Unjust revocations

[Bob White]

Should have read "No one says not to protest the membership rules if you disagree."

 

 

As far as what values you do not share Loyal and Obedient come to mind.

[jkhny]

And again the focus on LOYAL and OBEDIENT.

 

Hence my comparisons to totalitarian organizations. And a small amount of time Googling the organizations I mentioned would reveal quotes that are almost identical to arguments made here. NOT pointing out such behavior and mindsets is "unAmerican" and would be "disrespectful" to those that suffered the results of those showing unquestioning obedience and loyalty.

 

We should be "glad" that BSA is merely throwing out "dissidents" -slandering them in the process. They should be happy I suppose that they are not jailed or worse....lol. And this despite assurances that BSA listens to its members and has mechanisms in place for registering their concerns.......

 

Again, the fact that the arguments being made here to support BSA so closely echo statements made by organizations that are SO "un-American" should raise grave concerns from other supporters of Scouting.

 

Why do SO many people - even here - fear expressing sentiments that question BSA policy? Because they can be thrown out and ARE thrown out for doing so.

 

Is this right?

 

SHOULD this happen in Scouting?

 

According to some, it should.

We should ALL be horrified at that mindset.

 

BSA claims to be about character, values - ethics and morals.....there's a big difference between standing up for what's ethical and moral - which BSA claims to teach boys - and unquestioning obedience.

 

Again - "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

 

Nothing is said about being being loyal and obeying......ETHICAL and MORAL choices are the focus.

 

The Scout Law (which lists TRUSTWORTHY first) is the "guide" for making decisions ethically and morally - and THAT is where Mr. White's arguments fall flat.

 

Ethical and moral choices are SUPPOSED to be the primary focus in Scouting. "Loyalty and obedience are but supplementary parts of the Scout Law which is to GUIDE Scouts in making ethical and moral choices - NOT "dictate" what should be done.

 

In contrast "Loyalty and Obedience" are the primary focus of the Komosol and other totalitarian youth organizations.

 

ANY organization that puts "Loyalty" first should be cause for concern in ANY democratic and free society.

 

 

[evmori]

Why would anyone voluntarily choose to belong to an organization who values they do not share. Who do you think you fool besides yourself?

 

Who said the values aren't shared? What posters are saying is the professionals should be setting the example they want us (volunteers) to project. Instead, the person in charge of Youth Protection is a purveyor of kiddie porn and councils are padding membership numbers. Not exactly setting the example, are they.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

Note that Bob doesn't answer my question, but would rather attack some phantom who says terrible things about Scouting and doesn't share its values. Well, maybe jkhny's statements come close to being "terrible." But I don't think packsaddle's do.

 

But let's talk about loyalty and obedience. I expect my son to show loyalty and obedience. If he has a curfew, I expect him to obey it. However, if he says to me, "I don't agree with your curfew; I think it's too restrictive, and doesn't reflect enough trust of me," I wouldn't consider that disloyal or disobedient. That's because I haven't forbidden him from questioning my rules. Of course, if he attacks me rudely with "fresh" talk, or disobeys the rules, that's something different. But if he tries to persuade me to change the rule, that's not a problem.

[Bob White]

I did answer the question Hunt you just don't like the answer.

 

Your question infers that anyone and everyone who disagrees with the council or BSA are removed from membership and that is simply untrue. Very few in fact are. It is not about disagreeing it is about how you disagree and how big an obstacle you become to the delivery of the program.

 

But why stay in a volunteer program you do not like?

 

Do I think people who volunteer for an organization should accept and follow the program, policies and procedures as they said they would ? Yes I do. if they do not, or if they complain publicly about the organization they do not have to be a member of, should they be removed? I have no problem with that.

 

Is pretending to be a member who supports the program only when others are watching... distasteful and duplicitous? Absolutely.

 

And for the very few who did not understand my story, what is unscoutlike depends on which end of the poker you are on. I am sure to the whiners, gossips, and pretenders that revocation of membership is a horrible thing. to those actually happily leading scouting programs it is simply weeding the garden to make room for more happy volunteers.

 

In the overall view, the jhnky's and his supporters are a very small portion of the volunteer membership. Most scouters are cheerful, folks trying to build the program not trying to tear it down.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Unfortunately, "loyal and obedient", in some circles, has come to be interpreted as "blind loyalty".

