Of moral authority

[tjhammer 10]

Many of the same people who have argued there is nothing wrong with BSA Inc. institutionalizing prejudice and contradicting their own policies (i.e. Declaration of Religious Principles), are the same people who have passionately argued that Scout leaders who willingly drive five miles over the speed limit can not adequately model ethical behavior.

 

It's been argued that leaders who willingly violate the uniforming policies of Scouting are diminished in their ability to teach ethics. Though the same people who assert this with passion have very little to say about the corruption that BSA Inc. has shown in registration scandals, or choose to dismiss the situation as isolated cases of human misjudgment, instead of an institutional failing.

 

How is it possible for BSA Inc. to act fraudulently without compromising their ability to teach -- nay, interpret and establish -- ethics and morality?

 

Will any of the people who chant "those are the rules, accept them or leave" step up and question the authority of BSA Inc. to establish a prejudicial rule? Does anyone not see the irony in this observation, given the lengthy debate on this forum over leadership ethics?

 

I love Scouting, every bit as much (or more) as those that blindly defend it. But it's been systematically weakened by uncharismatic, unethical and ignorant leadership. Each Chief Scout Executive, administration and executive committee over the last century could be credited with a defining program or initiative that Scouting undertook during their tenure (sometimes bad, most often good and often credit went to the top simply because they happened to be there when the movement changed). The "defining initiative" of this generation during the last decade has been nothing positive, and the loss of membership is likely far more severe than we'll yet admit. Will we now dismiss the FBI (the way we've indicted the press, the ACLU and many others) as merely on a "witch hunt against Scouting"?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[acco40 95]

TJ, even you know that if we were to institute a litmus test of perfection before someone was "certified" to teach ethics we would all be waiting around for a long time! Heck, we on this forum are not unamimous in what is considered ethical behavior!

[tjhammer 10]

Of course. I think most (though obviously not all) of the posters on this forum agree with that).

 

Though the hypocrisy is stronger when the morality is so diametric, no?

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Well, Tj, you raise the usual critique of BSA one more time.

 

For me, this gets down to the question of whether the idea of "timeless values" has any meaning, or whether we are stuck with the idea of living by "fashionable values" defined by certain academic, political and legal elites, which they can impose upon the American people at will.

 

The question is ---who will rule and by what values?

 

After becoming enthralled by fashionable left wing ideas in the 1960s, I wound up seeing the damage they often did to people and society, and went back to the idea of "timeless values" in time to support Ronald Reagan in 1984. Coincidentally, I had become a Scoutmaster by that time. These two things were related to my decision to support the idea of "timeless values," or at least values that changed for different reasons and were controlled by different political and social groups.

 

While you declare BSA policies as being "bigoted," I think that is just plain wrong. I presume you are referring to policies that exclude atheists and homsexuals from Scouting. You are welcome to your opinions on such subjects, but the BSA has good reasons for continuing such policies ---it's not a matter of blind prejudice at all.

 

Furthermore, I would suppose that you would be in favor of diversity in American society. BSA policies ARE diversity these days, when too much government policy is focussed on using government to enforce social norms people and organizations should be deciding for themselves.

 

As to corruption within BSA ---fix it. It's not something I support. Report things honestly and let the chips fall where they may.

 

In short, while you are entitled to promote your values and ideas, you are not entitled to impose them on the BSA in my opinion. The fact that you cannot seems to lead you to intemperate criticisms of the BSA and it's leadership.

 

Despite that, I would be glad to work with you in Scouting. Indeed, I work with an atheist who is defacto Pack Committee chair. He earned his Eagle as a youth but is not willing to sign the BSA adult application due to the religious test in it. He doesn't object to the occasional prayers occasionally used as a part of the Cub Scout program, and has been a key person in rebuilding the Pack.

 

I regret that he cannot become a registered Scout leader. But if Scouting were to permit that, it would inevitably be led to exclude prayers and religious elements from Scouting, in order not to offend atheists in the program. The religious elements provide a useful guide for many in raising children, and I don't want to see them discarded for these reasons.

 

In my view, this is an example not of unreasoning bigotry, but carefull consideration of competing values. To describe this kind of decision making as amounting to unreasoning bigotry is simply overwrought and absurd.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[Spiney Norman 10]

Long Live the Revolution!

 

Communism lives again.

[tjhammer 10]

For the record I have no personal objection to the Declaration of Religious Principles, I only wish BSA Inc. supported that Declaration as much as I do.

 

while you are entitled to promote your values and ideas, you are not entitled to impose them on the BSA in my opinionAnd while you are entitled to your values and ideas, you are not entitled to impose them on the entire BSA membership (or so says the Declaration of Religious Principles).

 

My post was mostly intended to point out the irony of recent discussions on this forum where people couldn't accept leaders who knowingly violate rules having any standing to teach ethics, and I merely observe they don't usually apply the same standard to BSA Inc.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Backpacker 11]

TJ

 

While I applaud your convictions you need to remember there are some posters here that see EVERYTHING as black or white, with no shades of gray, and you will never change their opinions on any issue. I agree that when you talk about declining membership in scouting that some of these curmudgeons are in deep denial because scouting is their entire life, hobby and vocation all rolled into one, and anything that addresses a weakness in that institution is usually met with hostility by this certain group.

 

On the up side though I still feel that the BSA, with all their faults, is still one of the best youth programs offered today. As a youth joining scouts, then as an adult becoming a professional scout executive, later on volunteering as a Cub and Boy Scout Leader, and now as a Scoutmaster and Assoc. Venturing Advisor have helped to make me the person I am today and have been a source of pride, accomplishment, and joy in my life. The kids of today are not getting a lot of morality teaching in the schools,or in the media, and sadly not even in a lot of the churches, so I am glad the BSA is there to try to help fill in this large gap. We are all imperfect, but if we do the best we are capable of that is all anyone can ask.

