Unjust revocations

[packsaddle]

jkhny, I think I have said this in another thread in another galaxy, a long, long time ago...but:

I was pursuing clarification of the BSA gay policy/excommunication of the UUA - at the council. The SE and lots of support staff were there in order to provide clarification to me. The clarification was that they weren't going to provide any kind of justification or explanation, I was supposed to just accept the policy or leave. I can't remember the exact words, it was years ago, but do remember thinking to myself at the time, "I know I fell of the vegetable truck but that was weeks ago and I think I can read these tea leaves." So I asked a direct question about public criticism. I received a direct answer.

 

As I have observed in other threads, for BSA the freedom of association seems to trump the freedom of speech (so much for using THEIR example for the citizenship badges). Anyway, I decided to focus on the boys and the local unit and to try not to sweat the stuff I clearly do not control.

It is for this reason that I AM careful to control access to my identity when voicing my opinions, here and elsewhere, and keep everything I do along those lines way below the radar.

[Bob White]

It's likely less of what you do not control and more of you choose to not accept.

 

Speech is a right, membership is a privilege.

 

The right to free speech says that the government will not pass a law that will abridge your freedom of speech. It does not say that an organization you disagree with must keep you as a volunteer. That in fact has nothing to do with the freedom of speech.

 

Your right to say what you please does not guarantee you the privilege of membership. Your revocation of membership does not remove your right to continue to voice your opinion OUTSIDE of membership.

 

I cannot fathom why anyone would choose to remain in an organization where they felt that their personal values were so at odds that they would hide what they believe in order to remain being seen by others as a member of that organization.

 

Is being seen by others as a "scouter" more important than having others see you for what you really believe in?

 

Now I 'm sure you don't see it that way. I am sure you are quite comfortable with who you are...and yet...you admit to only revealing your real opinion and values under anonomity.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Hunt]

"I cannot fathom why anyone would choose to remain in an organization where they felt that their personal values were so at odds that they would hide what they believe in order to remain being seen by others as a member of that organization."

 

I get really tired of this point being made, espcially by somebody who is constantly telling people to shut up about their complaints and disagreements and to focus on their jobs in the local unit. Now you're criticizing somebody who took your own advice? You're really defending a policy of expelling people for disagreeing with a policy? Not for violating it, but merely suggesting that it should be reconsidered and changed? You think that's Scoutlike?

As for anonymity, I would remind you, Bob, that you have divulged information about other posters that you thought would discredit their opinions--information you were able to get because they didn't insist on anonymity. Finally, unless your name is actaually Bob White, I don't see your name at the bottom of your posts, or in your profile.

 

[Bob White]

Hunt,

 

You have shared a bounty of misinformation in one post.

 

"Now you're criticizing somebody who took your own advice?"

 

I never told anyone to join or remain in an organization whose values and rules they disagree with. I said not to worry about other peoples responsibilities.

 

"Not for violating it, but merely suggesting that it should be reconsidered and changed? You think that's Scoutlike?"

 

I think not following the rules and not addressing your concerns to the people who have the authority to institute the changes you seek is a waste of everyones time and can reach the point of disobedient and disloyal. But what I think has nothing to do with what the rules are.

 

"As for anonymity, I would remind you, Bob, that you have divulged information about other posters that you thought would discredit their opinions

 

That NEVER happened. If you are refering to the time I questioned a posters rapidily declining unit membership, I will remind you that HE posted his web-site address and invited people to vist on NUMEROUS occassions. I accepted that invitation and asked him about what was there. I did not violate any anonimity, he publicly posted the information and asked us to look at it.

 

"Finally, unless your name is actually Bob White, I don't see your name at the bottom of your posts, or in your profile."

 

SO WHAT? Unlike what Packsaddle posted about himself, I have not chosen a handle to hide what I think or believe. The opinions and information I post here is no different than what I say publicly to and about scouting.

 

I have not and would not pose as a member of an organization whose values I did not share or accept. I would not belong to a group and then in the shadows stand and criticize it. I have no need to conceal what I think (or do) from the BSA at any level.

 

So though filled with emotion, your post lacks accuracy.

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori]

Those who criticize the BSA for the recent flurry of bad press care more about the BSA than those who think the BSA can do no wrong!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Why would you criticize the BSA for bad press? Do you actually believe that the BSA controls what the press does?