 

I would expect that anyone who belongs to any organization and believes in the overall goals of that organization has an obligation to bring up areas where they think that that organization has strayed from its goals. And, if "going through normal channels" doesn't work, you may have the fortitude to work outside normal channels in an attempt to enact change.

 

There are some who question some of BSA's policies and actions. By any reasonable measure, these issues that are brought up represent a small fraction of what otherwise is a good organization with great goals. And yet, those who bring up these significant, yet small number of problems are regularly attacked here as "trying to destroy Scouting" or some such thing. This is just nonsense. If these people didn't care about Scouting; they would just quit.

 

But, they don't quit, because they have hopes that Scouting can change to reflect what is seen by some as a "better" set of values, in some cases, than what were seen as "proper" in the past. By no stretch of the imagination should this be seen as an effort to "destroy Scouting", because it is clearly not.

 

More to the point, I sincerely doubt that the values of anyone in these discussions are really that different than anyone else here. How those values might be expressed in practice is something else. So, I don't think that it's so much that our values might be different than BSA's, but more how those values are expressed.

[Bob White]

What exactly is blind about knowing and supporting the program?

 

If the BSA is not what you want it to be after nearly 100 years then what would lead you to believe it is going to change to suit YOU in your lifetime?

 

It it is not what you wanted ot to be then you did you join? More importantly why do you prentend to agree with them only when in view of others.

[packsaddle]

"loyal and obedient"?

I have to admit this was somewhat of a letdown...I was anticipating the gom jabar.

This falls into a long-standing category of judgements by people unqualified to make them.

 

For example, as for 'obedient'...my wife is well-qualified to make that one and she'd probably relish the opportunity, but Bob White, you have absolutely no basis for it..or else you would have provided your reasoning. You didn't. Just the opinion, as if that makes it so.

 

And for 'loyal', if you presented that to this community you would be laughed out of the building. You had the chance for your reasoning on that as well and you gave us nothing. As if that makes it so.

 

I gave you the opportunity to lay it all on the table. And you didn't.

Hunt has repeatedly asked a direct question for which you could give a yes-or-no answer and you haven't.

Your evasive response has been that you've already answered it, as if that makes it so. OK Bob White, which thread? What date? Prove it.

 

I have encountered this situation before and I note a pattern. Prejudice has no rational basis and when asked, none can be given. And none has.

 

I offer this advice constructively. Bob White, you DO have something to contribute. You ARE knowledgeable of the printed material. However, if you want to be taken seriously, your opinion alone will not carry the day. If you want to be taken seriously, you must bring some substance to the table. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. (Ever hear that before?) Take a deep breath and give it a try. It will make you feel better.

[acco40]

Cheerful?

 

I don't think the values of Scouting have anything to do with the exact age a boy may join Cub Scouts. Therefore, the BSA can change the joining requirement age and claim not to have changed their values. Likewise, I can either like or dislike that change and express my opinion about that change and still hold the same values. I think the crux that Bob and other may have alluded to is that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to express that opinion.

 

Now for my biggest beef - what the heck does "traditional values" really mean?

 

And another thing (now that I found my soapbox) - This debate reminds me about the label of "unpatriotic" that gets applied to those who "don't support the war effort" albeit Vietnam, Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom or whatever. If you don't like what the country is doing why don't you just leave! That mentality truly does mystify me.(This message has been edited by acco40) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[scoutingagain]

I think the main issue is that there are multiple reports of paid BSA staff in several states reporting greater numbers of youth members than there actually are inorder to meet personal performance goals and recieve a greater proportion of funding from agencies such as the United Way. In other words some people have lied to get more money. A quick internet search came up with reports of allegations in 5 different states over the last several years including some being investigated by the FBI.

 

I don't believe the National BSA organization is involved in a systematic effort to fraudently increase membership. My perception of their response is that it is much like the French Police Chief in Casablanca when told to shut down gambling in Rick's Cafe. Shocked to find out gambling was going on while he collected his winnings. From this forum I doubt I am the only one with this perception.

 

The question I have is, what is National doing to change that perception other than stating they don't approve of inaccurate or fraudulent membership reporting. It appears that they don't want to ask tough questions because they don't really want the answers.

