Swords

[Stosh]

[NJCubScouter]

How does one dub someone with a light saber without cutting their arms off?

Very, very carefully, and hope it's not that one from the last movie with the extra spikes sticking out of it.

[blw2]

But if you let them bully you -- and let's be honest, that's what this is when one person does not like something a majority of the people do like and forces them to change for just them -- what's to say they will stop? What's to stay they won't like the next thing you do? If the rules don't prohibit it and you are not violating any safety issues, why NOT do it?

 

We had parents complain about our OA tap out team. We told them if they didn't like it they could find another unit or take their son out of OA. It is not like our guys were speaking like some 50's B-movie Indian, they were merely paying tribute to the native American culture vis-a-vis their regalia and ceremony. BTW, the kid thought it was the coolest thing, go figure.

 

When we bow to the PC bullies for no reason we continue to empower them to take more from the majority.

 I don't disagree with you and the others.... not one bit

except to say that while I was wearing that Cubmaster Patch, i sorta felt like turning the other cheek, trying to make everyone happy as much as possible, seemed to be the better call.  Didn't seem like scouts, at church, was the venue for confrontation.

 

it seems to me that consensus is better in almost everything in scouting that majority rule.... kinda the same thing

[Stosh]

At my age, I've played the political referee far too many times to even count.  Here's a couple of observations.  First of all, if one thinks they can somehow end up with a smile on everyone's face, think again.  I've never seen that happen.  At best, like little children, a begrudging handshake by both parties is the best one can hope for.

 

People who start out on one end of the spectrum seldom think anything less than their ultimatum is a loss. 

 

Very rarely do any of the combatants see any collateral damage done to the boys.

 

In this case, the people who are challenging the practice need to step forward and be recognized, hiding behind the CM isn't an honorable option and last time I checked, facing one's accusers is still an acceptable option in a contested situation.  If one is not going to stand up and take responsibility for the challenge, then one's cause isn't that important.

 

For some people consensus is nothing more than a compromise by which both sides have to admit defeat.  In our competitive society, that's never an option.  A tie is never a win.

 

So, now that all the rules of the game are known, find your favorite picket sign and head for the courthouse, bring a lawyer.

[Krampus]

 I don't disagree with you and the others.... not one bit

except to say that while I was wearing that Cubmaster Patch, i sorta felt like turning the other cheek, trying to make everyone happy as much as possible, seemed to be the better call.  Didn't seem like scouts, at church, was the venue for confrontation.

 

it seems to me that consensus is better in almost everything in scouting that majority rule.... kinda the same thing

 

I hear ya, and that's an admirable approach to take. However, let's ask one question: "If you're doing this safely and it is not prohibited, how do the BOYS feel about the ceremony?" After all, the CS mantras we hear so many times of "For the boys!" or "Do your best!" should take in to consideration how the boys feel. I'd ask them. If they say keep it, keep it. If they say trash it, trash it.

 

Let the boys through their own desires tell this PC bully to go pound sand.

[Rick_in_CA]

@@howarthe, as others have suggested, you need to talk to the person making the complaint in order to find out what the issue really is. Then you can consider how to address it.

 

There is no BSA rule I am aware of that explicitly mentions swords. The closest thing I can find is the Guide to Safe Scouting which says: "Avoid large sheath knives. They are heavy and awkward to carry, and unnecessary for most camp chores except for cleaning fish."

 

There is a lot of myth, sound and fury around "sheath knives" in the BSA (many council camps have bans on "sheath knives"), and it's possible this is where the objection is coming from. It is also possible that swords are illegal at your meeting place, especially if it's a school (here in CA, any blade over 2.75 inches is illegal on school grounds - though there are exceptions for knives used for food preparation and such).

[CalicoPenn]

If I were Cubmaster, my first reaction would be to back up the guy that's actually volunteering while acknowledging the concern and assuring them that the sword is a replica and not sharpened.  If it's some former professional complaining, I'm telling him/her to show me the actual rule in an official BSA publication.

 

If I'm the sword bearer, I'm explaining that it is a replica sword that is not sharpened, that no one else is complaining, and asking the CM to show me the actual rule in an official BSA publication.  If the answer comes back as an "I'm the CM and my decision is final" kind of answer, then my response is "Don't ever ask me to do anything else for this unit beyond my current duties - and start looking for my replacement".

