Decorum And Acting Scoutlike

[Huzzar]

Bye

[David CO]

Terry,

 

What is the worst case scenario that conservative churches have to fear?  I'll tell you.  It is that Scout leaders will advise boys to not follow the teachings of their church.  It is that Scout leaders will suggest that boys change religions.

 

A church-owned unit is part of the ministry of the church.  To suggest that boys switch from their church-owned units is dangerously close to advising that they choose a different religion.

[packsaddle]

David, I've seen that already but not, I suspect, in the context you are thinking about. I've seen (counting through memory now) about a dozen, at least a dozen times that a leader in both cub and boy scout units have suggested a different faith as superior somehow to the faith that a boy's family currently followed. It has happened to me and my children as well. For my children, on a couple of occasions when they politely declined, they were informed that they were "going to go to hell" as a result. Do you think these 'invitations' came from persons from 'liberal' faiths?

 

This kind of nonsense is not something new and I've seen it all my life. I admit I was surprised when it 'emerged' from unit leaders but it did.

Edited July 25, 2015 by packsaddle

[Stosh]

I'm thinking the forum is more courteous than most I have been on. I also think that it is because the members are Scouts. Having been a moderator on many of them I'm of the opinion that I agree with @

I'd have to agree. And some of the comments (or threats) by those who moderate/own the site do not help either...nor are they in the spirit of this thread title...ironically.

The reaction of @@Eagledad

Thanks Matt and well said. I have been  here a long time and feel I have contributed a lot, as well as have a lot more to contribute. But I have also never felt less welcome to the forum than in the last couple of weeks. 

 

Barry

sums it up for me as well. I'm finding I am marking threads "read" and bypassing them more often than before.

[packsaddle]

Likewise, though I doubt we'd recognize half of each other.

 

I've met a couple here and there. I was hoping to meet OGE on one of my trips to NY but his unexpected passing, well...I'll really miss him. Went camping with one forum member and his unit and was glad to have provided a much needed downpour for the entire trip, lol. It always seems to rain when I'm with someone on the trail, almost never if I'm solo.

I met one with whom I had numerous arguments on these forums for years before we met. We had a great time and a great outing. Turned out we had far more in common than our differences in these forums indicated.

It really helps to be able to see the eyes and expressions and actually hear the tone and inflection of voice. You get far more from a real conversation than this social media stuff that masquerades as 'social' interaction. It allows us to see the other person as a real human being rather than some text that suddenly appears on the screen.

 

Edit: And Vicki, if you're still out there someplace, I'd love to meet you and let you yell at me some more about my 'sexist claptrap', lol. As it is, I can depend on my wife for that criticism...and she's pretty good at it too.

Edited July 25, 2015 by packsaddle

[David CO]

Packsaddle,

 

If the Scout leaders and Scouts you mentioned were in units owned by non religious CO's, than I would be equally appalled, whether they were liberal or conservative, by a Scout leader encouraging boys to change their religion.

 

If, however, a boy joins a church-owned unit, I think he and his parents might reasonably expect to receive a polite invitation to join the religion.  The unit is a part of the church ministry.  IMO, it is the same as if they sign up for a church-owned school or Sunday school class.  Simply put, if they walk into my church, they're fair game.

 

As far as hell is concerned, I do believe in the existence in hell.  I do believe that the act of committing a mortal sin can lead to eternal damnation.  But that is as far as I go.  I never predict the outcome of God's Final Judgment.   That is for God to decide.

[Rick_in_CA]

If, however, a boy joins a church-owned unit, I think he and his parents might reasonably expect to receive a polite invitation to join the religion.  The unit is a part of the church ministry.  IMO, it is the same as if they sign up for a church-owned school or Sunday school class.  Simply put, if they walk into my church, they're fair game.

That depends on the unit. My cub pack is has a Catholic CO (it's a Catholic school), but the CO is very clear that anyone of any faith is welcome. If suddenly one of our scouters started to use the pack as an opportunity to proselytize, I think we would have several upset people (I would be one of them). Why? Because when we do recruiting, we set the expectation that we won't be proselytizing. We have Hindu and Muslim members as well as Christians. We even have a few Catholics .

 

I think it's all about what upfront expectations are set. If your unit is clear that when you join, expect some proselytizing, then I see no problem with it. If the expectation is not set upfront, then I don't think it's appropriate.

[Oak Tree]

I found Terry's post a bit unexpected, given the tendency here to have pretty wide-open speech.  But having seen his editorial regarding the admission of gay youth, I am not at all surprised that he is very much in favor of equal treatment of gays in Scouting.

 

This reminds me of how Reddit decided to ban global warming deniers from their science forums. It's done, it's decided, move on.

 

Huffington Post is not covering Donald Trump on their politics page, but on the entertainment page. He's a political troll and we don't want to give trolls serious attention (although it's not clear that keeping him on the entertainment page is actually accomplishing this).

 

In the end, if you own a forum, you can occasionally say that there are some things you don't want to see discussed there. No posts saying that you wish your troop was racially pure. None that you don't want Jewish kids in your troop.  And no posts about how being gay is wrong and you don't want gays in your troop.

 

In our own ways, we all find some method to avoid those who keep beating dead horses. But when you see someone beating a dead horse in a way that is hurting others, I can see how you might decide to go a little bit further than just ignoring them. Terry has that power here.

 

Personally, I'm fine with that. I support Terry's position on equality, and I think his position on speech on this forum is a reasonable one.  You have the right to say whatever you want about gay people. But you don't have any particular right to be able to say anything on this particular forum. Do you really want to leave this forum because you're not allowed to say negative things about a group of people that Scouting has decided to welcome into the organization?

