it's immoral to violate the speed limit. Doing this doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but it is wrong and you should stop." This is where my mother would come out.

 

5. "A person who deliberately violates the speed limit--who deliberately violates any applicable law or rule--is, by definition, not morally straight." This seems to be Bob White's position.

 

Everybody I know has some moral failings (at least by my standard of morality). Some of them are more severe than others, and in some cases I couldn't honestly say the person is "morally straight." Others have their imperfections, but I consider them to be "morally straight"--so much so that I entrust the safety and moral and religious education of my children to some of them.

[acco40]

"What I wanted to talk about is the willingness of Scout Leaders to pick-and-choose what rules they will follow based solely on their personal comfort or convenience."

 

"The still avoided question is how do you explain to the scout that you can pick and choose which rules you can ignore based on your personal preference, but that they cannot do the same with the troop rules."

 

BW, I think you "stack the deck." I don't think any Scouter (or at least I hope none) feels they pick and choose rules to obey based on personal comfort, preference or convenience. Therefore, no explanation is forthcoming to the Scouts. Now, as you have witnessed many times on this forum, some of the Scouters choose to ignore, violate or disobey rules because of other reasons. I'm not condoning those actions. However, I would not be so bold to ask why they violated these rules for personal comfort but just a plain why should suffice.

 

We have promised to deliver a program, not "our program" and we should all be wary of deviating from that but lets not cry over spilled milk.

 

Take the much discussed "patrol method." I'm a firm believer in trying to use that method, especially with the younger boys. If only two members of a patrol participate in an outing, we still have them function as a patrol - meals, menus, tent placement, etc. I know not all troops do this but I think they "violate" that method not because of personal convenience, comfort or preference but because they feel it is in the best interest of the Scouts. You and I may not agree but I think it is wrong to accuse them of whimsical behavior.

 

Our current Jambo contingent troop is composed of Scouts and Scouters from three different troops. One does not "require" Scout pants. Do they have the authority to do this? No. Did the rule makers of that troop do that for personal comfort, convenience or preference? I don't know but I doubt it.

 

Now, last weekend my neighbor invited my family, or the family with which I belong according to my teenage sons, to his birthday party held a the local Laser Quest facility. We played two games of laser tag. My boys know that it is a banned Scouting activity and an activity that I do not condone in a Scouting environment and have quashed repeatedly after suggestions by our PLC but know that I have no real personal objection (or real liking either) to it. Do I have some explaining to do? So far, they have not asked about it.

 

And, communists weapons dealers? Don't you know that the bad guy de rigueur is now the "terrorists." On a serious note, RPGs can now be had on the open market for under $10/per.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Zahnada]

I get it! I get it! I've been trying to twist my head around what answer is actually being sought after, but now I get it!

 

This isn't about rules or laws or civil disobedience. This is about hypocrisy. It's a hypocrisy that's inherent to the Boy Scouts because, try as we might, it's impossible to live fully by the Oath and Law. As humans, we are flawed and we will occasionally stray from the path. Scouts are held up as the pinnacle of moral integrity in our society. That's why the public finds it so fascinating when a scout does something atrocious.

 

So let's return to the actual question as stated by BW: "The question at hand which nearly everyone avoided except for eamonn and FScouter was about how YOU personally expect scouts to follow your troop rules when you admittedly do not follow the rules of the BSA or those of your community."

 

This is tough because all troops I've been affiliated with do not have "rules." There are requirements (ie. you are required to have proper clothing to go on the snow outing. You are required to wear full uniform to participate in a flag ceremony). Maybe this counts as a rule: In one troop, it was a rule that boys had to attend the chapel service on Sunday during outings. Also, it isn't me who would deal with these situations, but the SPL and PLs.

 

So, what do I do if a scout uses my own hypocrisy as rationalization for not obeying a rule? First, I would apologize. If I broke a rule or law and it's coming back in this form, then I obviously have not been setting a good example and have failed as an adult leader. I would apologize for the action. The best way to deal with these situations is honesty.

 

Next, I would talk with the boy about why he doesn't want to follow this rule. Maybe he doesn't want to attend the nondenominational chapel service because he feels he can be reverent more effectively in solitude. I would tell him that this can be addressed at the PLC. I would also tell him that chapel is also about fellowship as well as duty to God.

 

I guess, without dragging you through the dialogue, I would use honest communication in this situation.

 

But remember, we're all hypocrits. We will all make mistakes.

 

[Adrianvs]

I would like to see a direct answer to Bob's question, although like Acco, I find the question too loaded for anyone to accept the first premise.

