Unjust revocations

[packsaddle]

Bob White, I did take my concerns to BSA at the council level. I tried to engage them in a dialogue. Their response was that they were not open to discussions on these subjects. I add that they had a similar response to issues not related to policies on gays or atheists. As I said before, I don't know if this is a pattern for BSA, but it is my own experience.

 

On the other hand, your admitted lack of understanding is your problem, not mine. Just as I can't bring the council to an open, objective discussion of certain issues, I can't open your mind for you, either. I can live with the council's denial and with persons who disagree with me but are unable to rise past their own prejudices, (they make it easier in some ways, actually) by devoting my time and attention to the troop and the boys. No problem.

[Hunt]

Bob, do you think it's Scoutlike for BSA to exclude people from membership simply for disagreeing with rules, even if they are obeying them?

[Bob White]

I guess whether it is scoutlike depends on which side of the decision you are on.

 

If I come home and find you in my house attacking my son and I pick up the fireplace poker and beat you severly aroundt the head and shoulders I would bet that you would not see that as Scoutlike. And yet to my family I would be seen as Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Brave.

 

If you are volunteer at the zoo and I as the zoo director find that although you do your volunteer work just find, after work you say terrible things about the zoo to others, do I not have authority to say "you know what we don't need your help any longer."

 

If you came to chuch every sunday and put on your choir robe and sang all the notes just right, but outdide of church you spoke against your religion and in your personal life did not follow the values of the church, are you not hypocrital for wanting to be seen by others for someone you really are not?

 

This is not about whether the BSA is being scoutlike, it is about whether the hypocritical volunteer is being scoutlike. The BSA says they are not and so removes the conflict by letting you leave.

 

Packsaddle I am not predjudiced I am discriminating. I did not pre-judge anything you said, I read it and then I determined if it was good or bad, I discriminated. I chose that what you wrote was not good. There is nothing wrong somepne doing that, in fact the purpose of the Scouting program is to develop in us the ability to make ethical decisions based on the values of scouting. My opinion is that to wear the uniform in the light of day but criticize the BSA in the dark is unethical.

 

So Hunt, based on the values of scouting if you are not trustworthy and loyal in your support, if you are not friendly and courteous in your methods to resolve your disagreement, if you are not obedient adressing the problem through the organization and not in public, if you are not brave enough to stand for the values of scouting and not just hide inside the uniform, then in fact you are the one being unscoutlike, not the BSA when they allow you to leave.

 

Does that explain it better?

 

 

[Kahuna]

My opinion is that to wear the uniform in the light of day but criticize the BSA in the dark is unethical.

So it would make no difference to you if the person in question is doing a great job of contributing to the development of youth in his troop?

This is not about whether the BSA is being scoutlike, it is about whether the hypocritical volunteer is being scoutlike. The BSA says they are not and so removes the conflict by letting you leave.

And is the BSA, in fact, removing them for being unscoutlike or because their views are not appreciated, assuming that one is scoutlike in the way the disagreements are presented? Strikes me this program is about boys! If you can run a good scouting program for them, I don't see why it matters if they disagree with some of the "values" of scouting. I haven't seen anything here that indicates the disagreements have extended to program in a unit.

[Bob White]

Scouting is indeed for the youth (there are girls in scouting too).

 

But it gets to the youth through "DEDICATED" leaders. You cannot put on a show while people can see you in uniform and then disparage the program out of uniform and be taken seriously as being 'dedicated'.

 

It is not disagreeing with the BSA that gets you in trouble, it's how you disagree. You also have to accept that just because you ask for change does not mean the answer will be yes. The program isn't going to change just because YOU want it to. Know when to stop. Make your choice to be a dedicated scouter or a dedicated non-member welcome to openly say what you want. But stop thinking you have some inalienable right to do both, because you don't.

 

If you want to be one person in uniform and another out just remember that it's your choice of deception, no one (not even the BSA) made you make that choice.

[jkhny]

"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. "

 

What's "sick" are the arguments that a few have made to defend the clearly indefensible..... some of the arguments offered by BSA supporters are almost VERBATUM to those offered by Fascists and Communists and SHOULD be appalling to ANYONE in Scouting.

 

"Loyalty" and "Obedience" do NOT trump "Truthfulness."

 

"Shut up and do your duty, obey your superiors" (paraphrasing) is an oft repeated retort when FACTS cannot be refuted. Mindless defense of clear wrongdoing is NOT a value that Scouting should teach.

 

American values embrace discourse and dissent - we do NOT stifle them....though apparently BSA does. An autocracy is an autocracy - the tactic and words change little from one to another.

 

[Bob White]

The truth is jhnky you have only one thing that you are mad about and you are trying to discredit the entire BSA program because of it. The Council in Chicago is selling land they own and you don't want them to and they aren't listening to you. GEE! I can't image why?

[Hunt]

"Does that explain it better?"

