Rules and Values (again...)

[acco40 95]

Forget Ghandi, Martin Luther, etc. They did not choose to join a program and then not follow the "rules." As Scouters, we signed up to deliver the program. It really sticks in my craw the number of scouters, including many participate on this forum, who try to rationalize their behavior by stating that the "rule" of the BSA is something they willfully choose to ignore.

 

My advice, remove yourself from the program. I'm dead serious. It is difficult enough to deliver the program to the youth without a bunch of adults who do not wish to follow the program because they "know better." Get out! Get out now! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

 

I understand not following a rule due to ignorance, interpretation, etc. But when it is in black and white - who may sit on BORs for example - why on Earth would someone knowingly not follow the instructions that come with the program? Why risk having the advancement of a scout be put in question? Such action truly bewilders me.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, acco, da rationale for usin' youth on a BOR is over in that thread, eh? This thread is about the ethics and morality of followin' or not followin' societal laws and other forms of regulation. (Just keepin' up my reputation as da Thread Police, eh? ).

 

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, eh? He took solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to the Catholic Church. Sure seems to me like he freely chose to become part of a "program" and then broke da rules, eh? Ghandi was an English barrister trained in law at University College, London, who swore an oath of allegiance to the King and service to English law. George Washington was a British Officer who swore a similar oath. Thomas More was Chancellor of the Realm with a special oath of fealty to the King. Same with those other "etc."

 

Sorry, mate, yeh can't get around it. Da heroes our society holds up as examples are oathbreakers and rulesbreakers, who put goals and principles ahead of laws and rules whenever necessary. Stickin' always to da King or to the letter of the law gets yeh a seat on the Sanhedrin right next to Caiaphas, or the privy council next to Henry VIII.

 

Still, I don't reckon any of our heroes would have left an organization on account of somethin' as trivial as who gets to do a 15 minute rank review in a kids' program, eh?

 

I suppose in theory we in da BSA could insist on a centralized, one-size-fits-all program, with everyone else being shown to the door. We'd be much, much smaller as an organization. Da few, the proud, da (nearly) perfectly compliant who could look on ourselves as elite or whatnot. Dependin' on how nitpicky we are about showin' people to the door, we might not have any members at all. Like I said, I've yet to meet a unit dat's perfectly compliant.

 

I think it's worth rememberin' that as unit Scouters, we sign up to deliver the unit's program, under the direction of the CO. Not the BSA's program. We are agents of da CO, not the BSA, and da CO is legally liable for our actions, not the BSA. Understandin' agency is really important to understandin' how BSA Scoutin' is run.

 

As district or council scouters, we do not deliver program at all, but rather assist the COs' units by providing training and resources.

 

What happens over in Troop 612 really shouldn't affect da program of Troop 413 at all, eh? Can't see why it would anyway. So I'm not sure why Trop 612 doin' something different should matter to a unit scouter in Troop 413. If you're havin' trouble followin' your unit's program in Troop 413, I reckon yeh have to look at da unit scouters in Troop 413 rather than blamin' others for poor outcomes with your kids.

 

Anyway, back to the topic... is it a moral imperative to always follow (apparently) every rule of any society or organization that you have chosen to join or were born into or whatnot?

 

And if that's the case, what are we to make of the Declaration of Religious Principle, which says that only those who owe a duty to a Higher Power can be the "best kind of citizens?"

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Gee, as a Roman Catholic, a much insulted sect I might add, I never saw Martin Luther as that much of a hero actually.

 

I never saw breaking rules as being as gallant as is being depicted. Again I will ask as it just gets a short shrift answer when I have asked it before. So, if the CO thinks 21 merit badges is too many, then its ok to make Eagle at 18 merit badges with the Troop faking the blue cards? Is the Committee Chair who over sees this on the same level as Martin Luther? Is the Scoutmaster who allows this on the same level as Rosa Parks? I dont see how following rules is such a burden and the glory associated with rule breaking. yes, it happens as the examples illustrate, but is a "childrens program" worthy of such elevation? Why is not Jim Stark or Johnny Strabler offered as role models for todays youth?

 

If people want to do what they want with the Boy Scout program, thats up to them, but to wrap their behavior in with the likes of the names that have been bandied about is beyond me

 

[packsaddle 753]

Beavah, I agree. I guess I engaged in civil disobedience when I refused to swear on a Bible in order to be registered to vote in NC. The registrar informed me that in NC, "you can't vote if you don't believe in God". And I was told that by law I HAD to swear on a Bible.

I responded that whatever my beliefs are, it is no business of the state of NC. It was a slow day for me so I waited for the head guy to meet with me. After a brief conversation he backed down. I guess he broke the law too.

And then I voted...for Richard Nixon. Sad, yes, but it had to be told. And in some sense that vote, in retrospect, is difficult to defend as an ethical decision.

I guess BSA overlooked my criminal past when I applied for membership.

 

My view of a customer is someone who pays money or some other thing of value in return for a good or service...from a vendor, BSA and the unit being the vendor. In this sense the families are the customers and the volunteers are merely tourguides, grocery clerks, or perhaps ticket punchers, some of us better trained than others.

