Dictatorship or "Democracy"

[evmori 11]

As you say ed it is "one" of our rights. There are many others, not all of which are there to protect 'you'. Some rights are there to protect others from you. Is it your suggestion we abolish the rights of others? Do we simply abandon the freedom of association? Or does the BSA not get to use it because you are a member and you think your rights over-rule all others?

 

My rights & your rights & President Bushs' rights are all the same. Which rights aren't in place to protect me? Which ones are to protect people from me?

 

What do we do with the rights of private organizations Ed?

 

There is nothing to be done. I don't understand the point of the question.

 

Can volunteers who gripe to much be removed by the BSA, absolutely, and thank goodness to in most cases.

 

This statement still floors me.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

Not all rights are the same, as proof I offer the Bill of Rights which has 10 distinctly different rights in its text. Followed by the Ammendments which are specifically different rights.

 

Not everyone has the same rights. A public facility for instance does not have the freedom of association hence it is "public" and can be used by anyone who uses it lawfully.

 

Private organizations, and private citizens, DO have the freedom of association. They can legally choose, at will, who they want to associate with and be associated with them.

 

An example of the freedom of association at work. A public facility cannot refuse to employ a person for being Taoist. That would be illegal. The Presbyterian Church however can say that to be employed by the church you have to be Presbyterian. That is not illegal.

 

Why? because the Presbyterian Church is a private organization and is protected by the freedom of association, as is the BSA. Is a Presbyterian minister protected by the First Ammendment rights to free speech? Absolutely. He can say whatever he wants. But if what he says conflicts with the Presbyterian faith, he can be removed. Has his rights been violated? Not at all, he can still say whatever he wants, he just can't say it as a representaive of the Presbyterian clergy. The Church excercised their freedom of association to have an organization of individuals with shared opinions and values.

 

The BSA is exactly the same in its protection by the law. You can always say whatever you want, There is no right however that guarantees you the ability to say it as a member of ANY private organization.

 

If you really believe that this isn't so then you will need to explain the Supreme Court ruling in Dale VS. BSA. What is it you think they determined, and on what constitutional grounds do you believe they based their decision?

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

My personal rights are the same as yours, Bob. And they are the same as President Bush & Senator Clinton.

 

But saying the BSA can boot someone out because they complain too much is just, well, absurd! I can complain all I want. So can you! The BSA can't kick you or me out!

 

And I'll ask again "Which rights aren't in place to protect me? Which ones are to protect people from me?"

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

"And I'll ask again "Which rights aren't in place to protect me

Which ones are to protect people from me?"

 

Well, off hand, I would have to say that ammendments 10, 13, 19, and 26 probably have little or nothing to do with protecting 'you' specifically. As far as what ones protect people from you...the freedom of association comes to mind rather quickly.

 

 

 

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Seems like quite a bit of "hair splitting" going on. Someone asks whether the BSA is acting like a dictatorship or a democracy, and we end up hearing from "Poster A" on whether "Poster B" knows what kind of government the U.S. has. (sigh)

 

Posters comment on stories from the press and are castigated because all the facts aren't in. Isn't that one of the things a discussion forum is about? To discuss "what if" scenarios on possible outcomes should we ever be fortunate enough to get "all" of the facts?

 

The intent of the post, I think, has to do with how BSA is run and who has a say in how things are done. And whether people who don't agree with something BSA has done have the right to say anything about it without fear of being removed. And I think that this is an interesting topic, with 2 very different points of view being expressed. The first point of view might be called the "once you sign up, you automatically agree with everything BSA does" point of view. An example of this is the comment that if someone, as a unit leader, saw what they thought was wrongdoing by a "higher up", they wouldn't say anything because it's not their responsibility. Also, that our job as volunteer leaders is to present the program as delivered, and if we don't like something, we are free to leave. Then, there is a second point of view, one that says that people of good conscience within an organization can differ on points of policy and content, and attempt to make change. In the second point of view, there is a concern that the national organization could be structured in such a way as to make opposing views unacceptable and stifle their presentation.

 

I personally have met a lot of wonderful folks thru Scouting. I most times agree with them but occasionally not. I do tend to see one thing when I talk with folks at the District or Council level. When you can get them to "take off their Scout hat", you will hear a certain amount of frustration, sometimes, in regards to dealings with the National Office. This usually takes the form of concerns about the autocratic nature of the National office and their unwillingness to hear other views. These are, of course, subjective views; your mileage may vary. But they do cover a broad range of topics, from those on policy ("that's just the way it is"), to things more operational in nature (for example, I've heard a good number of comments from people who think the ScoutNet system is just fine if you're designing systems, for say, 1970 ). And it does seem to describe a very closed, insular environment, very resistent to outside views. Is that reality? I don't know, I'm just describing what I see and hear, a limited sampling, to be sure. But, one reason that we have forums like this is to provide a place to gather more information. Are these isolated views? Do others see this as well?

 

And so, this topic.

[Bob White 20]

No one said if you discovered wrong doing not to report it to the proper authorities.

 

What was said is once it is discovered there is no need for adult leaders to goosip and spread rumors, or to beat our chests and whail about "what about our boys?". The fact is the unit program is for the most part a reflection of the abilities of the unit leaders and the quality of your next meeting is unrelated to an SE fabricating membership, or revoking another gossips BSA membership.

 

The fact is that the original poster admitted that this was third hand stories from outside his own council that he was sharing.

 

What if...during the retelling key facts were lost or altered, what if it never even happened this way at all, what if we all did our own jobs and didn't gossip about other councils and other peoples business? Would that be seen by many as an improvement? I'll bet it would.

