Boy Scouts - Good or Bad?

[jmangum]

From time to time I have read some forum posts that make reference to Boy Scouts - mostly in a negative manner. I was wondering how everyone feels about them.

I know that it can sometimes be a downer to be out on a trail and come across a herd of noisy teens, but on the other hand I am in full support that gets teens off their butts, out from in front of the TV and Play Station and in to nature.

[ck_1]

Yesterdays EV Trib had an article about the scouts in which it revealed that troops in a few geographical locations (can't recall which) were adopting a non-discrimination policy.

Tempe8 - you're more than welcome to applaud the scouts for discrimination.

I chose not to.

[mttgilbert]

Marianne Jennings wrote that article. I'm not her biggest fan, but it was a very interesting article. Many of those chapters of Boy Scouts are adopting new policies due to pressure from economic sources or because of court rulings specific to geographic areas. While I believe the scouts should adopt a more tolerant policy, I think that factioning the entire group is going to hurt the boy scouts more than help. The BSA has enjoyed a solid reputation since its creation. with different parts of the country practicing different policies, it takes the cohesion out of the group. As Emerson said "A foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". The BSA’s variable policies make them appear weak as a group.

[sherileeaz]

I believe that as long as the parents raise their child and the Boy Scout leader/club teach the boy scouting ways, then it's fine. As long as the leader does not inject "his" views/morals/religious beliefs, then it's a worthy club for a child. I am in favor of the Boy Scouts when they stick to what it's intended that way no child is in a situation that he can be influenced negatively. The parents know the intent of the organization and can choose to have their child join or not. Unfortunately, in reality, we all know that isn't usually the case--ie: the camp that the counselors encouraged fights and bet on them. As one person put it here, it's not the Scouts, it's the leaders. I believe the parents must keep an active role in their childs life and if a scout leader shuned the parent, I'd find a new troop to enroll my child in. This doesn't just apply to Boy Scouts but to any organization that a child is involved in. (my 2 cents worth)

[olesma]

First of all - yea for you sherileeaz - I agree 100%. Well said.

Now for a longer post I have been working on that refuses to post:

As Emerson said "A foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". The BSA’s variable policies make them appear weak as a group.

Your comment only emphasizes what I was saying earlier about why the LDS church is working to supplant the BSA with programs that equal the former strength of the BSA. The BSA has been weakened by this whole brouhaha - and I don't see a way for it to effectively recover and maintain its previously strong core.

As philosophically weak as moral relativism is, divine command theory has just as many loose ends

Both have their loose ends in the view of the other. Moral relativists generally see the mere concept of divine command as foolish and non-scientific. Whereas those who believe in divine command cannot see where moral relativism has any ground to stand on at all - after all, all morals originate with from Diety.

As with most arguments of a philosophical nature there really cannot be an argument as such between the two sides. Opposing positions can at best come to an understanding of where the other is coming from. At worst you get, in effect, wars (words or weapons - either way it is basically two groups who cannot arrive at a consensus). It is terribly difficult to convince anyone of a highly religious nature that they are foolish to believe in something that has no scientifically provable basis. To someone of a materialistic nature it is very difficult to convince them of something they cannot emperically prove. The two viewpoints are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled through normal dialog.

Tempe8 - you're more than welcome to applaud the scouts for discrimination.

I chose not to.

I'm not so sure that an opinion formed on the basis of divine morality can be so easily cornered as being discriminatory in nature. Certainly from a social/empirical viewpoint it is, but from a religious perspective I don't think its so clear cut.

I think that it is more appropriate for a church to have certain types of exclusionary (or discriminatory if you want to define it that way) viewpoints than an organization like the BSA (asside from the obvious issue of divine command).

A religion can reach out to individuals who may not be allowed to participate in the religion (and here we are not limited to homosexuals or other lifestyle choices - they could be people who are interested in joining the religion, who the religion would like to bring in, but for whatever circumstance are prohibited from actively participating in the religion) and keep them in contact with the organization and work with them to overcome or at least supress thier deviant behavior (again - deviant meaning contrary to the religions principles).

The BSA does not really have that type of flexibility. It is kind of like the military - you're either in or you're out. There really isn't much middle ground - nor do they have room for middle ground. Their stance on homosexuals is - in that regard - exclusionary and could be defined as discriminatory. It is unfortunate that they had to make that decision - but, as I and others have already stated, it was a practical decision. Even more unfortunately I think it was a choice of "Die quickly now" or "Die slowly later."