 

I'll add my thanks to the moderators, and I would like to thank Terry for operating the forum at all, and I'll particularly thank him for his compassion.

[SSScout]

Is it time  to name an ad hoc virtual committee to design/arrange/plan for a virtual campfire celebration of the founding of this website (20 years?  Only seems like 30...  )

 

Our District Round Table motto appears to be (unofishully) "The work is done by whoever shows up", so maybe we can establish a temporary thread for celebratory mechanations....

[Scouter99]

 

Is it time to name an ad hoc virtual committee to design/arrange/plan for a virtual campfire celebration of the founding of this website (20 years? Only seems like 30... )

Which ones of us are allowed to come? Edited July 26, 2015 by Scouter99

[skeptic]

Surely do not see where these comments about not being welcome are coming from in relation to Terry's post.  The real world intruded on our lives along while back, and learning to adapt was another skill B.P. encouraged.  If we are truly to be a brotherhood, then we need to accept that others may have different feelings or reactions to things and simply allow them to do so without taking personal affront.  We can do this without letting our guard down for the rare stepping over the line we may encounter.

[packsaddle]

Twenty years. Egad! It's really been that long. OK, well, I guess it doesn't make me feel as old as my grandsons do, lol.

Yes, I would like to see some kind of special celebration...I'm just at a loss for how something like that would happen or be structured.

My suggestion would be for someone to start a new topic in the Program or Announcements forum for a discussion of how to do something like this. The whole 'virtual' concept is what clogs my thoughts, kind of like time travel or that sort of thing.

 

A very, very long time ago I started a sort of humorous comparison of everyone's forum personalities (a roast of sorts) in which different members (back then) were assigned roles found in the book, 'Dune'. There were the members of the Bene Gesserit and many of the other personalities and I think a few of those members are still around somewhere (Eamonn, you listening?). It was kind of fun for a while. There was one of us in particular who wielded the gom jabbar with a flair. As I remember, no one got tagged as Baron Harkonnen.

Something like this might work again, maybe based on...who knows....it has to be something most of us can relate to and which has lots of characters...I guess we could make some up if we wanted to - Gunsmoke? Monty Python? Walking Dead? (sorry about that last one...thinking about the 2016 election). Or it could be a combination - House meets The Cardassians?

Anyway, the new thread might be a way to collect odd-ball ideas like the one I had.

Edited July 26, 2015 by packsaddle

[Eagledad]

I don't think so Pack, Terry's post is pretty clear that it's us against them, or him and you against us. You only have to compare the active membership between now and the old days to recognize how the forum has changed. Clearly the moderating is part of the problem. When a line is drawn, the one has become two. What, do you really think you could go back to being fair and unbiased like the tone of the forum was 20 years ago? From the beginning you have always played the biased antagonist, was that really the right place for a moderator?

 

When a society or group are unwilling to enforce its untouchable rules of decorum (scout oath and law), then they are stuck with the fallible (emotional) laws of the guy with the most power.

 

Some of us are hurting.

 

Barry

Edited July 26, 2015 by Eagledad

[packsaddle]

Who is 'us', Eagledad? While I understand that you feel the way you do, I want you to know that as far as I'm concerned, and I suspect other moderators as well, you are welcome here. I hope you can feel that way in the future.

 

When I became a member of these forums the Dale decision was the hot topic. You don't show up as a member for another few years yet, and 6 or 7 years after the 'birth' of this site. But at that time, my recollection was that things were VERY one-sided and only a very few of us at that time were willing to take up for what we perceived as the 'underdogs' in this issue. Is THAT the fairness of which you speak? If so, that is a matter of perception.

 

I can't tell you how many times I was invited to leave scouting to start my own organization. Same for others. Is that the fairness of which you speak? They made it clear that I was not welcome. It was explicit, not just something felt. I received this same sentiment from the council even later, after the UUA action.

 

Yes, what those few of us saw as an inevitability actually came to pass, most of it, and more quickly than anyone had ever expected. Keep in mind that all we did was predict it would happen and speak in support of it here in these forums.

 

Years later when I was appointed as a moderator I was as surprised as everyone else. I had been trained, dealing with the military, to be direct and clear and not to hold back on my thoughts. Do you think that the status of 'moderator' should somehow 'neuter' that person in a way that they are no longer able to express their thoughts? I don't.

This may have little effect on how you feel but please understand that I also get PM messages and personal emails from other members from time to time that I am not hard enough and way too lenient with regard to this or that post or topic. And up until the last few weeks I probably have been. I apologize. The free and open discussion that I hold as an ideal went to a level that I had not expected. What you have observed in the last few days is the response.

 

I can't speak for Terry. Rest assured that other than reports of software bugs or issues, there is very little exchange regarding discussions in these threads, any of them. Terry speaks for himself as do I.

 

I recognize that there is no way to be in the moderator position without having criticism from those being 'moderated'. I'm good with that.

Because there IS a balance between those who, like you, feel treated unfairly and those who think who think moderators are way too 'fair' in all this - or to put it another way, as long as the arrows are coming from all directions - I see evidence that 'moderation' is closer to middle ground than to some 'edge'. No one at any 'edge' is likely to see that.

 

I understand how you feel. I've been there. So have others. I offer you, once again, words that were NEVER offered to me during those times. You ARE welcome here. And I hope you can feel that way in the future.

[Scouter99]

I understand how you feel. I've been there. So have others. I offer you, once again, words that were NEVER offered to me during those times. You ARE welcome here. And I hope you can feel that way in the future.

As long as he only says certain things or doesn't say certain things.  And that's not a "welcome."  He's been made crystal clear he's welcome to shut up or get out regardless of how friendly you want to try and paste it up in 500 words or more, or wrap it in illiberal, authoritarian Left "safe space" language.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Scouter99