Ask hard questions, get kicked out of scouts

Upchurch said:
I see that BSA has confirmed that he has changed units.
Click to expand...

I live in a community adjacent to Broomfield. Its' not inconceivable that the kid transferred into my son's pack, although I would have expected an email to the parents if that happened (the announcement was made on Friday, we meet on Thursdays, so absent an email I would not know until later this week). We seem to be a pretty middle-of-the-road, secular group as cub scouts go. Some of the parents are conservative, some are liberal, we all get along.

I couldn't imagine a kid (or parent) getting kicked out of our pack for this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I don't know if they still ban atheists.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. They take everybody else which means that if my atheist kid wanted to join scouts there's a strong possibility he would be discriminated against by a member(s) of a group(s) that howl when people discriminate against them for being who they are.

Go figure.
 
Stout said:
Yes they do. They take everybody else which means that if my atheist kid wanted to join scouts there's a strong possibility he would be discriminated against by a member(s) of a group(s) that howl when people discriminate against them for being who they are.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

Humans generally only care about fairness when it's for them.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Your assumptions are not borne out by the evidence. You know who look like complete twats? People trying to twist this story into an evil overbearing stage mother.
Click to expand...
Sure, okay. But on the topic of twisting the story--what story? If you watched the video without preamble, would you consider it noteworthy in any way? Would you see a story there?

If someone then told you the kid got kicked out of scouts for that, would you think it likely? Would you think it likely enough to actually care about it?

Other than the narrative being pushed by the mom, what's the actual story?
 
jimbob said:
The question about how much of the question was the kids is a sidetrack*. The BSA has confirmed that the cub was expelled from his den.
I'm struggling to see why. I know that the BSA is significantly behind most other worldwide scouting organisations (the UK has dedicated LGBT support, for example) but even so, asking difficult questions should not be grounds for expulsion. Continual failure to pay subscriptions (if you can afford it) or severe bad behaviour, generally persistent would be the only reasons I can think of.

Asking a difficult question (whether coached or not) should not be anywhere near this. As an outsider, it seems that the BSA is a very conformist organisation, in some ways, even more so than Scouts under Baden Powell, who had some quite progressive views for an Edwardian.



*
I could imagine my kids asking some such questions; for example the primary school had a ticklist of features of writing for particular levels, and a couple of teachers wanted the kids to use the highest-level features that they could in all their writing. My daughter disagreed, because she argued that sometime subordinate clauses detracted from the writing. My son in particular, has also been interested in politics, philosophy, and language and again was similarly competent at the same age


ETA: And further to the idea that kids develop at different rates, my ex-wife used to run a local Brownies group (8-10 yr old girls) and she started sanity checking the activities for difficulty, by seeing if our 6-yr old daughter would be able to follow the instructions or find them too difficult. She found that didn't work, and ended up seeing if our 4-yr old son could follow the instructions. If so, then it probably was simple enough for most of the Brownies .

My kids were/are all at the top of their classes in most subjects, but are not prodigies, just pretty bright.
Click to expand...


I can't find any evidence of the hilited ... link ?

ETA :

Upchurch said:
If you challenge the mother's story, that's fine. People who are interested can discuss that. I see that BSA has confirmed that he has changed units.
Click to expand...

On Friday, in response to questions about why Ames was removed from the den, the Boy Scouts of America said only that Ames was now in another unit.

“The Boy Scouts of America and the Denver Area Council are pleased that the family will continue their participation in Scouting,” the statement said.

“We are committed to working with families to find local units that best fit their needs,” it said.

The organization declined to respond to multiple requests for more details about what Ms. Mayfield had been told by the local pack leader.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
You miss my point. I agreee it is an argument from incredulity to say that an eleven Year old couldn’t have come up with that question. My point is it doesn’t matter. Are we really setting out to prove this ? Or are we discussing the likelihood ?
Click to expand...

Upchurch said:
I'm not the one making the claim and insisting it is fact.
Click to expand...

Neither am I.

It didn't seem to me meadmaker was either.

