Pack 79 Policy of Acceptance

[Peregrinator 85]

I don't rule out secession as an option, if that is what you're asking. There's no inherent reason that, say, Texas and Massachusetts must be part of the same country.

 

I don't know what the Tea Party stands for any way. I think they've been assimilated into the neocon Borg.

[packsaddle 753]

Snicker....I definitely grok that.

[Eagle732 27]

Yes packsaddle, comparing someone with a different opinion to a "patch nazi" or calling them "grand' are, in my opinion snide remarks that are personal and irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I'm not even sure we have a difference of opinion. However I don't believe it is our purpose as Scouters to teach civil disobedience to our Scouts. I'll stand by my previous statement that we should teach them how to make changes in a proper and positive way to the injustices they see.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Peregrinator says:

 

Perhaps those who advocate breaking the BSA's rules should take a cue from the Founding Fathers and start their own organization.

 

First of all, who here is advocating "breaking" the BSA's rules? I and others here are advocating changing the "policy" -- if you can even call it a policy.

 

Second of all, your description of what the Founding Fathers did is not really accurate. They did not simply "start their own organization," or their own country as the case may be. Your terminology might be correct if the Founding Fathers had found some piece of land that wasn't governed or claimed by anyone else, and started their own country on it. That's not what they did. They "took" territory that someone else thought belonged to them (at least in a governing sense) and started their own country on that, and when the "original owners" used force to keep it, so did the "new owners." (I realize that is oversimplifying a bit since the war started 15 months before independence was declared, but I didn't want to write a whole long paragraph about it and I think the point is the same.) The point is, the American Revolution was a violent revolution and a war, and from the point of view of Great Britain it essentially involved "stealing" of property. (And in fact a number of "Loyalists" living in the colonies-turned-states actually were deprived of their property, with no compensation, although that really wasn't necessary in order to establish the new country.)

 

Please note, I am not advocating a war within the BSA, nor am I sorry that "we" broke away from Great Britain (I put "we" in quotes because at the time, my ancestors were still busy getting chased around Eastern Europe because they were the wrong religion), even though violence was required in order to do it. I am just pointing out that the manner in which the Founding Fathers started their "new organization" is probably not something you want to see within the BSA.

[rismith 10]

Civil Disobediance refers specifically to governmental actions; not following rules is just not following rules. If you're arguing that this is civil disobediance and civil disobediance is bad, well, then I suppose Gandhi, MLK, Susan B. Anthony, and on will have to deal with your condemnation.

 

I didn't call you a Patch Nazi, but don't have a problem calling people out for putting the rules above people. I maintain that if you're biggest problem is a 12 year old not following a discriminatory rule, be it based on gender, race, sexuality or whatever arbitrary standard we're using now, your life must be pretty awesome because I can think of a lot worse problems. For instance, 12 year olds doing the complete opposite of that, which is what about half of the scouting discipline issues I've run into were.

[Peregrinator 85]

First of all, who here is advocating "breaking" the BSA's rules?

 

Pack 79. I'm not trying to call out the participants in this thread, and I apologize if it sounded like I was. As far as I can determine, they are breaking the BSA's rules.

[Oak Tree 15]

So since you're such a big believer in civil disobedience who gets to decide which rules are immoral, impractical, or just ridiculous, a 12 year old boy?

 

It depends on how one defines civil disobedience. I think it's pretty rare where that actually applies in the way I think of it. I think of that as people who openly state that they aren't going to follow the law, because the law is immoral, and then expect and accept the punishment that comes from not following the law. That is usually not what we're talking about when most people decide whether to follow some rule or another.

 

12 year old boys are constantly evaluating whether parental rules, school rules, Scout rules, etc are rules that they really need to follow. Generally speaking any disobedience comes behind the scenes.

 

Most of the time you don't see people just openly saying that the law shouldn't apply to them and therefore they aren't going to follow it. That's because they don't want to directly confront the authorities (and because they would generally lose if they did so.)

 

But my answer for the question "who gets to decide" is, whoever the rule applies to.

[Eagle732 27]

I was pointing to two specific examples, Pack 79 and Pack 121, the later I posted a link to an article to.