[fleetfootedfox 10]

Beavah,

 

This is from a council website in NJ: "When a Unit Leader accepts an application for a youth to join Scouting, they are acting as an agent of the Boy Scouts of America and collecting a National Registration Fee." (http://www.doubleknot.com/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.asp?LinkKey=6547&orgkey=945)

 

I don't see how you get off saying we are not agents of the BSA when we collect money that is target for the BSA, and we get insured by them.

 

Also, at least one court of law has stated that a SM is an agent of the BSA. "The appeals court, therefore, concluded that such conduct was not incidental to his duties as an agent of the BSA. Having found the conduct of the scoutmaster was not within the scope of his duties as an agent of the BSA..." (see http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/p&r297.htm)

[Beavah 205]

[Responded to Scouter760 off-list so as not to hijack da current thread on ethics]

 

Yah, and packsaddle, we have to stop agreein' like this. It's startin' to creep me out, even if Mrs. Beavah likes you.

 

So, if the CO thinks 21 merit badges is too many, then its ok to make Eagle at 18 merit badges with the Troop faking the blue cards?

 

OGE, I don't know how to make this any clearer. No one is claimin' that it's OK to break any rule. No one is claimin' it's OK to do "whatever you want." Da example you just gave is a "straw man". It tries to misrepresent the position being discussed by claimin' it refers to any rule, then pickin' a rule nobody has suggested it applies to - and more importantly one that would not seem to serve any worthy goal - and knocking down the straw man.

 

Washington, Jesus, Gandhi, etc. - they didn't break any rules or have zeal for breaking all rules as BobWhite suggests, eh? They simply ignored or "broke" rules which did not accomplish da rule's intended goals or which failed to serve higher principles.

 

BobWhite's contention, shared by others, is that contrary to the examples set by these men and women, all societal laws and organizational rules must be followed at all times, and it is unethical (and poor citizenship) to do otherwise. I'm curious how folks who believe that reconcile their position with the DRP, which holds a primary duty to a Higher Power to be the best form of citizenship.

 

B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I freely admit I don't understand the argument, I am giving what I understand of it. So, are you saying that there are some rules that can be broken and others that can't? That does seem to be the gist, but I am willing to learn if I am wrong.

[Bob White 20]

"I'm curious how folks who believe that reconcile their position with the DRP, which holds a primary duty to a Higher Power to be the best form of citizenship."

 

If I understand the statement from you Beavah you are claiming that to say as a member of the BSA you will follow the rules and then keep your word, and promising to do your duty to God and keep your word, are mutually exclusive promises?

 

Where as I find keeping your word to be a single ethical choice whether it is about my Duty to God or my Duty to others.

 

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, BobWhite...

 

Do yeh think that your duty to God and your duty to keep your word will never be in conflict?

 

I find that breathtakingly presumptuous. It implies that you giving your word is the same as God giving His word - that you are, in your own eyes, God.

 

Beavah

 

[Gold Winger 9]

Are we not all God? As a philospher once said, "I am he, as you are he, as you are me, as we are all together."

[Trevorum 24]

OGE: "...there are some rules that can be broken and others that can't?"

 

I strongly believe that there are some rules which MUST be broken. There are other rules which must NOT be broken.

 

This is simply because not all rules/laws are just. Perhaps most are, but we all know of rules/laws (at least in the historical sense) which are/were unjust. It is very easy to make this determination with 20/20 hindsight (eg., slavery, even where legal, is always wrong). What is much more difficult is to extricate one's perspective from the current cultural/historical context and identify current rules/laws which one has a moral imperative to change, or failing that, break.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Well Trev, since Beavah didnt answer me, I will comment to you. I understand about Laws that must be broken, Laws that need to be stood up to. But do these laws exist in a "Children's Program"?

 

Beavah says that when I talk about changing the rules for Eagle, that I am using a straw man argument. I was using hyperbole to find out what type of Law is it that can be ignored? And how many times have we corrected each other when using terms like Law and legal, as in is it legal for a Wood Badge graduate to wear a patrol medallion. Of course its "legal" in the state you reside, it is just against the uniform guidelines of the BSA.

 

It does appear that what is being said is that some rules can be broken and others can't and inately you or someone else knows which are which. Well, I don't, someone explain it to me

[packsaddle 753]

The way I understood the original post was that Beavah was asking whether or not such rules carried a 'moral imperative'?

That's a bit different.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So all this is about whether or not following the rules of a childrens program is a moral imperative?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I can't help noticing that whenever I bring up the hypothetical case of a youth member stating quite clearly that he's an atheist, people fall all over themselves coming up with "reasons" why he shouldn't be kicked out immediately, as if he's suddenly become mentally incompetent and is no longer able to express his religious views accurately (though apparently his ability was just fine prior to his being an atheist), or there's some sort of vague, invisible "grace period" of a day or a week or forever where he can be an atheist and remain a member until he changes his mind again. THESE are the kinds of rules that tend to get ignored or stretched beyond recognition; arbitrary rules, like 18 vs. 21 merit badges are easy to follow and difficult to justify bending *because* they're arbitrary -- there's no "moral" issue between 18 vs. 21 MBs. But when it comes down to kicking out a kid who's been in the program a few years who suddenly has the "wrong" religious views, the excuses come tumbling out.