Vermont Scouts denied July 4th vendor permit and withdraw

[CalicoPenn]

Anyone else find it a bit amusing that the belicose instigator does not even know where the BSA is located nationally?

 

 

I'm not sure it was the "belicose instigator" that doesn't know where the BSA is located - I think it is far more likely that the reporter who wrote the article said the organization was based in Washington D.C.

 

 

When I first read about the story I wasn't sure where my feelings lay - now that I've read the Seven Days follow-up, I'm disappointed with the Scout units and their leaders on a couple of levels. The situation seems pretty simple - the town council didn't rubber stamp the Scouts application to sell water as a vendor and said they wanted to discuss it further. At the time, the reporting on it seemed to suggest that the majority on the council were leaning towards the Scouts but were, correctly, exploring the concerns of one of the council members - that's Citizenship in the Community stuff - something the Scouts should have understood.

 

The Scouts (and I'm guessing it was the leaders and not the boys) decided that they didn't want to make an appearance before the council so they pulled their application. No one demanded that they pull their application - they did it voluntarily, on their own decision. It makes me curious why they would not be willing to spend 5 minutes or so telling the town council how important Scouting is to the boys and to the community and how the funds earned were used to further the goals of the unit. Most of the Scout leaders I know would be thrilled to have the oppotunity to stand in front of the town leaders and brag about their boys and their unit - even if it seemed on the surface that it might be an adversarial meeting. Let's not forget that this is Vermont we're talking about - the likely end to this would have been both sides getting to say their piece and the Scouts ending up with their permit since they really can't control national policy anyway and the town council agreeing that they don't want to endorse discriminatory behavior but don't want to punish the local groups for something beyond their control.

 

What is really disappointing about this is that the Scouts (and again, I'm thinking it's the leaders and not the boys that made these decisions) were denied he opportunity to not just see Citizenship in the Community in action but to participate in it. They missed a golden opportunity to have the Senior Patrol Leader step up to that microphone, in front of a room full of Scouts to brag about their unit(s) and about Scouting and to make the case for the Scouts.

 

 

Then the Scouts (again, probably the leaders) make the decision to not volunteer for post-celebration clean-up as they've done in the past - way to take the PR issue away from the council (who has now stepped up and taken your place) and put iit on your own back. How many people in Montpelier are now thinking that the Scouts will only do service projects if they can fundraise before hand? How many people who were supportive of the Scouts in this issue are now changing their mind and thinking the Scouts are being little brats taking their ball and going home.

 

I think the local Scouts blew it here - they took a great opportunity to promote Scouting and to show Montpelier how much a part of the community they are and tossed it into a stinking pile of horse dung of their own making.

[Stosh]

We want to sell water at the parade. What's to discuss?

 

There's more here than what's being reported by the biased and pretty much all of the time incorrect media. I may not always take the best course of action, but I trust the scouts more than I trust government entities and media outlets.

 

Stosh

[Tampa Turtle]

 

I am glad you mentioned this as I expected a larger number of similar responses. My IH and COR agree with you, turn the cheek and be a good scout and help with the cleanup. Maybe but I doubt this town council would have "learned" from that teaching approach.

 

My father told me, a dog will only take so much kicking after that he won't come back.

 

My $0.01

I would have asked the youth what they wanted to do...

[Huzzar]

There are plenty of organizations out there that would love to have the Scouts' volunteer time. Good for them. Walk away and find people that appreciate what you do. Life is far too short to enter into "discussions" with hate-filled, left-wing bigots like Mr. Guerlain.

[fred johnson]

Leaders did the right thing. They were asked to explain a hot button policy that they did not establish and they did not believe in. It would have been showing up to receive a verbal tongue lashing for a politician's benefit. Plus, the parents in the units are probably a not a harmonious group believing all the same thing. So no matter what position you take on the issue, you would have burnt bridges.

 

Selling water and picking up trash is as non-controversial as you get. But when someone chooses to make it controversial ....

 

... Best to walk away

[Scouter99]

Selling water and picking up trash is as non-controversial as you get. But when someone chooses to make it controversial ....

... Best to walk away

B-b-b-b-but citizenship! Only the supporters think its appropriate to use Tenderfoots as hostages in this debate.

[Stosh]

“Do what you feel in your heart to be right – for you’ll be criticized anyway.â€Â

― Eleanor Roosevelt

 

Stosh

 

[NJCubScouter]

I'm not. I find your embracement of government putting people's convictions in front of the muzzle to be disgusting. 1983 was a warning, not an instruction manual.

 

I embrace no such thing, nor do I advocate any such thing. Do not put words in my mouth.