 

Isn't a flurry just a short burst not a prolonged activity.

 

Do you really think that the program does more harm than good...and yet you remain a volunteer in it?

 

Is it really more important to some that they be seen as a member of scouting yet secretly disagree with its values and policies. Where is the honor in that?

 

No one said the BSA was perfect. How much better are you to choose to be a member yet not support it?

 

[evmori]

Why would you criticize the BSA for bad press? Do you actually believe that the BSA controls what the press does?

 

No the BSA doesn't control the press. What they should control is the professionals they employ.

 

Isn't a flurry just a short burst not a prolonged activity.

 

Correct statement. But flurries can do a lot of damage.

 

Do you really think that the program does more harm than good...and yet you remain a volunteer in it?

 

Never said anything like that. Once again, wrong interpretation.

 

Is it really more important to some that they be seen as a member of scouting yet secretly disagree with its values and policies. Where is the honor in that?

 

What secret? Not mine. Maybe yours. You think you know where I stand.

 

No one said the BSA was perfect. How much better are you to choose to be a member yet not support it?

 

Some have given the impression the BSA can do no wrong. And your question exemplifies that. I am no better than you and you are no better than me. And I have never posted I don't support the BSA. I just don't support it blindly.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Bob White, I am honest about what I think, here and elsewhere. I just don't write critical editorials in the newspaper or air criticisms on camera. And I am very careful what I write in emails or on websites if my identity is known. The other leaders know my thoughts quite well (many agree). If the SE or anyone else at the council asks me, I tell them what I think and that's the end of it.

The limitations I observe, as it has been explained to me, are the conditions set by BSA (council, at least) not by me.

You are correct that membership is a privilege and I have chosen to conform to the unwritten 'policy' on free speech in order not to jeopardize my membership. The effect of repression of speech is to drive criticism away from public view but BSA can't make it go away. Refusal to engage openly in honest, critical examination of ideas is sometimes an indication of the weakness of the ideas, or the ability to defend them. Too bad, it tends to propagate needless confusion and misinformation in the public arena, and BSA has NO control over that arena.

 

In the past you asked me directly why I continue, and I answered directly.

[Hunt]

Bob, really, if you can't take the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen. You can't from one side of your mouth tell people to stop complaining about policies they can't change, and from the other side of your mouth criticize them when they say that's what they've decided to do. It's just ridiculous to say that people should quit BSA because they disagree with ONE of its policies. I note that you dodge the question of whether you think it's Scoutlike to kick people out of Scouting for disagreeing with policies (but not violating them). I submit that's because the answer is obvious.

Also, you say:

"That NEVER happened. If you are refering to the time I questioned a posters rapidily declining unit membership, I will remind you that HE posted his web-site address and invited people to vist on NUMEROUS occassions. I accepted that invitation and asked him about what was there. I did not violate any anonimity, he publicly posted the information and asked us to look at it."

I didn't say you violated anonymity. What you did was exploit the information you found on the website to discredit the poster's opinions and to impugn his credibility--without providing facts about yourself to support your own credibility. You proceeded to refer to this again and again every time you wanted to disagree with that poster's opinions. I thought that was a low tactic at the time, and I still do. That kind of thing is the reason many people prefer anonymity--perhaps that's why you choose to post anonymously as well.

So, I don't see any inaccuracies in my post at all. Your reaction reminds me of an anecdote about George Bernard Shaw. Once when visiting a friend he saw a portrait of himself, and thought "what a horrible likeness!"--until he realized he was looking in a mirror.

 

[Bob White]

Wow,I got three people arguing three differnt interpretations of the same post and you think I can't stand the heat? I have put up with some folks tripe for years now.

 

What I can't stand are people pretending to support the values of scouting when in fact they just wear the uniform that represents Scouting's values when in truth they disagree or reject those values.

 

What I dislike are posters who falsify information and base anti-scouting rants on those ficticious statements.

 

What annoys me is scouters who do not know the program after YEARS of membership, who then take offense when the results of their work are examined off an Internet site they invited us to look at.

 

How can you say that I "exploited" information that a scouter asked us to view? No one forced him to dislose the membership situation that existed in HIS unit. Why Hunt is your disgust not focused on the unit that chased so many scouts away rather than on me for noting that they had left?