 

No. The examples you give are absurd. We are not talking about somebody attacking your son, or saying terrible things about anybody. We are talking about a simple question, whether it is Scoutlike for BSA to remove a person for expressing disagreement with a rule, even though they are obeying the rule. Your over-the-top statements are really not to the point.

The more specific question would be this:

Do you think it is right, or Scoutlike, for BSA to remove a person from membership merely for stating the opinion that BSA should change its policy prohibiting openly gay leaders?

 

To make it crystal clear, we are talking about somebody who expresses disagreement with only this one policy, and otherwise supports the policies and values of BSA. And to make it even clearer, we aren't talking about whether BSA has the LEGAL right to remove such a person, but whether it is ETHICAL for BSA to do this.

 

[GernBlansten]

I for one have never and will never openly express my concern and disagreement with BSA on its gay policy for fear of being expelled from membership. Forums such as this give me an outlet, anonymously. So do quiet conversations at the campfire with other scouters who share my values (and there are quite a few). But never, never, ever would I stand at a roundtable or in front of an executive and express those views. At least not until my son has lost interest or aged out. Until then, I hold my tongue. I do it for my son.

[evmori]

If I'm not mistaken, the Scouter who's Troop's declining membership is in question gave reasons for the decline. Yet there was never any mention of the reasons given only the decline. Not very Scoutlike, Mr. White.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

I understand the BSA is not all that great in your eyes jkhny. But, I must echo that the comparison to Nazis is beyond the pale. Until the BSA forms an armed "security force, you cant compare them to the Nazis, Until the BSA drags people at midnight out of their beds and either beats them to death, takes them away never to seen again or shoots them dead in front of their families, you cant compare them to Nazi's. Do you see they cant be compared and in doing so, you cheapen the experience of the Nazi's victims

 

 

[packsaddle]

Unless I have misunderstood the situation, for a leader who wants to serve the troop and the boys - and conforms to the written rules, but nevertheless disagrees with one of BSA's policies, the ONLY place BSA allows such criticism, on threat of dismissal, IS "the dark." BSA's darkness, by BSA's choice.

 

"If I come home and find you in my house...". WHERE do you come up with this stuff? You said something like this once before, is this some kind of obsession? No one is in YOUR house. BSA is not your home. No one is attacking your son.

 

"If you are volunteer at the zoo..." If the zoo has a policy that, say, excludes avowed gays and dismisses any volunteer who, although conforming to written regulations, nevertheless disagrees publicly, I submit that the remaining volunteers will quickly learn to be very quiet and careful about what they say. Nice place by the way!

 

"If you came to chuch..." but you thought that black people, or gay people, ought to be allowed to attend, I think the ethical thing IS to be critical of the exclusionary policy. Been there, done that, guilty as charged.

 

The only written requirements for adult membership are those stated on the application. There is no wording that states that the applicant must be uncritical of BSA policy, only that they conform to those same written requirements. If there is an unwritten policy of dismissal for public criticism, then the effect is to ADD an additional requirement beyond that which is written. Are you saying that is an acceptable approach? H'mmm? The honest approach for BSA, if this is the case, would be to state this additional requirement explicitly, on the application.

 

But there is an ethical element to the situation. For BSA to relegate criticism to "the dark" for persons who are honestly trying to address something with which they disagree, I think is unethical. Moreover, it risks harm to the program.

Any idea that has merit should be able to withstand criticism. In fact such criticism can actually strengthen ideas. This approach has been abundantly successful in science, for example. If the idea can't stand up to criticism, perhaps it should be abandoned. Stifling criticism won't diminish its weakness. A policy that has the effect of avoiding or repressing criticism leads in two parallel directions: an implicit admission of the potential weakness of the idea, while perpetuating a potentially weak idea artificially - neither of which is desirable.

[Bob White]

No one says do to protest the membership rules if you disagree. Just do not think that you're guranteed membership in the organization you vulutarily joined and voluntarily protest against. You aren't, no one is, no one ever was.

 

If you think there is honor in representing yourself as having one set of values and then taking off the uniform and supporting a differnt set of values there isn't. Character is what you do when others aren't watching.

 

Why would anyone voluntarily choose to belong to an organization who values they do not share. Who do you think you fool besides yourself?(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Prairie_Scouter]

So, I suppose one might ask, "what if the people protesting against some BSA policies are right in that the current leaders of BSA's National office are supporting policies that ultimately damage the organization?"

 

These protesters may be acting "in the shadows", as it were, because they feel that there is no mechanism within BSA that they feel would allow an open airing of the policies. An open discussion, not a discussion that some might feel is being done by hand-picked representatives that represent the status quo. Just for sake of discussion.

[packsaddle]

"No one says..." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

As for the rest, I'm curious. What do you think the values are, that I don't share? You evidently have them in mind. Please list the ones that you think I don't share. It would also be helpful if you would explain for each, how you came to that conclusion.