[Stosh]

Or......

 

You have a concern about the sword ceremony?  I'll put you on the agenda for next month's committee meeting.  You can express your concerns there.

[Stosh]

Oh, by the way, swords do not have a sharp edge.  They only have a point to worry about.  A saber has a sharpened edge.  They are also a bit more curved to increase the slicing ability of the edge.

[DuctTape]

I think the bully term is being used rather inappropriately. To use it to describe anyone or anytime someone complains or tries to dissuade, makes light of true bullying. While I think I inderstand the reason one might choose to use it in this situation, it really falls short of what is considered bullying.

[Stosh]

@@DuctTape, I think the term intolerance fits better than bullying.  We used to be a nation of tolerant people, it's the whole basis for the once "melting pot" of the world.  We've long since lost that with our zero-tolerant society.  We aren't talking intolerant, we're talking zero-tolerant as taught in our schools and demanded by our societal changes.

 

In all honesty I would rather deal with a bully than someone who's zero-tolerant because a bully might be motivated by self-gratification or pride, but a zero-tolerant person needs a certain amount of anger and hatred to maintain their absolute stance of disdain.

 

I grew up in a world of "live and let live", it was the basis of true freedom for all, but it is obvious to all that's not the world I live in now.

[Eagle94-A1]

A few comments.

 

1) As mentioned, BSA doesn't have a ban on sheath knives, let alone swords. In fact the Bryan on Scouting Blog used a sword as an April Fools joke a few years back.

2) Some councils do impose a 'no sheath knife rule." Sometimes its due to legal jurisdictions banning such knives, sometimes for other reasons.

3) Legal jurisdictions vary, and some do ban certain types of knives, and swords.

4) I want a copy of the ceremony! Just can't use any of the swords I have access to. All are sharpened, except Narsil, and it's broken into a bunch a shards. I'm hoping to get it fixed someday.

[DuctTape]

Stosh, I hear what you are saying and I agree to a point. In this situation, we do not know why the person expressed concern. I personally do not have a problem with the idea of the ceremony, but we were provided with few details nor do we know what the real complaint is. Many are projecting their speculation of why the person complained even to the point of calling them a bully. This is wrong. Good people can disagree on specifics and what or how things should be done. Expressing that disagreement is not bullying, nor is it intolerant unless as you point out it is based on hate, or in my opinion the enabling of malice.

[Stosh]

  From the original post, we can't even determine if there really is a "someone" out there.  "Somebody" never came forward in a open debate to air the issue.  They preferred the behind the scenes hidden approach like an ambush kind of thing.  Maybe it's the clandestine secretive nature of the approach that makes it appear to be a kind of bullying.  Maybe it's just the coward's way of avoiding having to defend one's beliefs.  We don't know.

 

If "someone" had a beef about the use of a sword in a Cub Scout ceremony, at least have the honesty of dealing with it in person and not behind everyone's back using a third party to defend "somebody's" position.

 

The whole idea behind this PC movement is this unknown "somebody" is going to be offended.  Well, when "somebody" speaks up, I'll listen, until then it's just background noise "somebody's" making in my opinion.

 

Until I know who "somebody" is, their credibility means nothing.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Stosh

[DuctTape]

I disagree with the labeling of everything as a PC movement. While I agree that a better way of handling something is a more direct approach to the person, again we don't know the whole story. There are multiple ways the the story could have transpired. The assumption that ir was someone with ill-intent acting in a cowardly manner is not evident. The op did mention who it was, and there appears to be some history regarding differences between who knows everything. That history certainly plays a role. My entire point is that most comments here have been based on people assuming the worst. In my experience, people often project their own prejudices and intents on to others in absence of the truth. Back to the pc-movemement label. I believe this is being used as a distraction to enable those who speak or act in a manner which they choose but expect others to be silent. Protesting, or disagreeing with someone else's speech or actions is the cornerstone of the the freedom which youcrspouse. Some want to have their say, and no one else; and if someone does speak against it the label of "you are just being pc" gets tossed out. If someone says or does something offensive, that is their right. It is also my right to say so and to express my beliefs just as much as it is theirs. Good people can disagree and have enlightening conversations to increase our collective understandings of each other. Labels, name calling, and refusing to engage in a respecful dialogue does not promote understanding, and in my opinion is unkind.