Scouters as communist weapons dealers

[Hunt 11]

I was reading an article in the newspaper recently about laws that remain on the books but that are no longer enforced. For example, in some jurisdictions various "Blue Laws" (Sunday closing laws) have never been repealed, but are not enforced.

There are other laws that we see are not enforced strictly. The highway speed laws are the prime example. You will never find somebody who has been cited for going one or two miles above the speed limit. In fact, I have repeatedly read advice from police telling motorists not to cruise in the left lane at the speed limit--that they should get over to the right to let the faster traffic go by. This bothers me, but there is no question that the lack of enforcement has created a culture in which the vast majority of people do not think of speeding a few mph over the limit as a significant law violation. (It is this lack of enforcement that distinguishes this from something like shoplifting something of little value--I think most of us, in addition to thinking that stealing is per se wrong, would also expect stores to enforce that rule even for a pack of gum.)

It seems to me, then, that BSA rules that aren't enforced by BSA are a step further down in significance. These aren't laws, and I don't believe the membership application even includes a promise to obey them. Does that mean that they shouldn't be respected? No, but that means that one should not overreact to minor violations of relatively inconsequential rules. How can you judge which rules are important and which ones are relatively inconsequential? Aside from using your own judgment, you can look at how seriously the giver of the rule takes it--thus, it is obvious that BSA takes the YP rules very seriously, and the uniforming rules much less seriously.

In other words, violating a YP rule is like driving drunk the wrong way down a one-way street, and wearing too many knots on a Sea Scout uniform is like going 55.1 mph in a 55 mph zone. I, for one, don't have too much trouble distinguishing between these and moderating my response.

[acco40 95]

Hunt, not to be argumentative but you made a value judgment on the rules, YP and uniform. Not that I don't agree but can you see where BW is coming from? There is a danger about letting individuals using their judgment in this way - some lack good judgment! The alternative could be worse!

 

Something that stuck with me from my PTC training was not to try and rank or prioritize certain parts of Scouting. For example, the eight methods - one in not more important than another. They all should be given equal weight. Not something that most believe (uniform on par with the ideals?) but something that the program "believes."

 

For my own personal example - I recently gave a Scout his SM conference and the Scout requested his BOR to the advancement chair (for Tenderfoot). The advancement chair scheduled the BOR but that evening could only round up two committee members. I was unaware and was told by the Scout and the advancement chair that he had "passed" his BOR. Only later did I learn that only two members sat on the BOR (3 - 6 required). I privately told the advancement chair of my displeasure but took no action. Was any real harm done?

 

Those are the real world "ethics in action" (to borrow an old BSA phrase) situation that we as Scouter encounter all the time.

[Hunt 11]

"Hunt, not to be argumentative but you made a value judgment on the rules, YP and uniform. Not that I don't agree but can you see where BW is coming from? There is a danger about letting individuals using their judgment in this way - some lack good judgment! The alternative could be worse!"

 

I think this is a classic "slippery slope" argument--the idea that if we show any tolerance toward the violation of "inconsequential" rules, that this will ultimately result in the loss of respect for all rules. But for Bob, it's not a slope, but a precipice. This is a very black-and-white attitude which folks are free to take, but let's face it--it is extremely rare. All you have to do is drive down the highway, or to ride in the car with 99 out of 100 Scouters (or ministers, or police officers, or what have you) to see that most people do not take this attitude to rules. I happen to think that there is a qualitative difference between a person who drives a couple of mph over the speed limit and a person who robs a bank--others may think there is only a difference in degree. (I leave aside the question of whether the unenforced rules of a private organization have anywhere near the same moral force as actual laws.)

 

[Bob White 20]

So the line of distinction for then Hunt is the ability to be caught and punished.

 

Do you then feel no obligation to follow rules where punishment is avoidable? How about when you play a bord game with your kids? Certainly they probably couldn't catch you at it, and even if they did they can't punish you. So are you willing to cheat in a game with your children?

 

If not them how about your spouse. How about your spouse. If you knew you would not get caught. OR if you knew she would not punish you, would you cheat on your spouse?

 

Do you follow rules out of duty to yourself and your personal character or do you only follow rules out of concern for punishment?

