Symbolism

It was not my intent to punch anyone*s button when I first raised this issue.
I am an easy-going person, though I do not refrain from speaking up when I see
what I perceive as problem. I feel strongly about this subject (and others),
but no one should hold their peace - discuss away.

As much as we speak about a democratic majority, the fact is that most
majorities tend to be autocratic - whether they be localized, or national in
scope. The larger the majority, the more autocratic the tendencies. From an
outsider*s perspective we tend to use loaded words, like fundamentalism and
fanaticism, to describe them. From an insider*s perspective they are the
chosen, holders of the flame.

But here in USoniA we have a pluralistic society. We, its people, are free to
assemble, disassemble, form, and reform into associative groups defined by
commerce, or religion, or whatever. On one level we no longer have a corporal
form as we exist in a multiplicity of geographic areas only defined by Ones and
zeros. But, the discussion here evolves around what we do in that corporal
form.

I would say that a great burden is offered to a large majority (or the
powerful). The question always is: Will that majority shoulder that burden?
The burden is that of tolerance and inclusion (among other things) towards
those who do not fully share their beliefs.

Would some people wear symbols of another*s faith. Sure they might, but that
should be a matter if individual (informed) choice. It is, in fact, the
surpression or minimization of a minority*s concerncers or beliefs that is at
center of intolerance. To say that a minority which rejects submitting to the
majorities will constitutes intolerance is shear sophistry.

This is not a church/state matter either, no one has asserted that the 1st
Amendment is involved. The simple fact is that Scouting is NOT a Christian
organization. Nor is a cross a cultural or historic icon, despite the fact
that, as a religious symbol, it was carried by conquistadors as they
surpressed the native cultures of the Americas. It is a religious symbol, as
are the Star of David, the Muslim Crescent, etc. There are ample ways to
incorporate religious symbols into Scout associated activities, such as a Scout
retreat for a particular sect or religion, without incorporating it into
something all must wear.

But supposing BSA has this hypothetical council: >>*...in a sparsely
populated area .... There are only a few troops .... and these are chartered by
Christian Churches. No one in the council objects....* (not even the boys) <<

Could anyone, meaningfully, object? To what door would they nail their
charges? We have touched upon this issue in the 3G debates, where it was
asserted that a Chartering Organization/Troop could restrict its membership to
members of that organization/faith. In the hypothetical, the result has
expanded to Council-wide. Others are not made welcome - unless they leave
their beliefs at home. That is not my understanding of the Scouting movement,
or of my reading of *The Council*, #33071. Is it your*s?

And if the boys do not object? Well, it is true that Patrols and Troops are
to be *boy led*, but it it equally true that the policies of BSA, Councils,
Districts, and Troops (as well as their chartering) are the purview of adults.

What about the question: >> *Does anyone OUTSIDE the council have any right
to object?* << To paraphrase John Donne (?): *No BSA Council is an
island, entire of itself......* Each Scout, Scouter, Unit, etc. represents
Scouting, to the degree that one acts in a fashion that disregards another*s
aspirations others in the movement have a responsibility to object. That firm
belief, IMO, extends to BSA itself. Those of us inside, as well as outsiders,
have a right and responsibility to point out where it, apparently, falls short.
I thinkBen Franklin once said: *Love thy enemies, they tell you your faults.*

So, what about >>*...the idea that a minority which isn't even involved in
that council can dictate...*<< Yes, both minorities and majorities can act in
a tyrannical fashion, but one must study the context. The questions, then,
are: Is that minority not involved by (their) choice? (example:
wheelchair users have difficulty with stairs.); or, Whose tenets are causative
to the non-involvement? Minorities can only *dictate* where they control
the power - such as in the former Afrikaans-led South Africa.

But, what if the response is: >>*... this is (not) an unlikely situation, it
would be possible in our council, except for the fear of outside objections.*<<
I submit that*the fear of outside objections* is a good thing. It shows some
sensitivity to other opinions and people, and an uncertainty that what would be
your choices are the only correct pathway. Symbols may be representative of,
but they are less than, the values we may wish to pass on.

And if: >>* We have few other religions in the area, much less in our
troops.*<< There is little, in the short run, that anyone of us can or may
want to do to affect the demographics of an area, however, to the degree there
are strangers among you, isn*t it the *christian* thing to do to make them most
welcome and comfortable, rather than uncomfortable?

I have had the fortune of living in diversity. My worlds (including Councils
and Troops) have been different, they have not been insular. They have been
diverse in ethnicity, racially, and religiously. We, hopefully, have learned
from one another. To me, that is central to Scouting - locally or
internationally.

YIS
Jay Thal

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message
• Previous message