 

Both units in my opinion are violating BSA's policy. 79 is violating the BSA policy on not approving gay adult leaders and 121 is violating the youth membership policy by allowing girls to be Cub Scouts. Each examples of teaching sexuality or civil disobedience. They are advocating breaking the rules and bringing it to the public by making a press event of it to the great glee of the press.

 

The kids know the adults are breaking the rules, I think it sets a bad example.

 

BSA sets the policy, if they change it I'll go with it, no problem here. I don't care either way. I just don't think we (me or my unit) are in the business of teaching sexuality or civil disobedience.

 

I would rather my scouts write letters to the CSE explaining why the policies should be changed. And if they chose to do that I would support them.

 

In the mean time I have more pressing things to tend to such as our upcoming backpacking trip.

[Oak Tree 15]

Pack 79 is engaged in civil disobedience as I would define it. (You might ask for one more step, which would be to go ahead and actually register such a leader. And yes, you might say that civil disobedience can only apply to the government, but I think the concept applies broadly.)

 

Pack 121, I don't know - they might just be using the rules as written, if not as intended. But I don't really care and they aren't the focus of the discussion anyway.

 

The BSA is going to have to decide whether to deal with these various acts of civil disobedience. Will they force all these groups to renounce their policies, even to the point of pulling the charter if a unit or council doesn't back down? Or will they just do nothing? Another option would be to change the policy, but right now they have to decide between doing something and doing nothing.

 

My guess is that they will do nothing for the moment. Just guesswork, though. They really don't have to decide anything until/unless they get an actual complaint about a registered gay leader. And even then they could decide to do nothing, without changing their official policy.

 

But if nothing happens to these units/councils, you can be sure that there will be more.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well, Peregrinator, I would say that the leaders (or CO or whoever it actually it is) of Pack 79 have announced their intention not to enforce the "policy" if the subject ever comes up. I assume (though it is always dangerous to do so) that they are aware of the potential consequences of making this announcement and are ready and willing to accept those consequences.

 

Unless there is another part of their statement that was not published here, I do not see them "advocating" that anyone else do anything. Perhaps there is an implied hope that other units will follow suit. As I said near the beginning of this thread, I think the practical implications of this action (if any) may well depend on the numbers of units (if any) that do so. Two unit, five, or ten, and nothing is going to happen. Ten percent of units, 20 percent, 30 percent, things will start to happen. Where the "line" is, I don't know. I doubt that we will find out in the near future, but I could be wrong. And as I said before, I am not "overestimating" anything because I am not "estimating" anything. I am just saying that if this becomes a "movement" (and someone earlier quoted the appropriate "literary" analogy, which is the song "Alice's Restaurant"), things might start to change.

[RememberSchiff 3683]

Add Pack 24, Redlands, CA

 

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21421165/developing-redlands-scout-pack-taking-stand-against-boy?source=rss

 

[shortridge 184]

Interesting that this is focused in Cub packs. Younger parents = more accepting attitudes?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Interesting article, RememberSchiff. Now that sounds like democracy! Though on an issue that a Cub Scout pack does not have the authority to decide... yet.

 

It's also interesting that their CO, a Methodist Church, seems to have actually been pushing for this and might have sent the pack elsewhere if the decision had gone the other way.

[Peregrinator 85]

And yes, you might say that civil disobedience can only apply to the government, but I think the concept applies broadly.

 

Yes, I would say that it applies only to the government. I don't know what to call this. They appear to want the benefits of BSA membership without the restrictions of BSA membership.

[RememberSchiff 3683]

IMO, pack leadership typically has younger leaders with more frequent turnover than troops - so more fertile ground for change. Also I think units and CO's are realizing families are not necessarily traditional, i.e., reject one family member and lose the whole family, reject upstanding citizens and lose the community.

 

What happens at crossover time to Webs from these packs? Will families find a troop with a "Policy of Acceptance" and continue on the Scouting trail?

 

Evolution from the bottom-up. Will mutations thrive or die? Will the species itself adapt and live on?

 

My $0.01 for so many questions, hmm Question of Balance

 

In a world of persecution

That is burning in its greed

 

Why do we never get an answer

When we're knocking at the door?