[fgoodwin 23]

P_S, if jkhny had accused someone of a criminal act and pronounced him guilty before trial, wouldn't you caution him that one is innocent until proven guilty? Why should the burden be any less when he accuses an organization of wrongdoing and pronounces them guilty?

 

I don't believe I was "castigating" him for "commenting" on a news article before all the facts were in. And with all due respect, "discussing" the possibilities is a long way from pronouncing BSA guilty of wrongdoing.

 

So I stand by my comments that one should proceed with caution when pronouncing guilt on BSA before all the facts are known.

 

But since this is free country, jkhny certainly has the right to say anything he wants -- but BSA also has the right to sue for libel if jkhny is proven wrong.

[Lynda J 10]

I know of volunteers in our district that have been removed. When you have someone that never does anything but complain and start fights with other leaders and stirs things up. They need to be removed. Had a den leader in my old pack that was removed. Sorry throwing temper tantrums, and throwing things across the room, in front of the boys at pack meetings when you don't get what you want simply isn't an adult leadership that we need.

Now if they are removing people simply for disagreeing with the council leadership that is a problem. Because believe me I have disagreeded with ours. I have gone in and sat down with our DE and the council director and talked about problems. I have also presented ways of correcting those problems.

[Kudu 186]

> Why? because the Presbyterian Church is a private organization and

> is protected by the freedom of association, as is the BSA. Is a

> Presbyterian minister protected by the First Ammendment rights to

> free speech? Absolutely. He can say whatever he wants. But if what

> he says conflicts with the Presbyterian faith, he can be removed. Has

> his rights been violated?

 

I'd say yes if Congress grants the Presbyterian Church a monopoly on words like "church," "Bible," "God," "religion," etc, as they do with the BSA on words like "Scout," "Scouting," etc.

 

The church to which I belong had a government monopoly arrangement similar to the BSA's when we ruled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and there hasn't been a decent witch-hunt since.

 

If anyone deserves a dictatorship on Scouting, it's us!

[FScouter 24]

Kudu- you've mentioned several times that BSA has some kind of a "monopoly" granted by the government. Would you like to give us some specifics about what BSA does that no other group may do?

[evmori 11]

Well, off hand, I would have to say that ammendments 10, 13, 19, and 26 probably have little or nothing to do with protecting 'you' specifically. As far as what ones protect people from you...the freedom of association comes to mind rather quickly.

 

OK I'll go along with the list with maybe except 19. Protects against discrimination. How does the freedom of association protect people from me?

 

 

Innocent until proved guilty? We are guaranteed

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

There is no presumption one is innocent until proved guilty.

 

And we could "What if ......" forever on everything! Pointless.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Kudu 186]

> Kudu- you've mentioned several times that BSA has some kind of a

> "monopoly" granted by the government. Would you like to give us

> some specifics about what BSA does that no other group may do?

 

In England, where Scouting was invented, if you don't like the WOSM "Scouts Association," you are free to join other brand names of Scouting, such as the British Boy Scouts, or the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association.

 

In the United States we do not have that freedom, and so you get endless arguments of how the Scouting monopoly should be run. What neo-conservatives and liberals have in common is the conviction that the government should only allow one brand of Scouting, and that it should be governed by their slant on what is right or wrong.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is. Probably either challenge the trademark on Scouting, as is now being done in California, or to seek Congressional Charters for alternative Scouting associations, like the Girl Scouts did successfully (although the BSA did try to force them to use the term "Girl Guides" in the 1920s).

[Bob White 20]

Kleenex has a tradmark on their name are they the only tissue company that exists? Pepsi has a trademark on their name, are they the only soda that exists. My company has it's name trademadked and there are at least 16 competitord in town. Most with trademarked names. To say that by legally protecting a company's name that they are a monopoly just has no validity.

 

Innocent till proven guilty is a protection against prosecution by the government. It is unrelated to a private organization saying that you are annoying and then revoking your membership. Since the membership was not a right, revoking it is not violation of a right.

 

It's just that simple.

 

 

[FScouter 24]

"In the United States we do not have that freedom, and so you get endless arguments of how the Scouting monopoly should be run."

What is preventing anyone from starting up a youth organization competing with Boy Scouts?

 

"Probably either challenge the trademark on Scouting, as is now being done in California,"

The Scouting trademark is being challenged? Tell us about that.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Bob,

After rereading the comment you were responding to, I agree to some extent with your response; I do think, however, that as a leader, it may not be your responsibility to do anything once a perceived problem has been reported, and I agree that you don't want to spend a lot of time wailing, complaining, etc. However, I do think that if you have the best interests of the organization in mind, you might want to do some follow up of some sort, if simply because your unit's members are probably going to have questions, and you want to have as much accurate information as you can. Beyond that, if you're REALLY interested in the best interests of the organization and the time, resources, etc, you might volunteer to help to resolve the situation, especially if, as the poster noted to you, very little progress appears to be being made. These are all hypotheticals, of course. But I do agree with you that if you're going to be active in an issue, it shouldn't be just for the purpose of complaining about it.

 

>>P_S, if jkhny had accused someone of a criminal act and pronounced him guilty before trial, wouldn't you caution him that one is innocent until proven guilty? Why should the burden be any less when he accuses an organization of wrongdoing and pronounces them guilty?

 

fgoodwin,

Well, district attorneys around the country regularly do exactly that , but unless jkhny is running for re-election, I agree that my counsel would be to withhold judgement until all the facts are in. However, as in almost all cases I can think of here, it seemed to me that jkhny was just stating his opinion based on the information he presented. And, that's about all we can ever do here, state our opinions, because it's difficult to know if we ever have all of the information we need, or whether what we're reading is accurate, etc.