 

In any event, the force of Bob's argument rests on the presumption that everyone operates under a rule-based ethical system. Given this assumption, one who violates the rules within a particular system or systems is unable to teach or model ethical principles. This is absolutely true within a rule-based ethical system, for within such a system, the ethically or morally straight person is one who consistently follows the rules. Bob is working from within such a system and he is absolutely right in that he could not effectively teach or model rule-based ethical behavior if he himself was a rule-breaker.

 

Now, the complications come in because very few people on this board are likely followers of a rule-based ethics. It seems to me that most are going to be utilitarians, pragmatists, or epicureans. When people discuss ethics from within different systems, confusion inevitably results because they are using a different language and starting with different assumptions.

 

Now, I can tackle Bob's question (or attempt to tackle it given that I also believe that rule-following should be the default behavior of a scout or scouter unless ethical principles are violated), from my position as a natural law ethicist with an emphasis on virtue ethics, but I doubt that many would be interested at this point.

[Adrianvs]

Keep in mind that Bob's question was not fundamentally an ethical one, but a pedagogical one. He wasn't stating that anyone who breaks national laws of BSA rules is immoral (although he may believe that). Rather he was asking how one teaches ethics when one breaks the rules all the time. This is a more relevant and interesting question than many give Bob credit for. It is especially relevant given that even those of us who accept another ethical system beyond rule-based ethics still teach children (especially young ones) proper behavior with rule-based ethics. Indeed, cognitive psychology tells us that until children reach the Formal Operational Stage of cognitive development, they aren't really able to understand other ethical systems anyway. Heck, even Plato believed that one couldn't understand ethics until one was about 30. Do we really expect young persons to understand the nuances of our ethical system (which we can barely grasp at times) which allows us to break rules?

 

How do you teach ethics in the absence of a neat rule-based ethics? How do you justify to scouts that they must obey the rules that you deem important when you don't follow the rules that the BSA or legislature deems important? Don't pretend that there is a consensus among everyone regarding what rules are important. Anyone who has been a child and/or a parent knows this not to be true if they simply think about it. If you attempt to teach scouts the nuances of your ethical system which makes the "silly" rules not worth following, then that is fine. Just tell us HOW you teach it. That is the question.

 

Rather than take offense to Bob's question, try to answer it.

Perhaps you may want to do it with another thread. How do you teach ethical principles without recourse to consistent rule-following? I, for one, would be genuinely interested in hearing.

[Trevorum]

Adrianvs, very well formulated and I will try to answer you.

 

As I stated, I believe the overwhelming majority of the laws and rules in our society (say, 99.9%) are good and just, having stood the test of time. (Other places may not be so lucky.) However, history shows that there have been many laws and rules which were indeed unjust and which ethics demanded be disobeyed. Perhaps one law in a thousand. Some big, some small. Some may have been created with less than honorable intent, others may simply not have been well thought out. It doesn't matter. The point is that a finite number of the rules and laws we all face are just plain wrong and blindly following the rules all of the time (while easier)will inevitably lead one into unethical behavior of some kind or another.

 

So how to avoid this? I teach my sons to follow the rules and laws they encounter because, as was pointed out, that is how our society gets along and avoids anarchy. However, if they sincerely believe a rule or law to be wrong, then it is their ethical duty to try to change it (by means short of violence). Adults may also elect to disobey such, as long as they fully accept the potential consequences. I make the distinction between adults and children because, as you have pointed out, children are not yet fully formed, either physically or ethically.

 

By way of illustration, I have told them about the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Good, ethical, and law-abiding folks went to jail for purposefully disobeying laws they knew to be wrong. They suffered, but made that choice knowingly. Conversely, and at nearly the same time, atrocities were committed by American servicemen who blindly followed orders. I hope that my sons will not face such wrenching injustice in their lives, but more subtle forms still flourish.

 

I am just a simple fellow, not an ethicist, and so I am sure my way of thinking about this ancient topic has flaws. I am certainly willing to learn. However, this is the path of honor that I learned from my father and I have tried to teach it to my family.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If one attempted to teach abstract principles to concrete thinking children, the results would appear unusual to the observer because of the lack of insightful and useful interpretations. Likewise, an adult using an abstract thinking process cannot easily model concrete thinking processes without several failings. The adage, "Don't do as I do but as I say," is such an example. The idea is to have trained Troop Leadership made up of Scouts that do understand the failings of concrete interpretations of abstract concepts and that can model proper Scout-like behavior, also known as Setting the Example. This of course does not release the adult from the burden of trying to conform to a stricter set of ethics than one would choose if one was relieved of such a duty/responsibility. Wearing Scouts Socks is one such rule.

FB(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[evmori]

Yinz guys is givin' me a headache! All those high faloutin' werds! And the smell of them socks! WHEW!