 

Ever wonder what it means to be morally straight?

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

Hi folks, remember me? Been gone awhile. The doctor adjusted my medication some months back and I haven't felt the need to follow the forums as closely as I used to. Actually, I've spent the spring doing things like taking Wood Badge, serving on staff at NCS, planning day camp, etc.

 

Interesting thread. I'd like to interject one thought. Why is our mission to teach youth to make ethical decisions? Why don't we just say always follow the rules and leave it at that?

 

P.S. Has anyone noticed the "Beat Any Speeding Ticket" advertisement in the right column? Just a coincidence I'm sure....(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[FScouter 24]

Somehow I don't think our mission of teaching boys to make ethical decisions means teaching them to rank the importance of laws and which ones may be safely ignored or violated.

[packsaddle 753]

Welcome back Twocubdad, Wow I hadn't noticed the ad. So much for the effectiveness of those panels. I wonder why they are advertising on a scouting forum to sell us a way to beat the rap? They could just send direct mail to the top brass in Irving and save a little cash.

 

Apologies if someone already said this, if we simply read the rules and follow them, what is the ethical decision that we've made? We simply followed a rule. The decision was made for us.

And if the police are reading this, I always follow the rules and if I ever forget my socks, I won't ask for a jury.

[acco40 95]

Riddle me this Batman ...

 

A Scout is trustworthy. Many current CIA members are former Scouts. As spies/intelligence agents, they operate covertly. Is this Scout like behavior?

 

A Scout is kind. Many current US Military Academy graduates are former Scouts. Many are asked to "destroy the enemy." Is this Scout like behavior?

 

A Scout is thrifty. Many current members of Congress are former Scouts. They must have forgotten this one!!

 

I'm not really looking for answers as most may surmise but it does point out that we need to teach our sons and daughters to make ethical choices - not necessarily to think in lock-step but to THINK.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Bob White 20]

The question was not what do you think someone elses responsibility is, the question is what is your obligation to following the rules of scouting, and you community? and how do you justify ignoring rules and laws to your scouts.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Trevorum 24]

Some highly moral people firmly believe that they have an ethical obligation to disobey rules which are wrong. Not rules which interfere with their "personal comfort or convenience" as Bob suggests, but which they know to be just plain wrong.

 

This is called civil disobedience and it is a respected avenue for effecting social change. These people knowingly disobey rules, laws, and regulations on purpose and in full acceptance of the consequences. Gandhi and Rosa Parks are famous examples, as was the unknown student in Tiananmen Square. Had things gone poorly, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence would have been hanged as traitors, and they knew it.

 

Just because a rule or a law exists does not make it just. Blind obedience is always easier that civil disobedience, but it is not always right.

 

I believe that as Scouters we all have the responsibility to help our nation's future leaders learn to make ethical choices.

[johndaigler 10]

Agreed -

 

Maybe it would help to split the "rule breakers" into two groups.

 

A)Those who don't follow rules because they are inconvenient - perhaps fashion-focused uniform non-wearers fall into this group.

 

B)Those who have made an informed decision to challenge rules based on a right/wrong choice. I would assume these people have considered the potential consequences to their actions. This group might include (Without changing the thread's topic, please!) wearers of the "Inclusive Scouting Award" or a Pack Committee that chooses to have their Cubs wear a pack neckerchief, slide and belt buckle in lieu of the annually rotating Cub accoutrements.

 

I think an important difference is that the B group would be able to explain their choice. You might not agree with them, but they've thought it through and judged the standing rule to be less than best for their program.

 

I'm more comfortable with the B group, even though they may lead me to many more angst filled moments than the A group. The A group doesn't require much thought (because they haven't put much into it!).

 

BTW, did I misread something or was FB being funny in that fuzzy, slightly mocking way I've come to read him?

 

jd

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Jd, I believe that the crux of this matter is the wearing of Scout Socks.

 

A good rule is generally meant for the welfare of those governed. There are notable historical examples where a leader ruled to the exclusion of the welfare of those they governed. They have been given minimal space in the history books probably because of bad PR or maybe so few were allowed to write about them. They usually buried their mistakes.

 

So, BSA rules most likely carry the intent of being helpful. It would be difficult to find a BSA rule that carries the intent of harm.