I don't want to call what they did discriminatory, but I have to agree that it certainly looks and feels that way. I'm not sure there is a better term for it, but, I do think they chose the harder row to hoe, and I think they did it for the right reasons - even if others don't agree with their decision.

Then again, I'm biased. I like the BSA and I have many fond memories of bieng a scout, and always looked forward to my son becoming an Eagle if he chose to do so. Now, I'm not sure he'll even get the opportunity.

Maybe it would have been better if they were a religion.

[mttgilbert]

Both have their loose ends in the view of the other

This is not what I meant. Actually each is a weak argument standing on its own ground individual of the other. Moral relativism is weak (all by itself) because it would lead to an anarchist state in which there was no law, ethical or otherwise. Since humans tend towards law and order in general, this puts a crimp in the lax social order of moral relativism. Divine command theory is weak (all by itself) because it asserts that God defines what is moral. If God designates what is "good" and "bad" then the only thing holding together what we think of as "morality" is the arbitrary will of God. This would mean that if God told us that torturing innocent children was morally OK, then not only would it be all right but also it would be your obligation to torture young children. I know this sounds far fetched but the scripture actually backs it up. There have been times when Gods "degrees" have been reversed for various reasons.

I'm not saying your faith is unfounded or anything, all I'm saying is that looking at it from an objective standpoint. OUTSIDE the realm of either argument, neither on holds any water. (The arguments I gave here only scratch the surface of the numerous refutations of both arguments).

Getting to the point; the argument made was the following:

(1) Either moral relativism is correct or divine command theory is correct.

(2) Moral relativism is obviously not correct.

(3) Therefore Divine Command theory is correct.

The first premise contains the fallacy of bifurcation. That is presupposing that the only correct answer lies in the two options presented, this is also known as a false dichotomy.

If any sort of understanding is to be reached, we have to stop relying on arguments like this. The problem is not moral relativism or divine command theory, its people’s absolute unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to consider that there may be alternative equitable solutions extant.

[olesma]

If any sort of understanding is to be reached, we have to stop relying on arguments like this. The problem is not moral relativism or divine command theory, its people’s absolute unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to consider that there may be alternative equitable solutions extant.

That is basically what I was driving at. There are also some interesting combinations of the two extremes that provide their own problems. Hence my comment on the inability to arrive at consensus (or as you put it - consider an alternative equitable solution). Either way it involves looking past your own beliefs and looking for a solution that meets the needs of everyone involved (or at least meets the greatest amount of needs).

Looking at the political and cultural landscape of today - I'm beginning to believe that consensus as such may never occur. In fact, it seems to be getting snippier and more mean spirited across the board. Politics especially.

By the way:

Man you guys fire me up! I LOVE reasoned and cultured debate! There is nothing like exchanging ideas with someone when it doesn't devolve into a flame war.

Of course - this all has nothing to do with hiking - but darned if it ain't fun.

[ADGibson]

I hate when I spark a huge discussion like this. It always happens.

My philosophy:

Do as you will. Harm no one.

[olesma]

I hate when I spark a huge discussion like this. It always happens.

My philosophy:

Do as you will. Harm no one.

Don't sweat it. Nobody was yelling at anyone and it was a generally well educated discussion. No flame wars here.

I've been burned by some pretty nasty flame wars before - only lightly singed on HAZ though. I tried to keep my opinions to myself, but found that it just wasn't as interesting that way.

Keep the postings coming - we all learn from a little controversy now ant then.

[Abe]

Bragging! My kids.

http://hikearizona.com/dex2/album_pic.php?pic_id=81

I have always been a firm believer parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children. My family, although not perfect, have been blessed. My eldest girl is married, has a real estate licences (I like to throw Edward Abbey at her), works, is buying a house, and her and her husbands goal is to start their own business, possibly in Cordes Lake. My oldest boy is presently on leave in the United States Marine Corps in route to MCAS, Yuma, Arizona. Both are hard core conservative in their ideas, more so than I. And as far as my two younger ones, 12 and soon to turn 6, both are rowdy as all get out. They will keep me young at heart.
None of my kids have been in the boy scouts or girl scouts. My wife is the kind, gentle, understanding parent and I am the mean nasty parent. And we have always been there for our kids.

