What have you done for me lately?

[Happy Monkey]

I've been trying to think of a way to phrase my feelings on this, but it's hard. I was a Scout for seven years, worked at a camp one summer after that, and attended camp as an adult leader one other year. I loved it, and the views on gays and atheists are a dark stain on an otherwise wonderful program. It wasn't one that came up much, in my experience, though, but when it did it was jarring. One camporee, we were forced to pick a religious service to attend on Sunday morning, and due to family history I picked Catholic. It's the only time I remember ever taking communion, and it felt like a disturbing imposition on a personal issue.

In an organization that in many ways goes out of its way to be inclusive, it is sad when accidental bigotries of history interfere with the good work they do.

[xoxoxoBruce]

More than that, the DOD is MY money. Why should the Boy Scouts be funded by me? If I want to support them I'll give them money.
Don't give me any shit about all the other things the DOD is using my money for, were talking Boy Scouts here.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Pie

But aren't all members of an organization responsible for the actions of that organization?

While that sounds reasonable, you know in your heart that it is not practical when carried too far. Realistically speaking, the larger an organization is, the more likely there will be a disconnect between the actions of an individual and the actions of the organization. I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. But as soon as the organization expands from one to two and beyond, my responsibility for the actions of other individuals in the organization diminishes somewhat. This separation is usually in proportion to my dedication to the organization, the size of the organization, and the importance of the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by Pie

In college, I read a book called "Exit, Voice and Loyalty" that had a few ideas that really stuck with me. If one fundamentally disagrees with the tenants of an organization, one has two options: exit or voice.

If I fundamentally disagree with the tenets of an organization, then how can I really belong? Does my possession of a membership card indicate belonging? What about my name on a roster? What if the organization changes or I change, am I still part the organization?

Pie, I want to explore your statement. Actually, it's not easy for me to agree or disagree with an organization. It is much more natural for me to agree or disagree with an idea, a statement, or for me to express support or approbation for an action. Organizations have ideas, make statements and take actions. if I focus my response on these things, I find I make better, more reliable decisions.

Let me illustrate. I believe in the idea of fairness. I think it's important, and worthy of my support. A different person may also believe as I do. You could say we agree with each other about the idea.

If this other person said "Fairness is important.", I would agree with his statement. This is a stronger sense of agreement, since a statement is a more concrete, tangible expression than an idea.

If this other person demonstrated fairness, I would again approve, and this is the highest expression, the most real manifestation of fairness. Because an idea may be true or beautiful, but by itself, it is inert. Statements reveal more about ideas, but statements can be lies. Actions are the least ambiguous of the three and therefore the firmest foundation upon which to base my decisions.

I have another question. Do you imply that one may either exit an organization *OR* voice dissent? What if I wish to change an organization? Must I leave? What if the changes I seek are best pursued from within the organization? What if it's an organization from which I cannot easily leave? My family? My gender? My history? It is by association with others that makes an organization. And what I think and say and do today reflects on all the organizations of which I am a member. But I am responsible for those thoughts, words and actions, not my fellow members.

I don't see your choices as comprehensive or mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Pie

"Loyalty" in this context is the triumph of complacency over ethos.

Pie, by "Loyalty", do you mean placing greater emphasis on status quo than on principles? What if I agree with most of what an organization stands for, but not a small part? What if I am neutral about some ideas?

Mutliple the detailed decision making process outlined above by the manifold instances for which it would occur in a large organization, like The Boy Scouts of America, in just one day. Or over a career. It is necessary, not complacent, to remain engaged, critical, and open to ensure that the arc of an organization matches the trajectory of one's ethos. It is my individual responsibility to associate with and respresent the many organizations I am a part of. As long as I am paying attention, I'll do that well, and there'll be a fair match. But I believe perfect fidelity is as unimportant as it is impossible. I'd rather we all be paying attention in the present, and see what happens.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

More than that, the DOD is MY money. Why should the Boy Scouts be funded by me?

As much as it is MY money. The statement that the Boy Scouts are funded by you, through your taxes via the DoD is just plain trolling. Puh-lease! Furthermore, our representational government implies that you and I have elected representatives to make these kinds of decisions. If you don't like it, trow da bums out.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If I want to support them I'll give them money.

Do. Or don't. But seriously, you should.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't give me any shit about all the other things the DOD is using my money for, were talking Boy Scouts here.

I reckon there's considerable affinity between the two organizations. They are structured similarly, they share very much the same values, and I believe that the Armed Services recognizes these things. I believe the chance to plant favorable seeds in fertile young minds for the cost of a base-wide drill can be easily justified as a recruiting expense.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by BigV

It is possible to be tolerant, and selective.

Absolutely, it's called segregation. Except for some progroms and inquistions, Jews have been tolerated for most of the past 2000 years. Even in the early 20th century United State, we were tolerated. It was only when we tried to check into certain hotels and join certain country clubs that we found the difference between 'tolerance' and 'inclusion'.

I appreciate the good work of the Scouts. I was a Cub Scout a long time ago. However, as good citizens, the Scouting organization should be the first to understand the need to uphold principals, and one principal of this nation is that individuals should not be forced to have their taxes go to support organizations which actively discriminate against them (except for the armed forces). This includes the use of public resources.