 

FB

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[Eamonn 61]

I had to smile as I was waiting for this link to open there was an ad that was about how to beat your speeding ticket.

I am willing to concede that breaking some rules or committing some crimes is far more serious than others. A shoplifter and a murderer are not in the same league. However both are in the wrong.

I also believe that the Scout Oath and Law challenge us a little bit more each day and what was our best yesterday needs to be better today.

When I was District Commissioner, I wore my uniform a lot, I wanted to set a good example an example that others could follow so I did everything I could to ensure that my uniforming was correct.

When I was Council Training Chairman, I tried to ensure that I was up to the minute and current about what was happening in each of our programs. The last thing I wanted to do was give anyone the wrong information.

I knew most of those who attended the training's and had a fair idea how much of what was being presented would ever be used in their home unit. I suppose I could have changed the presentation to fit the group. When we got to the methods of Scouting I could have said that you don't have to use the methods that you don't like. But I felt that I was in a position of trust. I was honor bound to present the training as it was supposed to be presented.

While there are times and there are circumstances which may result in us /me, not doing something the right way or result in me breaking a rule.

I may at times try and justify my actions or make excuses. While I have never got caught for speeding and in fact have never had a parking ticket or been arrested.

The other day I had a hospital appointment and found a parking meter outside the hospital I loaded in my quarters, but the maximum stay was two hours. Every other time I have been in and out,but that day I wasn't. It took two and a half hours. As luck would have it I didn't get a ticket. I'm sure if I had I would be expected to pay it and no reasons or arguments wouldn't have made any difference. In my book if I had got a ticket it would have been fair after all I broke the rule and could have parked in the parking garage.

While it is two faced of me I do act a little differently around Scouts and young people than I do other adults. Some of the off color jokes I might tell in the club house are not what I might tell to a group of Boy Scouts.

My reasoning for this is that I don't want to set them a bad example.

I have for a very long time argued that we don't need anything more than the Oath and Law, in order to lead a successful troop. It has been argued that there are too many rules, regulations and guidelines in the BSA, I don't pretend to know all of them, but most times know where to look to find them. We teach Scouts to make ethical decisions by installing in them the Scout Oath and Law which does include A Scout is obedient. Do we need a rule that states that there will be no fighting at Troop meetings?

I have never read that the Scout Laws are listed by relevance or importance, can we or would it be right to choose which Scout Law we are not going to keep?

I just can't imagine any Scouter who was trying to explain the meaning of the Scout Law saying "Sure kind is on the list, but you don't have to keep that one!"

But isn't that what we are doing when we either in word or by action knowingly or repeatedly keep breaking rules - Even little ones.

I can look past the Scouter who bangs his thumb with a hammer and allows the air to turn blue. I would have to have a quiet word in the ear of a Scouter who was swearing repeatedly in front of youth members.

Eamonn.

 

[Bob White 20]

OH PLEEAASSEE,

You think violating a BSA policy or going faster than the speed limit puts you in the same social activist level as Ghandi or Rosa Parks.

 

Who did you think you would actually convince with that?

 

Choosing to ignore a rule or law that does not seek to harm anyone one simply protect property and other people simply because it doesn't suit you personally is just lazy and self centered.

 

 

[Trevorum 24]

Bob, I thought you had invited a discussion about obedience and disobedience. If you disagree with my opinions, there is no need to be insulting. Calling me "lazy and self centered" is neither courteous nor Scoutlike.

 

My comments were very general and I did not refer to any particular rule or law. I specifically excluded cases involving personal comfort and convenience. Further, my examples were just that and I certainly did not invite comparisons or make any allusions to personal virtue. But I suspect you know that.

 

My intent was to point out that there are indeed circumstances in which disobedience is ethical. I wish that the jailers at Abu Graib had been taught that lesson. I believe that 99.9% of our rules and laws are good and just. But not all. Some are just plain wrong. I believe that young people need to be taught to make ethical choices, not just blindly follow others.

 

I am disappointed in the ad hominem nature of your response and I will consequently decline to engage further on this issue. Henceforth I shall take advantage of the forum's "Ignore" feature, which I believe several other posters have recommended in similar circumstances.