What have you done for me lately?

[Griff]

The Boy Scouts want to limit membership while soaking up everyones taxes. Sorry, that don't fly, get off the teat. I say the ACLU can hound them until they stop using public schools for their meetings as well. Once they get their hands out of the cookie jar, I'll defend their right to freedom of association.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by Griff

The Boy Scouts want to limit membership while soaking up everyones taxes. Sorry, that don't fly, get off the teat. I say the ACLU can hound them until they stop using public schools for their meetings as well. Once they get their hands out of the cookie jar, I'll defend their right to freedom of association.

Now that's what I ment to say.

[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.

[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...)

[Pie]

Okay, I’m back from Te-has. Everything is bigger in Texas; even the cockroaches. :shudder:

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

One needs to look at the purpose and scope of an organization. If I belong to the American Automobile Association, I don’t expect them to have a view on Social Security, or gay rights. If belong to AARP, they might legitimately have an organization-wide view on the former, but not the latter. If I were, say, a retired person, and had a view that was divergent from my parent organization, I would have to sit down and assess the level of divergence, and the importance of that divergence. If my views were only slightly askew, or I didn’t think they were that important (to me or to society), I might let it slide.
Otherwise, I have two options, as I enumerate previously. Publicly voice your disapproval, or leave 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.

Of course individuals are responsible for their own actions! That’s why they are responsible for ALL their choices, including their choices of association. I can’t hang out with racists, not criticize their views, and then say, “Hey, it’s cool – I’m not a racist myself!” I’m not saying one is responsible for all the views of everyone in the organization – that would be impossible. But you are responsible for auditing the group-wide charter, platform or dogma. (Yes, this does apply to religions, too.)

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?

That’s the heart of my argument! If you “fundamentally disagree,” you can’t belong. If their views change, I need to re-evaluate. If my views change, I also need to re-evaluate.

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.

True. Actions are all that count. Stripping an Eagle Scout of his rank and association for being an atheist, or gay? That’s a pretty lousy action. Saying you’ll do it again, and it’s the “right thing to do”? That’s an egregious statement. Believing that homosexuality is incompatible with being a “moral” person? Repulsive idea. Just like that gang of racists, I can’t hang out with these folks.

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 was phrased as an OR choice in the text to which I was referring. Doing your damnedest to change an organization from the interior is a most respectable way of dealing with such a dichotomy. That’s how I deal with being a citizen of the United States of America. I’ll voice my opposition to what’s currently going on as loudly and as often as I can. My other choice is to exit; I’ll do that only when I’ve exhausted all venues to affect change from my current position.
Of your three examples, I would class two as red herrings – gender and history are facts, not mutable opinions. The first is legitimate. Yes, if my brother is a fascist, and I can’t argue him out of it, I would have to think about whether or not to continue the relationship. (I am currently in a somewhat similar position, though not with my brother.)
(Or perhaps you can't leave the relationship. You can certainly cross them of the list of people you like and admire!)

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.

But organizations do engage in actions. The various political parties engage in actions. The NRA, NAACP, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Catholic Church, the AAA – all engage in societal and legal actions as part of their charter. I’m not asking for an investigation of everyone who has ever been a member – I’m asking for an investigation of the organization itself. Do they represent your beliefs? Do they go against your beliefs?

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?

Then voice your opinion about the points you disagree on! Tell them you are a long-standing member that loves the Society for the Preservation of Domestic Aardvarks, but you don’t like their treatment of Spiny Echidnae as third-class citizens. Make your mark! Write to your Senator. Show up for the rally.
I was trying to illustrate the difference between blind loyalty and true loyalty. The former says "My group, right or wrong!" The latter says "We've got some issues here, folks. Doesn't anyone else see this?" Love it enough to want to change it for the better.

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.

I think we really are on the same page, BigV. My only comment is that I have certain lines I don’t cross. Bigotry in any form is one of those lines. As far as the BSA goes, it's not the bigotry of a few radical members. It's enshrined in their nationwide charter. Unfortunately, that smirch sullies the vast, mostly guiltless majority.

If I had a friend that had crossed that line, I would first try to change their viewpoint, but if they held firm to their position, I would terminate the friendship. I treat organizations the same way. I expect my friends I respect to treat me the same way. If I’m bone-headed about something, argue with me about it, for Pete’s sake!

- Pie

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

I prefer leavened. And mead.

[elSicomoro]

I think the BSA has every right to have exclusionary policies. But as an Eagle Scout, their stances on atheism and homosexuality sadden me, and I refuse to have anything to do with them anymore.

[mrnoodle]

The amount of money wasted by our government is obscene. That list would be 500 pages, with footnotes and appendices. Both parties, all branches. Every representative from every district has favors to pay off. Some of those favors have been paid off continuously for 50 years, but have never been stricken from the balance.