Sorry, I am really proud of my kids; however, in short, I am indifferent to the boy scouts, I believe it is a matter of choice for kids and parents. As far as troop leaders teaching your kids there own values, well, you will get that anywhere, schools, coaches, even their best friends. Frankly, it is a never ending story full of ups and downs when raising your kids, and when you sit at the table for dinner and one of them comes up with something off the wall, you ask them, "Where the heck did you get that at?!" And discuss it.

No, I have nothen against the Boy Scouts, the Mormans, or humanity for that matter. It is a matter of choice and responsibility.

[mttgilbert]

Bravo Abe!

Way to cut through all the rhetoric.

I have to ask you though, you seem to have the same sort of family values as the BSA promotes, and you (and family?) seem to be active outdoors. Why do you choose not to be part of the Scouts organization? (Please don't get me wrong here; I admire your independence from social organizations, I am just curious)


That gives me an idea. Does being part of the boy scouts actually diminish the wilderness experience? Seems to me it might. After all one of my favorite things about the wilderness is that I don't have to share it with a big group of people (usually...) perhaps associating wild-craft with socializing is stripping the participants of one of the best functions of wilderness. That is, solitude.

Just a thought...

[sherileeaz]

That gives me an idea. Does being part of the boy scouts actually diminish the wilderness experience? Seems to me it might. After all one of my favorite things about the wilderness is that I don't have to share it with a big group of people (usually...) perhaps associating wild-craft with socializing is stripping the participants of one of the best functions of wilderness. That is, solitude?

Just a thought...

I think that it doesn't because they are learning skills that they can use later in solitude with new areas to explore.

Just my thought.

[mttgilbert]

Right, sheri, thats the idea, but how does it actually work out in practice? Do those people go on to understand how to enjoy the wilderness in solitude or can they only enjoy it with the social aspect, or does it even matter, I guess they enjoy the wilderness in groups in the same way I enjoy it alone. I just assume my way is better! See now were comming full circle.

[sherileeaz]

Right, sheri, thats the idea, but how does it actually work out in practice? Do those people go on to understand how to enjoy the wilderness in solitude or can they only enjoy it with the social aspect, or does it even matter, I guess they enjoy the wilderness in groups in the same way I enjoy it alone. I just assume my way is better! See now were comming full circle.

comming full circle...Ok I haven't gotten dizzy yet, Son!

I think they can enjoy both if they so desire.
Viewing this from my perspective, I like group hikes but look forward to the day I can venture out on my own and feel I have all the skills necessary. I will also be a better judge if I like social hikes or solitude ones, or *gasp* BOTH! ;)

Matt, do you feel I deprived you from going into BSA?? *busting out laughing* Is THIS the real issue? fess up!

Sherileeaz aka Matt's HAZ Mom (or did he disown me???)

[Abe]

I have to ask you though, you seem to have the same sort of family values as the BSA promotes, and you (and family?) seem to be active outdoors. Why do you choose not to be part of the Scouts organization? (Please don't get me wrong here; I admire your independence from social organizations, I am just curious)

Matt, thats a difficult question to answer. Perhaps I will entertain you with it at the HAZ BBQ.

[Chief D]

Do those people go on to understand how to enjoy the wilderness in solitude or can they only enjoy it with the social aspect, or does it even matter, I.

Like any large group you will have some that go either way. Some will take up hiking on there own and others will just perfer the company of friends. Some will not like being out doors at all ( Ill never understand them). My son is a scout and really enjoys the outdoors. He likes hiking with the troop or just he and I alone. I'm glad we have the scouts because we never would have ventured out on our own.

[tinyelvis]

this has to be close to the most ridiculous post ever...for those of you who stayed on topic and actually debated the question, bravo.
it's sad that this forum had to be used as a soap box to electronically broadcast personal agendas and philosophical debates of Gods existence and morality.
some people hike to get away from all of this crap. next time, how bout taking your nose out of your textbook and sticking to the question at hand.

by the way, i think the boy scouts are great.

[Thom]

These are some of the few groups left that teach kids such lofty life principles as: integrity, leadership, honesty, trust, goal setting, respect, teamwork, leadership (have I missed anything?)

That's a good list, but if you wanna get specific...

"Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful,
thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."

Those are the twelve points of the Scout Law. And they're something most of the kids (at least in my experience) benefit and better themselves from. Sure, in a good-sized troop, you'll have a few boys who don't care to learn any of those values... And you'll get those horror stories about child molesters signing up as leaders... But you'll find bad apples in most any barrel you look.