 

The freedom of speech that jhkny, packsadlle,and a few others are complaining about has nothing to do with membership in the BSA or any other organization. You would think that people who teach citizenship might have some understanding of that.

 

You would think that adults would not join or remain in an organization whose rules and values they do not accept.

 

Sometimes the BSA has to give them the opportunity to go find a group whose values they can openly support since they are unable to make the decision on their own.

 

 

[packsaddle]

"I cannot fathom why..." That, at least, is clear. I'm carefully following the rules, written and unwritten, that BSA has laid before me. Just the way you do. BSA made the rules and I follow them. BSA is responsible for this situation. And, just as you admit you "cannot fathom why..." I admit that I'm obviously not capable of bringing you enlightenment.

 

Hypothetically, if someone "can't stand", is annoyed by, or dislikes this situation, that person needs to learn how to adjust to disappointment, and perhaps develop some coping skills. Until BSA changes the rules, I will continue to follow them as they are. And that will be that until I decide differently. Until then, tough luck.

[jkhny]

"As I have observed in other threads, for BSA the freedom of association seems to trump the freedom of speech (so much for using THEIR example for the citizenship badges). Anyway, I decided to focus on the boys and the local unit and to try not to sweat the stuff I clearly do not control.

It is for this reason that I AM careful to control access to my identity when voicing my opinions, here and elsewhere, and keep everything I do along those lines way below the radar. "

 

And how sad - or appalling - is that? and back to the basic question - HOW is real change or reform possible in BSA when those pushing for change have to fear expulsion?

 

BSA seems to have adopted a philosophy more appropriate for the Comosol or Hitler Youth in this respect and some are far too willing to defend this position.

 

Obey or leave. Do not question ANYTHING. If you do not keep quiet or leave willingly, we will make you leave.

 

[Hunt]

"How can you say that I "exploited" information that a scouter asked us to view? No one forced him to dislose the membership situation that existed in HIS unit. Why Hunt is your disgust not focused on the unit that chased so many scouts away rather than on me for noting that they had left?"

 

I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with somebody's views on the merits, and even in asking them if it's been effective. But to continually respond to their views by bringing up their numbers is, in my opinion, extremely rude. It's the sort of tactic used by people who can't or won't defend their position on the merits. Thus, for example, Bob, you still haven't said whether you think it's Scoutlike for BSA to exclude people from membership simply for disagreeing with rules, even if they are obeying them. And I'll repeat, to suggest that somebody doesn't share the values of Scouting just because they disagree with the ban on gay leaders is ridiculous. Somebody who thinks that way doesn't know the difference between a rule and a value.

[evmori]

Thus, for example, Bob, you still haven't said whether you think it's Scout like for BSA to exclude people from membership simply for disagreeing with rules, even if they are obeying them.

 

I think I can answer this. In my opinion, no it isn't Scout like. But there are those who feel the BSA can do no wrong & will defend it blindly.

 

What I can't stand are people pretending to support the values of scouting when in fact they just wear the uniform that represents Scouting's values when in truth they disagree or reject those values.

 

I don't think anyone has questioned the values of Scouting nor do I think anyone disagrees (maybe Merlyn does) or rejects those values. What posters are questioning is the way the BSA is handling those situations that are giving Scouting a bad name. It seems all we as volunteers want is for the BSA to practice what they preach & what they want us to preach. And to clue in those of us on the front lines as to why they are doing what they are doing. "Just because" isn't a good answer.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

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

[Bob White]

I have not repeatedly brought up that unit's membership on the forum. I did so only in a thread that was related to that discussion.

 

Packsaddle, what I do not understand is that give the appearance of sharing the values of scouting in the light of day but then disagree in the shadows where you cannot be recognized and you think that is more honorable. It seems that the appearance of being a scouter is more important to you than having the values of scouting.

 

jhkny,

No one with half an oncde of civility in them buys into your tripe of comparing an organizations ability to expect its volunteers members to speak well of the group to that of nazi Germany. That is just sick.

 

Hunt, What I believe is that for an adult to choose to join an organization and remain a member but publicly or privately criticize it rather than to take POSITIVE steps to learn about the organization and address the problem with those who have authority over it is; Disloyal,unhelpful, unfriendly, discourteous, disobedient, and at times cowardly.