Argumemnon said:
I thought the question was about whether it was likely, not whether it was possible.
Click to expand...

Me too. *shrugs*
 
I am guessing the the BSA leadership here in Denver is just trying to wait this out.

So far, they have not denied anything the mother said, neither have they confirmed anything.

I get the impression that the organization is moving to the left (socially), but is facing quite a bit of internal resistance. They are caught in the middle of social change and division, and don't quite know how to handle it.

Atheism was mentioned a few posts ago. The Cub Scout pack I was in as a kid in the 1970's was very secular, the "Duty to God" requirement was pretty much a rubber stamp. My son's pack today is very similar, they make it clear that the Duty to God thing can be done very much in more of a comparative religion type of thing, and if you don't do it, they just give the kid a patch anyway, I doubt they are the only pack like that.

In effect, many packs allow atheism, but they do it more by looking the other way than by admitting it.

Some packs still require active religious behavior. I get the impression that many other packs are not like this, though.

In some places, it might be hard to find a really secular scout group. I kept my son out of scouts when we lived in Utah for just that reason - every single Cub Scout group in Utah met at a Mormon church. Now in Colorado, he's in a group that meets in a public school.

The big scout camp we go to every summer still has prayers before meals, but they are very strongly non-denominational, no mention of anything more specific than "God" or "Lord", nothing from the bible or any other religious scripture. I have lived among Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs, the prayers used at camp would have been acceptable to any of them, I would guess.

I would guess that the next big change would be to move towards allowing packs and troops to choose to accept atheists (on a pack/troop by pack/troop basis, as they are currently starting to do with girls).

Baby steps. BSA is making baby steps, but that's better than no steps or moving backwards.
 
crescent said:
I am guessing the the BSA leadership here in Denver is just trying to wait this out.

So far, they have not denied anything the mother said, neither have they confirmed anything.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine them doing anything else. Public statements on a topic like this one are just invitations for someone to kick them in the butt. As long as no one is suing anyone, keep your mouth shut and keep it that way.


I've been involved in some conflict resolution with BSA at the Boy Scout level. In my experience, they would avoid taking sides, but neither would they allow a Scout to be kicked out for a flimsy reason. With Cub Scouts, things might be a bit different. You're dealing with moms or dads and small groups. They might give den mothers a bit more latitude in deciding who to keep or toss. If it were just a case of "We threw this kid out because he asked about gun control", I would expect BSA leadership to at the very least put a lot of pressure on the den leader to back down, but I don't know whether, when all was said and done, they would let the den leader decide.

I think there's a bit more to this story, though. It might still involve a den leader who is a jerk, but it isn't a simple case of punishing a kid for asking about a taboo topic, or taking a wrong position on that topic.
 
Upchurch said:
Previously:

​
Click to expand...

A time honored JREF/ISF tradition. Arguing about whether somebody said something. This is far more important than actually understanding the point someone is making.


I believe that kid and his mother cooperated very closely on that question/speech, enough to say that Big Dog's characterization of "feeding him" the question is reasonable. Meanwhile, the core element of the story, the thing that makes it marginally newsworthy, is the mother's claim that the kid was tossed from his den because he asked a question on gun control. I find that claim incredibly unlikely.
 
Meadmaker said:
A time honored JREF/ISF tradition. Arguing about whether somebody said something. This is far more important than actually understanding the point someone is making.
Click to expand...

Arguing about what some said, then 'scoring points' by pointing out OMG FALLACY !!11! Then pontificating about 'critical thinking" while not actually doing any.

Meadmaker said:
I believe that kid and his mother cooperated very closely on that question/speech, enough to say that Big Dog's characterization of "feeding him" the question is reasonable. Meanwhile, the core element of the story, the thing that makes it marginally newsworthy, is the mother's claim that the kid was tossed from his den because he asked a question on gun control. I find that claim incredibly unlikely.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all points.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Arguing about what some said, then 'scoring points' by pointing out OMG FALLACY !!11! Then pontificating about 'critical thinking" while not actually doing any.
Click to expand...