[footfootfoot]

I was a scout for a few years, we met at our local synagogue. I was catholic at the time, and meeting there gave me a lot of exposure to Judaism, which I can say only opened my mind to other ways of thinking and worshipping god. The adults I met who were invovled in our troop, were real mensches, to use a phrase. I'm sure the adults had differences of opinion about many things outside of scouting, but we never cottoned on to that as kids.

The other scouts were really pretty good guys to be around. Probably not as exciting (read larcenous/misdemeanorous) as some of my neighborhood friends, but also not so cliquish or back stabbing either.

I may have stayed on longer, but our scoutmaster left the troop for some reason, I think it was a combination of being married and also because (I think) he felt a number of the parents were not carrying their end of the load. Could be wrong.

In any case no one really stepped to the plate after he left and I really admired him to the point where I doubt anyone could have filled his shoes.

I don't hate anyone, and my intolerance is limited to peoples actions (e.g. letting your dog crap on my lawn and walking away as if you were leaving me a bag of Krügerands) rather than any other defining characteristic.

This non hatred wasn't the result of deprogamming either.

But that was my troop.

At a World Jamboree one time I was asked by my scoutmaster to invite the scoutmaster from another troop on a ballon ride. My scoutmaster was a hot air ballonist. This other scoutmaster and troop was from Arabia. I have no idea what this guy was thinking or what he was about, what kind of cultural worlds were colliding at that moment, but I did sense what i took as hostility or at least contempt. He sat there silently eating a piece of sausage not saying a single word for several minutes. My friend and I just sat there wiating for his answer that we could report back to our scoutmaster. After an extraordinary long silence he fianlly said OK or something to that effect. Probably not as long winded as OK. This was 1972 if I remember.

Whatever, that was his trip.

As far as the us govt fundung the BSA, is that new? I'm not surprised. During one drill at summer camp it occurred to me that the only difference between us and the military was that we didn't have guns. (they were locked up down at the rifle range, and we paid for our own bullets.)

I agree with BigV, the hatred and intolerance is a local thing and was not part of the program when I was there. But that was 30 sumpin years ago.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

As far as the us govt fundung the BSA, is that new?

Not government funding, but use of government resources not available to the general public.

BTW, there are all sorts of cultural cues which can be mistaken. Some cultures avoid eye contact, which makes them appear suspicious. From your description pf the encounter, I can't say if the guy was being rude or just thinking it over. I wasn't there. Of course, 72 was the Munich Olympic bombing, so there might have been tension.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by lookout123

oh wait, there was that time they let us use knives to whittle - should that be deemed as a danger to society?

You left out teaching you to shoot and forcibly crossing old ladies across streets.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

One camporee, we were forced to pick a religious service to attend on Sunday morning, and due to family history I picked Catholic. It's the only time I remember ever taking communion, and it felt like a disturbing imposition on a personal issue.

If you weren't actually Catholic you shouldn't have taken communion (Protestants have a very different view of this one, incidentally).

And yes, that's a big deal, if you're Catholic. Hell, it's a big deal for me and I'm a very lapsed Catholic, to the point where I cannot take communion unless I would re-up.

[Elspode]

Fortunately, Wolf, you needn't engage in ritual cannibalism anymore. You can engage in simple feasting instead.

[wolf]

I prefer leavened. And mead.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

If you weren't actually Catholic you shouldn't have taken communion.

Exactly. I didn't feel like I had a choice.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by BigV

Pie, I want to explore your statement.

BigV, as usual, your arguments are thoughtful and thought-provoking. They certainly deserve a cogent response. Unfortunately, I am heading off on a business trip to Texas in about 20 minutes, so I hope you'll forgive me if I delay my response till I get back (this weekend)?
- Pie (off to meet Emily...)

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by wolf

You left out teaching you to shoot and forcibly crossing old ladies across streets.

violence, sexism, and ageism, if you apply the ACLU's standards. The terms 'ACLU' and 'standards' should no longer be found in the same sentence. The morally just and absolutely necessary fight for equality that started in the 60s is no longer the ACLU's mission, regardless of what they'd like you to believe. They're more concerned now with keeping their leaders rich and their constituents in a constant state of victimhood. If no one's angry at heterosexual white males any more, the fine folks at ACLU have to get real jobs -- and no one wants that.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Exactly. I didn't feel like I had a choice.

When you're a kid, you don't have "choice" in the adult sense of the word. You don't get to pick your bedtime, you don't get to sass your elders, you have to eat your vegetables. If you want to be a scout, you have to do the salute and the knot-tying and the recited oaths -- it's not a social experiment or a venue for children to feel 'liberated.' The religious subtext to scout rituals is kind of like junior freemasonry. It's all pomp and circumstance, not an attempt to convert anyone to Religion X.

Apologies to followers of 'Religion X,' if such a thing exists.

Kids need structure and discipline and routine. If their parents follow a certain value system, kids are bound by it until they turn 18, at which time they are completely free to say, "You guys are full of shit" and pick their own path (and that of their children). /twocents

[Perry Winkle]

The BSA excludes homosexuals? I always thought <i>they</i> were gay.

Everywhere I've lived Boy Scouts are the kids who get ridiculed and beat up on the playground before, during and after school.