 

Regarding Loyalty and Obedience. One should be Loyal and Obedient, but not naive. It's one thing to revoke membership of those that undermine the program, it's quite another thing to revoke membership of those who inquire about the accuracy of membership. Who is really more loyal to the program?

 

In recent years we have seen illegal and immoral behavior on the part of Presidents, Governors, Mayors, Priests, Bishops, Scout Executives and CEOs. As members of an organization that promotes ethical choices there is no reason we shouldn't expect the leadership of that organization to be responsive to questions when there is an appearance of questionable behavior and not be in fear of having our membership revoked.

 

SA

[evmori]

What exactly is blind about knowing and supporting the program?

 

Nothing. The blindness comes into play when asked to defend your stance, you try to discredit the poster asking the question. Or the impression is given "Because the BSA said so".

 

Hope this helps! Have a nice day!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

packsaddle, I try not not to make my posts as long as some do. If ever there is a portion you feel needs more explanation a simple polite request will do nicely.

 

Obedient according to the the Scout law says that if you disagree with a rule or law you try to have it changed in an orderly manner. the few people losing their membership have not done so.

 

Loyal says that you are to be true to the various communities in your life. It gives, school, family, country as examples. Pretenting to accept the values of ones community (scouting) in this instance) but then disparaging them in the shadows is not being "true" to either your beliefs or scoutings.

 

Acco,

A better example using your patriotism model is not using people outside of the military but those VOLUNTEERS who joined it. Some after geting what they wanted of the military now don't like it because now they have to do what the military was designed for. They volunteered to join. No one made them. So now is not the time to criticize it. Do not join an organization and then decide that you don't like what they do, or how they do it, or the folks that run it.

 

If you do not like how the organization is run then do not join. But if you join and agree to follow the rules then do it and stop the whining.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori]

Acco,

A better example using your patriotism model is not using people outside of the military but those VOLUNTEERS who joined it.

 

If you join a branch of the military you are employed by that branch of the military. If you join the BSA, you are a member, not an employee. Completely different. Bad example.

 

And Hunt's questions is still unanswered.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutingagain]

Bob,

 

I happen to completely agree with your volunteer military analogy. If one joined the military with the idea they would be defending the US from terrorists or governments that threatened the US and found themselves fighting is a war that had to do with neither, or joined the National Guard with the idea they would be there to support their community in times of crises and found themselves as an occupying force in a foriegn country for over a year or more on multiple deployments some might be very skeptical and dissapointed in their leadership.

 

If one joins an organization that espouses ethical and moral behaviour only to find some of the leadership of that organization that don't live the behavior that the organization promotes, some might be very skeptical and dissapointed in the leadership.

 

SA

 

 

[Bob White]

Scouting again

 

If someone joined the military thinking they were going to do what they wanted to do in the military....Surprise! When you go into the military you had better expect to do the tasks the military assigns to and in the manner the military wants.

 

Ed, You probably haven't heard but the military is now all volunteer, people choose to join, they are not made to join. Scouting is the same way. If you do not want to learn and follow the program why join. That goes for any volunteer organization.

 

Membership is a privilege and not a right.

 

Remember, I am not saying you cannot disagree with the BSA, plese do it AS LOUD AS YOU WANT. But stop thinking that their is some constitutional right to membership. There isn't. The BSA allows any one the freedom to cpomplain as much as they like...outside of the membership in the BSA. If you do not like the BSA you do not have to stay. If you make a big enough nusance of yourself the decision is mader for you.

 

Rather than try to be a noisy gong why not just learn about the program, do your job well enough that you get asked to take on other responsibilities to help strengthen the program at other levels.

 

I have met a number of men and women who work at the national level as professionals and as volunteers. None of them behave the way that is represented by the complainers on this thread. They all have opinions and they do not all agree but they present their critism in a constructive way and to the committees who actually make the decisions.

 

You guys talk about hiding in shadows, concealing your opinions, complaining to folks powerless to make change. Basically not doing anything orther than complaining. Complainers all hold positions that could be filled by someone willing to do the job without complaint, why should the unit, council, or BSA allow them to inhabit such valuable space?

 

It is not the revocations that are unjust.