Unjust revocations

[Kahuna 172]

BW: You are just arguing the points (and with the people) you wish to argue (with) and ignoring all the others. This is an absolutely pointless discussion.

[Bob White 20]

Molscouter

i can "imagine" any number of things being done by anyone. But surely you are not suggesting that it is Okay to criticize the BSA based on what someone has "imagined"?

 

kahuna,

No I am not and no it isn't.

 

evmori,

I am asking to have a better understanding of where you actually stand on this. Do you agree with the statement that "you knew the rules coming in and if you do not like them you can leave." and no it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have broken any rules.

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

OK, Bob, I'll play. When I joined the BSA as an adult leader many years ago I was given an application to complete. I completed it & signed it. I was advised it had to be approved & when it was I would be notified. It was & I was notified. I was not given a book of rules & regulations. I was given a training schedule. So to answer your question, no I don't agree with the statement. What exactly is your point?

 

Legal doesn't make something unjust. They are about to raise my county real estate taxes by a huge margin. It's legal but not just.

 

And I think Hunt would really like it if you answered his question. That would be the Scout-like thing to do.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle 753]

molscouter, In fairness, I think I see a flaw in your example. What you describe may be false arrest and I believe that is illegal most places. If the officer's radar was not operating correctly, it can be contested in court. If the officer knew no law had been broken but did it anyway, that is another matter.

Edited part: Sorry, forgot to add something. I do see your point, though. In each case the authority (the officer or BSA) uses position rather than merit to force a particular situation on persons not allowed to respond. The flaw I see has to do with legality. The officer may have committed a crime while BSA is within their legal right. However, both use position - and nothing else - to subordinate a weaker party. Some (but evidently not all) people would conclude that is unethical.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Bob White 20]

Now I am confused!

 

I asked evmori "Do you agree with the statement that "you knew the rules coming in and if you do not like them you can leave?"

 

evmori answered "no I don't agree with the statement."

 

But at 12:33 this very day evmori wrote in response to a post about a parent who didn't like the decision of a scout leader

" You chose to put your kid in my unit. If you don't like it you can leave!

 

So I am confused. How is it that it is okay for YOU to say that to a parent and her scout if they don't like your rules, but the BSA cannot say it to you if you don't like BSA's rules?

 

Now do you see why I do not understand where you actually stand?

 

 

referencehttp://www.meritbadge.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=10919#10919

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob says:

 

If it is legal then it cannot be "unjust".

 

Wow. And you talk about "values"?? I am glad you and whatever values you are a "role model" for are nowhere near my son.

 

For one thing, you think slavery was "just" prior to 1863? Now there is a horrifying thought.

[Bob White 20]

You raise a good point NJ one however that could have been made posing a question rather than a slur, but that was your choice.

 

I had not considered going back that far so I will withdraw that statement and say instead....

 

Unjust has not been proven. The rules were known, the membership voluntary, and we agree that the BSA has the right to the action. Leaving only the vanquished responsible for choosing his or her own actions.

[molscouter 10]

Packsaddle, only one flaw?

 

I went to the absurd because Bob's point about if something's legal than it must be just is absurd. NJScouter had a much better and real example. Plessey vs. Ferguson (Separate but equal) brings that concept much closer to our own time. Women were denied the right to vote until the World War I era, legal, but hardly just. The poll tax was legal in many states until the early 60's but one would be hard pressed to call it just.

 

[packsaddle 753]

molscouter, I certainly agree. I have some bad personal experiences regarding similar issues and those memories influence my decision to remain anonymous.

[Hunt 11]

"If it is legal then it cannot be "unjust".

 

While this statement is obviously untrue, it still dodges my question. I didn't ask whether it would be "unjust" for BSA to revoke membership simply for disagreeing with policies, I asked whether it would be ethical or Scoutlike for BSA to do so. I guess Bob simply cannot bring himself to answer that direct question. I can only speculate as to the reason why. To me, the answer is obvious.

 

Let me also, as an aside, quote BSA's explanation of what "obedient" means: "A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them." Thus, a person who expresses disagreement with a BSA rule and tries to have it changed in an orderly manner is obeying the Scout Law. For BSA to punish a person for doing this would be to trample on its own Law. (Note: picketing the Service Center, in my opinion, is not "orderly" in terms of Scouting, but asking questions at high-level meetings is.)