 

I think that you, on the other, need to apologize to the entire forum for your "gas chambers" remark.

 

As for 1983, I think you are a year off, but it doesn't matter. I'd like to know how opposing discrimination reminds you of "1984." Well, actually, I probably wouldn't, because you will probably just come up with yet another ridiculous analogy.

 

Exactly. The"subject" is the scouts' application to sell water' date=' not the membership policy, so what does NJ mean when he blames the scouts for not discussing the matter at hand when the council wants to discuss a different matter? He wants gays so don't expect anything except flagellation.[/quote']

 

Actually, the subject is both. As for "he" (meaning me) "wants gays," I am not sure what that means. I have made very clear what I think about the subject, and you need to stop twisting it around. I believe, as does the SE of my council, as does the SE of the Vermont council mentioned in the article, that the BSA should allow each unit to choose its own leadership and not require them to discriminate against gay people if they don't want to. If you are going to comment on my opinion, comment on my actual opinion, not some version that you made up.

[AZMike]

The 'brave' reaction by the troop would have been to shrug off the small-minded gesture by the city and do the service anyway - and teach the city some humility. They missed that opportunity to 'teach' as well as to 'demonstrate' the true scout spirit.

 

I don't think you should stand there if someone is pitching at your head.

[Huzzar]

So what if the SE of the Council involved thinks the policy should be changed? That gives this pip squeak local politician the right to drag a Troop over the coals so he can get his name in the paper?

 

There are plenty of SEs that think BSA shouldn't have changed the policy for youth. That's also irrelevant to how the Troop in question should react to being used as a pawn.

 

They did the right thing walking away.

[Scouter99]

As for 1983' date=' I think you are a year off[/quote']

I do it every time.

 

I think that you' date=' on the other, need to apologize to the entire forum for your "gas chambers" remark[/quote']

Make me, it will fit this entire scenario perfectly. We know what happens when people in power seek to control association and speech. No one will miss me, and you can shut up Huzzar, AZMike, etc.

[Stosh]

If one is going to champion free speech for oneself, it probably isn't a good idea to try and squelch it in others.

 

Stosh

[packsaddle]

"Make me." Well that pretty much says it all I suppose.

I respected OGE's application of the Godwin Rule, because I did understand his sensitivity on that subject and I also had the utmost admiration for OGE himself, as I do for others in these forums. And while I still understand the sensitivity surrounding this subject, especially for those of Jewish faith (and OGE, I think, wasn't, I could be wrong), I have never thought the rule was a good one, so I have never applied it. It's more like a rule in some word game. It doesn't make sense but it's there and players can use it or ignore it.

In this case, NJ has noted Godwin's Rule (or law, whatever) because of the reference Scouter99 made to gas chambers and his desire for the city councilman to perish in one of them. I understand NJ's response and I suggest instead that while NJ might ask for an apology, and while some of the rest of us might be personally appalled at Scouter99's comment, I think we all have come to expect this sort of thing from Scouter99 and I, for one, am willing to shrug this kind of thing off. To me it is more important for Scouter99 to speak these things openly and freely, making his character open and understood by all readers. I need no apology. I am willing to let his vile effluent remain open and available for all to view. I think this is important.

[Stosh]

One also has to remember that the Godwin Rule/Law has some valid rationale but not when abused. In this case it is over the line a bit, but how much was rhetoric and how much was heartfelt meaning I'm not sure only Scouter99 knows for sure, but it does rankle some with the willy nilly use the argument.

 

However, to describe the Chamberlain Reaction to a modern situation is a valid use of the Rule. I'm glad this discussion came up because it does point out the often neglected response to an ever increasing reach of government into the personal concerns of the citizens and if one is going to be a Citizen in the Community, Nation, and World, one must be able to muster up the courage to call such actions into question, something Chamberlain refused to acknowledge.

 

The members of three different scout units were unjustly put in a position that they felt uncomfortable with by a political entity with an agenda. It's a game they didn't want to play and made a call. It wasn't a Chamberlain call to pacify nor was it a Churchill call either to rally the troops. They simply chose to not be involved in their political gamesmanship. This was not a ditch they wished to die in. I think it was the best thing they could have done considering they really didn't have any real skin in the game. They didn't have to answer or justify national's stance on policy, they just wanted to sell water and help out their community with their celebration.

 

Others in the community knew what was going on and supported the kids. Class act on their part as well.

 

Come election day, the people involved will have an opportunity to fix any problems they feel are necessary to be fixed.

 

Stosh

[TAHAWK]

Speaking of rules, there are two others that seem to apply:

 

The Rule of Holes.

The Rule of Bridges.