Character building - deciding when to be Obedient?

[WisconsinMomma]

FWIW, my oldest studied Martin Luther King's, I have a Dream speech for Citizenship in the Nation.  I believe MLK is mentioned in the booklet.  

[RememberSchiff]

When I read Judge Pregerson quote, I began to recall some 60's campfire discussions about Vietnam and the draft we would be facing in a few years. The minimum voting age was not yet 18.

 

There are many, more current examples of protest in America. IMO some discussion of peaceful and respectful protest should be part of Citizenship in Nation.

 

Scouts have seen that writing to their representative often results in a canned response. Two of our scouts had the same written response to two different concerns.

 

Our scouts have discussed NFL players taking a knee during National Anthem and whether it is respectful, focused, and the proper venue. Those who play high school football know they will be removed from the team. Some interesting discussions.

 

We also had a discussion of President Trump's visit to Summit. If you attended a that speech and disagreed, do you boo (as scouts at previous Jambo), quietly remain out of respect for the President, quietly leave, or something else.

 

My $0.02,

[Stosh]

A peaceful expression of a descending views is not civil disobedience.  

[MattR]

A peaceful expression of a descending views is not civil disobedience.  

Not quite sure, but is a descending view one where you look at your shoes? That is certainly not civil disobedience, but who really cares?

 

dissenting?

[TAHAWK]

Stosh, when you, all peaceful, are ordered to disburse by lawful authority and don't disburse, that's civil (Note "civil") disobedience - by definition.   Compare to  Ferguson-style violent disobedience.  Neither matches the Victorian B.S.A. definition of "obedient."

 

There ought to be express acknowledgement of the place for disobedience in proper values.  

 

Otherwise the missiles are launched in "Crimson Tide."

Edited November 28, 2017 by TAHAWK

[DuctTape]

Peaceful expression and civil disobedience are not equivalent, but nor are they mutually exclusive either.

[TAHAWK]

OK.  Not all peaceful expression of opinion is civil disobedience.

 

But for all of my undoubted errors, and there have been many, I didn't say all peaceful expression was civil disobedience.

 

What I said was, "Stosh, when you, all peaceful, are ordered to disburse by lawful authority and don't disburse, that's civil (Note "civil") disobedience - by definition.   Compare to  Ferguson-style violent disobedience.  Neither matches the Victorian B.S.A. definition of "obedient."

 

So, DT, peaceful expression of opinion contrary to existing law, is civil disobedience - disobedient but civil.  I think there is a place for it in Scouting values, or why do we hold up Dr. King as an icon?

 

I what should we say about Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton.  They were not even peaceful - civil - they used violence.  Do we tell the Scouts that they had the wrong values in that regard, being disobedient to lawful authority?

 

"Martin Luther King Jr., the American civil rights hero whose life we celebrate every year around this time, was a Boy Scout. 

 

Just typing that gives me chills. It’s a fact that should make Scouts everywhere remarkably proud. 

I had read rumors online claiming MLK was a Boy Scout, but this week I got confirmation: From age 11 to age 13, King was registered as a member of Troop 151 in Atlanta.

 

The handwritten troop charter renewal forms, scans of which you can see below, also include the name of King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., who was the troop’s chartered organization representative.

 

The troop met at Ebenezer Baptist Church, now part of the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. Both King men served as pastors there.

I was pleased to learn Scouting is still alive and well at Ebenezer today. Troop and Pack 213 meet there every other Sunday.

 

Those young Scouts must feel so proud to meet at the same spot where one of our nation’s greatest heroes once donned the Boy Scout uniform."

Boy Scouts of America, Bryan on Scouting (01/15/2015)

[Stosh]

OK.  Not all peaceful expression of opinion is civil disobedience.

 

But for all of my undoubted errors, and there have been many, I didn't say all peaceful expression was civil disobedience.

 

What I said was, "Stosh, when you, all peaceful, are ordered to disburse by lawful authority and don't disburse, that's civil (Note "civil") disobedience - by definition.   Compare to  Ferguson-style violent disobedience.  Neither matches the Victorian B.S.A. definition of "obedient."

 

So the question is why would "lawful authority" decide to toss aside the US Constitution and order a disbursal?  Disruption to a peaceful expression of free speech by "lawful authority".... who who's has the real authority?  The Constitution or the Police?  This is why the Constitution is in place, to protect the people from the overreaching power grab of the government.