"A very limited number of children that I personally know act a certain way therefore all children act that way" is not critical thinking. It isn't even a valid argument. Why is this controversial?
 
Upchurch said:
"A very limited number of children that I personally know act a certain way therefore all children act that way" is not critical thinking. It isn't even a valid argument. Why is this controversial?
Click to expand...
The only controversy about this that I see is the manufactured one. Pretty small molehill you've chosen to die on today, Upchurch.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Agreed. My third grader could easily have reached that kind of question.

I'm also willing to bet that the parents talk about politics at home. Not necessarily expressing those exact opinions but perhaps discussing the topics.
Click to expand...

Upchurch said:
"A very limited number of children that I personally know act a certain way therefore all children act that way" is not critical thinking. It isn't even a valid argument. Why is this controversial?
Click to expand...

Umm....
 
Upchurch said:
This.



I would guess (and only guess) that the national organization is walking a fine line between not pissing off the various factions involved, especially the local Packs/Troops, to whom they have been transferring more and more responsibility for the hard membership decisions lately. Letting the Pack kick him out of that den fits that pattern. And, honestly, if the den leader is that much at odds with a scout, forcing them to remain together is probably isn't a good idea anyway.
Click to expand...
I looking at this from my viewpoint as a volunteer Scout Leader in the UK.

We have a fair amount of leeway in many aspects, but would be well out of compliance if we expelled someone without good reason - which this would not be. It's not something I have had to consider but the mission statement of the Scouts includes explicitly not discriminating on grounds of political or religious belief, race, gender orientation or sexuality.

Holding uncomfortable political views is not going to be sufficient, nor would talking about them in a question session
 
Maybe they want him out to prevent bullying. Other Cubs in that Den may give him trouble if they now think he wants to punch a hole in the 2nd Amendment.
 
The Big Dog said:
Umm....
Click to expand...


"Willing to bet" != "Those questions weren't written by an eleven year old"

Aside from being an idiom, the former indicates some uncertainty. The latter is declarative.


quadraginta said:
We have it on good authority that kids that age are unconcerned with politics.
Click to expand...
And incapable of writing intelligently about it.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:

"Willing to bet" != "Those questions weren't written by an eleven year old"

Aside from being an idiom, the former indicates some uncertainty. The latter is declarative.



And incapable of writing intelligently about it.
Click to expand...

Might want to take another look at the two emails I just juxtaposed....
 
quadraginta said:
We have it on good authority that kids that age are unconcerned with politics.
Click to expand...

A kid might not know nuthin' bout the this or that with politics but he may know that a lot of people want to take away his daddy's guns."Hey Ames. Are you one of them? I might wanna fight you."
 
bruto said:
I don't know the whole story here, but would put in two thoughts:

First of all, whether the parent put the kid up to it or not should not matter if it is a legitimate concern. If a child put forth a question or a comment based on his religious indoctrination, it likely would not raise an eyebrow. ...
Click to expand...


Skeptic Ginger said:
Touché.
Click to expand...


Wouldn’t that be a classic “tu quoque” there?

Surely everyone here, irrespective of their general political views, would disagree with the woman’s apparent use of her child to push her own views? (If indeed that is what she was doing -- and whether that is what she was in fact doing is a whole different discussion, one that I’m not getting into here).

I’m sure we all (or most of us) are not in favor of how parents tend to indoctrinate their children with the religious views that they (the parents) subscribe to. Surely the lesson here ought to be that one should not be doing this at all, in any form? Rather than arguing the exact opposite, that because parents tend to do this when it comes to religion, it is therefore acceptable to do this when it comes to politics?


ETA : Perhaps what I’m saying has already been discussed in one of the posts here? If that is the case, I apologize. It’s not as if this thread, in itself, holds any great interest for me : although I do enjoy seeing “critical thinking” in action, in the various discussions here, even when the subject matter itself holds little interest for me. So I’m afraid I’ve only skimmed through some pages and some posts here, and not gone through each and every post in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
Wouldn’t that be a classic “tu quoque” there?