[evmori 11]

Time to focus, Bob. The other thread you referred to has nothing to do with rules. If you read the entire thread, which I'm sure you did, you know my response was regarding another poster talking about a parent threatening to sue the leader. My response was

 

If the parent is making you walk on egg shells then they have the upper hand. I say let 'em sue! I'm not gonna walk on egg shells. You chose to put your kid in my unit. If you don't like it you can leave!

 

I make no mention of any rules and that thread doesn't even apply to this conversation.

 

And just as a reference point, my response was on 9/20/2005 at 1:23 PM not 12:33 PM on 9/21/2005.

 

Your question

 

Do you agree with the statement that 'you knew the rules coming in and if you do not like them you can leave?'

 

has nothing to do with whether I like the rules. It deals with if I knew them when I signed up as a leader. And that I answered.

 

So yes Bob, I can see why you are confused. And it's not the fact you don't understand where I stand, you just don't understand.

 

Hunt is still waiting for an answer.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

ed help me out then. What is the difference between a family voluntarily joinung a unit and having to follow the rules or leav as you said,

 

OR

 

A person voluntarily joining the BSA ad having to follow the rules or leave.

 

You said the first one and you said you do not agree with the second, so please explain how they differ.

 

Hunt

Remove you subjective word of 'scoutlike' and I can answer differently. I do not see how scoutlike enters in to this. The question is can the BSA do it, yes, Should a private organization be able to do it, yes. Whether you bekieve it scoutlike will depend on your position when it happens. If it happens to you I do not think you would see it as scoutlike, Where as if it happened to you I would see it as the BSA's decision not mine and they have the right to their decision.

 

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

OK Bob,

 

You asked

 

Do you agree with the statement that 'you knew the rules coming in and if you do not like them you can leave?'

 

And I answered

 

When I joined the BSA as an adult leader many years ago I was given an application to complete. I completed it & signed it. I was advised it had to be approved & when it was I would be notified. It was & I was notified. I was not given a book of rules & regulations. I was given a training schedule. So to answer your question, no I don't agree with the statement.

 

Let me simplify this for you. When I signed the adult application, I knew I was bound to follow the rules & regs of the BSA. Did I know at the time what all those rules & regs were? No. I doubt any of us did when we signed up. That is why I don't agree with you statement.

 

The response you posted from a completely different site has nothing to do with this thread. All you did was take it out of context. I will not address this again, but ask those who want to to read the entire thread titled "Tenderfoot Physical Fitness Requirement" at

http://www.meritbadge.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1080&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

and come to your own conclusions.

 

Now, back to Hunt's question. Just answer it the way it was posed. Or is your answer anything the BSA does Scout-like?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Backpacker 11]

Ed & Hunt

 

Nice try guys you have Bob backed in a corner so he will just continue to evade your questions.

As others have stated, including BW, "the BSA is not perfect", it makes mistakes and errors just like any other organization, to think otherwise is just not being realistic. Now how they handle correcting or not correcting those mistakes should be the focus. You will never get Bob to admit that any BSA policy is wrong because if they are wrong then so is he, it's like trying to get a staunch Christian to become an atheist, while it may be remotely possible it is highly unlikely.

[Hunt 11]

Backpacker, you are right, and I give up. I'm not going to waste any more time deconstructing Bob's non-answers. He either (a) thinks BSA should kick out dissenters, but doesn't want to come out and say it or (b) recognizes that it would be unethical and unscoutlike for BSA to do this, but doesn't want to say so for some unknown reason. I don't really care which it is.

 

But let me ask this of anyone who cares about this topic: is there a credible account of a person who has had his membership revoked for expressing disagreement with the membership policies in an orderly way? We have heard from some posters that suggestions have been made that this might happen to them if they didn't drop the subject--but is there somebody who didn't drop the subject? Again, I'm not talking about somebody who picketed, or who joined an anti-scouting group, or who made a bunch of inflammatory statements--just somebody who said, hey, BSA ought to change this policy. This would be quite different from the cases of people who went to war with the Councils over some governance issue.