For the most part, the Boy Scouts of America is a superb program, especially when you're talking about appreciation of the outdoors. Noisy kids? Sure. Why are they noisy? They're loving the outdoors! They're soaking it up, getting it in their blood. They're having fun with friends, out in nature... Yes, such a better place to enjoy than sitting in front of the PS2, or later on tripping out at raves or binge drinking at the party dorm or lord knows what. I can speak from personal experience... My time as a Scout got me addicted to nature. There's no place I'd rather be than outdoors. (Well, when it's 115 degree weather, I prefer the indoors... But I'd love to be outdoors and rid of the valley heat. ;-) )

I'll tell you soming else... One of the rules of camping as a Scout is to "make the campsite look like Scouts were camping there"... meaning, make it look cleaner than you found it. The morning they leave a spot, they'll line up arms' reach from each other and police the entire area two or three times. Heh, sometimes it was pretty annoying to have to do that, especially when we knew we'd kept everything up off the ground, in Mr. Trashcan or something... But guess what's the first and last thing I do now when I go camping with friends?

In my opinion, BSA is a great organization. If you have something against them, that the organization is too conservative or discriminatory against some group or another, that's fine. You don't have to join, and you don't have to enroll your kids. But I believe doing so is nothing but beneficial to the youth (and heck, the adult leaders too) and to general awareness and respectful handling of nature.

[Thom]

I know one thing. They are downright horrible at Fossil Springs, they trample every thing in site and leave fire pits full of melted plastic. It seems to me that at least one troop would take the initiative to clean up. I guess there is too much to pack out.

Ugh... Are the scouts bad about that out here? *grumble* Almost makes me wanna sign up as a leader, get them into shape.

[Thom]

That gives me an idea. Does being part of the boy scouts actually diminish the wilderness experience? Seems to me it might. After all one of my favorite things about the wilderness is that I don't have to share it with a big group of people (usually...) perhaps associating wild-craft with socializing is stripping the participants of one of the best functions of wilderness. That is, solitude.

Hmm... First of all, though troops can post some large membership numbers (Mine maxed out at about 20 kids... I'm betting that's small compared to some out here.) all twenty or fifty kids aren't together all the time. So long as you have a buddy, you can hike about where you want within reason, and when there's not a specific trip agenda (i.e. trail hike, canoe trip) that tends to be the case. And even the buddy system is usually less strictly enforced on more experienced scouts.

But to answer your question... Perhaps Scouts might not get the opportunity to experience full solitude while they're in the program, but it certainly doesn't leave them needy for a group. The last time I went camping was only with one other person, and the same will be true for my next time (next week). I'd go camping by myself sometimes, if I didn't live several hours from any good spots.

[Thom]

Hmm... I've read the whole thread and I decided I'd put my 2¢ in on the "big issue"...

Our wives would love for us to get involved with scouts...we've talked about it several times...and can't...on principle. We don't agree with the Scouts policy toward gays. It's not right, and it's discriminatory. I know, I know, they are a private organization and can set their own rules, and that's their choice. But I have a hard time with the idea of supporting an organization with that type of attitude toward people.

I'm very torn about this issue myself. On one hand, I commend that the BSA has actually taken a stand on a matter of personal beliefs--not religious beliefs so much as a belief in something being acceptable or not. I'm not dogging on homosexuals... I'm just saying, it's somewhat reassuring to see any group take a stand like that on any matter theses days.

On the other hand, I think the choices they've made (against homosexuality, and though less publicized, atheism/agnosticism) have stripped the organization of its universality, and IMO even gone against the last point of their very own Scout Law: reverence. Reverence was taught to me as adherence and respect to my own religious beliefs (as you'd expect), but just as important, as a respect for the beliefs others hold, however different from my own. Tolerence, I was taught, was a very major part of reverence.

My verdict? I disagree with the policies BSA has taken. I would much rather see Scouts aligned to instill kids with societal ethics, rather than specific religious morals. I'd like to see a group that preached "do unto others" regardless of what the kids believe or who they worship, if anyone. And of course, outdoorsmanship should remain one of the major areas of focus.

But, despite their policies, I would not refrain from signing up to lead if I got the notion to. When and if I have kids, I will sign the boys up, and I will lead. All things considered, I believe the good still far outweighs the bad.

And to those who've expressed interest in leading were it not for their policy on gay leadership: don't let that stop you. That decision was made at a very high level of the organization, and I doubt the sentiments echo all the way down the chain.