 

So, DT, peaceful expression of opinion contrary to existing law, is civil disobedience - disobedient but civil.  I think there is a place for it in Scouting values, or why do we hold up Dr. King as an icon? 

 

Having an opinion and expressing it peacefully is not illegal.  It's a guaranteed right.  Every scout has that right as a citizen.

 

I what should we say about Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton.  They were not even peaceful - civil - they used violence.  Do we tell the Scouts that they had the wrong values in that regard, being disobedient to lawful authority?

 

Every revolution is an attempt to overthrow the legal government of citizens. These fellas were lucky and won.  And one may wish to add the names J. Davis, R. E. Lee, Hood, Beauregard, and Longstreet to the list of those attempting to overthrow a government but lost.

 

[HelpfulTracks]

Ummm, perhaps I am mistaken but I always considered civil as in civil disobedience to reference to citizens rather than civility. Like civil air patrol or civil air defense.

[TAHAWK]

 

OK.  Not all peaceful expression of opinion is civil disobedience.

 

But for all of my undoubted errors, and there have been many, I didn't say all peaceful expression was civil disobedience.

 

What I said was, "Stosh, when you, all peaceful, are ordered to disburse by lawful authority and don't disburse, that's civil (Note "civil") disobedience - by definition.   Compare to  Ferguson-style violent disobedience.  Neither matches the Victorian B.S.A. definition of "obedient."

 

So the question is why would "lawful authority" decide to toss aside the US Constitution and order a disbursal?  Disruption to a peaceful expression of free speech by "lawful authority".... who who's has the real authority?  The Constitution or the Police?  This is why the Constitution is in place, to protect the people from the overreaching power grab of the government.

 

Your question assumes that government may never "lawfully" order a group to disburse.  I do not concede that your assumption is correct. 

 

A group presents issues of more than expression.  E.g.: recent examples of groups peacefully blocking freeways with attendant risks of mass casualty events.

 

But even a single person's right to freedom of speech is limited under current U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. False statements of fact with a "sufficiently culpable mental state," such as reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, can be subject to civil or criminal liability.  Knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished ("defamation").  Allowing those court remedies is government enforcing an adverse consequence for speech.

 

The Constitution acknowledges rights given us by God, or by living, if you will.  The Second Amendment acknowledges the right we all have to protect the people from the overreaching power of government, or so the authors said. (And look at the experience they had recently lived. Why else would Jefferson have written, "[T]he tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. t is it’s natural manure.")

 

So, DT, peaceful expression of opinion contrary to existing law, is civil disobedience - disobedient but civil.  I think there is a place for it in Scouting values, or why do we hold up Dr. King as an icon? 

 

Having an opinion and expressing it peacefully is not illegal.  It's a guaranteed right.  Every scout has that right as a citizen. 

 

My statement assumes there is a law that prohibits the behavior.   If not, the issue should not arise.  At the time, and I know you recall this, if Dr. King followed BSA's "obedient" he would not have led marches barred by court orders or sat at a lunch counter barred to him by the odious racial laws of the day.  He would have gone to court to try and have the court orders set aside and the racial laws declared unconstitutional.  He elected to peacefully disobey the laws even though it meant arrest and very rough treatment.  I am saying BSA values should allow for peaceful disobedience to immoral laws.  

 

[W]hat should we say about Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton[?]  They were not even peaceful - civil - they used violence.  Do we tell the Scouts that they had the wrong values in that regard, being disobedient to lawful authority?

 

Every revolution is an attempt to overthrow the legal government of citizens. These fellas were lucky and won.  And one may wish to add the names J. Davis, R. E. Lee, Hood, Beauregard, and Longstreet to the list of those attempting to overthrow a government but lost.

 

So should not the Law allow that sometimes the government is wrong and the citizens are morally right to resist?

 

 

Helpful,  you raise a good point.  It is also sometimes defined as resistance to civil government.  Here is another definition: "Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws of the state, and/or demands, orders, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is sometimes defined as having to be nonviolent to be called civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is sometimes, therefore, equated with nonviolent resistance."

 

But did I communicate what I meant, even if I used a definition that you do not prefer?