[acco40 95]

Let's see. I'm a 14 year old boy just discovering my sexuality. I think I may be gay, something I wondered about for many years but the older I get the more sure I am of my sexuality. Now, being only 14, I've never engaged in any homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) behavior.

 

Fast forward two years - Boy am I glad I made Eagle! My parents are so proud. So is my Scoutmaster and I respect him very much. I try my best to follow the Scout Oath and Law but I'm puzzled. I believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. But the state I live in will not let me marry a male but I know some states and other countries will. I also know that the BSA does not allow avowed homosexuals to be members on their organization - and they have the legal right to do so. But I want to live in a monogamous relationship with someone I love. Ihave not met that person just yet, but being only 16 I don't worry about that too much. I want to be trustworthy - honest with myself and others, always tell the truth. Can I and still maintain my membership is this fine organization? I want to be obedient and follow the rules of the BSA. I try and find a legal definition of "avowed" but I just get conflicting answers. Can I talk to my to my Scoutmaster about my dilemma? Will he boot me out of Scouts? What should I do?

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

acco40,

Be berrrrry quiet.

 

tjh,

If tomorrow, the Church and all of its leaders jumped right into the middle of the sewer, God would not be moved nor those that do believe.

If the BSA leadership followed the Church, those that believe in Scouting would acknowledge the loss and then move on. The love of Scouting is independent of the immoral actions of a few or the many. Most of us recognize it for what it is but we refuse to despair. B.P. encouraged each of us to "paddle our own canoe".

 

Some believe that people and organizations are perfect but that has not been my experience.

 

FB

 

[Rooster7 11]

Interesting scenario...sounds like the gay version of Pleasantville.

 

Do you really think the typical male homosexual thinks to himself - "Gee, before I have sex, I want to find that special man to marry."

 

Sorry - but I can't believe that, not even for a second. A boy allowing himself to drift so far away from what is natural, if not by instinct then by common sense...so outside the social norms - is not going to worry about breaking "tradition" (i.e. marriage) to engage in a sexual relationship.

[dsteele 20]

My spidey sense is tingling. As long as you gentlemen keep it polite, I hope you enjoy the discussion.

 

Unc.

[johndaigler 10]

I think I can play by Unc's rules.

 

 

Rooster, with all due respect, I believe you are way off base; and your post, though not surprising, is less than your best. As usual, you have painted with too wide a brush and summed up all people who fit into a category as being defined by your understanding of that category.

 

It would be like me negatively describing all right-wing Christian fundamentalists based on the behavior of the few with whom I have interacted. My comment would be childishly inaccurate because membership in any group cannot wholey define a thing as complicated as a human. There are many kinds of Christians, even many kinds of right-wing Christian fundamentalists. Certainly, sexual orientation is no more/less defining than a person's Faith system.

 

Acco's scenario is a about a person. Acco has defined him. You don't get to re-define him to suit your beliefs. I'm sure you're welcome to start your own thread and develop your own scenario and define its characters as you see fit. For this thread, can you please try to address the question as asked by Acco?

 

I have read posts in which you have stated your personal requirement to share your ideology. Given the appropriate cicumstances, I would defend your right to do that. In this instance, instead of addressing the question you've tried to redefine it. That doesn't help the questioner and hijacks the thread down a different path. Again, if you'd like to do that, please just start a new thread.

 

jd

[madkins007 10]

Acco touches on one of my big issues concerning gay or atheistic youth- that they are not yet set in stone and are experimenting with their lives.

 

I feel that by barring them from Scouts on the basis of a few words, we are not fulfilling some of our goals of helping create men of character. Why not offer them friendship, structure, adventure, and challenges instead? Show them faith and/or nonsexual male bonding in action.

 

MANY youth go through rebellious and experimental phases, and I can't help but think that barring a kid in such a phase helps make that label stick just a little more tightly.

[Trevorum 24]

Acco's excellent post should be read by all SM's. Not everybody will empathize or even understand his scenario but at least they should THINK about this issue. It is far more common than most of us want to admit.

 

As Acco points out, boys become scouts before they are sexual beings. Most of those boys (90%+) will develop into heterosexuals, but a minority have been programed by their biology (genetic heredity + intrauterine homonal environment) to be different. These latter are not evil, are not mentally disturbed, are not misguided, and are not rebellious against socal norms any more that those red-haired kids, or the ons who, more secretly, are AB- blood types.

 

I truly worry about how we, as their mentors and authority figures, treat these boys. Teen suicide is a VERY REAL problem and these boys are recieving tremendously mixed messages about their human worth - one message from inside themselves and another from society.

 

This is the reason why I, quietly but openly, wear the Inclusive Scouting Emblem as an optional patch on my uniform pocket. I want such boys in our troop to know that they can talk to me and I will not get them kicked out of the great organization we both love so. Many adults and youth have casually asked me, "What is that knot?" and I tell them it means I think EVERY boy should have the opportunity to be a Boy Scout. This goes over the heads of some boys, but it sinks in where it is important. Several other adults in our troop now also wear this emblem.

 

The emblem is issued by the New England Coalition for Inclusive Scouting. For more information, please see http://www.inclusivescouting.net/isa/

[FScouter 24]

I would think that if one's motivation was to help suicide prone teenagers with sexual identity issues, there would be better ways than wearing an unauthorized "gay knot" on the Scout uniform. What is your real motivation for wearing a "gay knot" on the uniform of an organization that excludes homosexuals as members? This seems more like some kind of rebellious statement.