Surely everyone here, irrespective of their general political views, would disagree with the woman’s apparent use of her child to push her own views? (If indeed that is what she was doing -- and whether that is what she was in fact doing is a whole different discussion, one that I’m not getting into here).

I’m sure we all (or most of us) are not in favor of how parents tend to indoctrinate their children with the religious views that they (the parents) subscribe to. Surely the lesson here ought to be that one should not be doing this at all, in any form? Rather than arguing the exact opposite, that because parents tend to do this when it comes to religion, it is therefore acceptable to do this when it comes to politics?


ETA : Perhaps what I’m saying has already been discussed in one of the posts here? If that is the case, I apologize. It’s not as if this thread, in itself, holds any great interest for me : although I do enjoy seeing “critical thinking” in action, in the various discussions here, even when the subject matter itself holds little interest for me. So I’m afraid I’ve only skimmed through some pages and some posts here, and not gone through each and every post in this thread.
Click to expand...

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't a tu quoque.
 
johnny karate said:
Pointing out hypocrisy isn't a tu quoque.
Click to expand...


What bruto had said there was "whether the parent put the kid up to it or not should not matter if it is a legitimate concern". And Skeptic Ginger seemed to agree with that point of view.

Surely whether some parent puts some kid up to simply reflecting their (the parents') views should always matter? Even when it is a legitimate concern?

bruto's post didn't seem to merely criticize the hypocrisy, it actually seemed to excuse the parent's conduct (in egregiously influencing the child's POV -- provided that is what she actually did) on those grounds.


Edited :
Or perhaps you're saying that is all bruto meant to convey, although they didn't actually spell it out in so many words? (And that Skeptic Ginger understood what they were trying to convey? Based on personal knowledge of bruto's thoughts, basis past interaction with them, despite the fact that this was not actually spelt out in the post itself?) Is that what you're trying to say?

If that is indeed the case, then I'm afraid it was I who missed out on that nuance.
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
What bruto had said there was "whether the parent put the kid up to it or not should not matter if it is a legitimate concern". And Skeptic Ginger seemed to agree with that point of view.

Surely whether some parent puts some kid up to simply reflecting their (the parents') views should always matter? Even when it is a legitimate concern?

bruto's post didn't seem to merely criticize the hypocrisy, it actually seemed to excuse the parent's conduct (in egregiously influencing the child's POV -- provided that is what she actually did) on those grounds.


Edited :
Or perhaps you're saying that is all bruto meant to convey, although they didn't actually spell it out in so many words? (And that Skeptic Ginger understood what they were trying to convey? Based on personal knowledge of bruto's thoughts, basis past interaction with them, despite the fact that this was not actually spelt out in the post itself?) Is that what you're trying to say?

If that is indeed the case, then I'm afraid it was I who missed out on that nuance.
Click to expand...

Yes, basically I am indeed saying that if we are going to allow that kids learn values, including religion and politics, from their parents, then while we might prefer that kids act with independence and autonomy, the issue of how much or how little part a parent took in the formulation of a question should, I think, matter less than whether the question was a reasonable one to ask.

I don't consider that a "tu quoque" because I would not consider it particularly out of line for a Catholic or Buddhist, or whatever, child to ask questions with a slant derived from their religion. If a Mormon child asked a liberal legislator about policies on abortion or gay rights, I would expect the legislator to try to answer them, and consider an angry intervention by someone else to be inappropriate, even if it is considered likely that the child is parroting religious indoctrination rather than independent thought.
 
Chanakya said:
What bruto had said there was "whether the parent put the kid up to it or not should not matter if it is a legitimate concern". And Skeptic Ginger seemed to agree with that point of view.
Click to expand...
For the record, touché in my post referred to the hypocrisy.
 
Scout was on the Samantha Bee show tonight - ended it...... and she suggested seeing if he could make a Republican (being kind) cry next time the opportunity came up!!!!!!
 
fuelair said:
Scout was on the Samantha Bee show tonight - ended it...... and she suggested seeing if he could make a Republican (being kind) cry next time the opportunity came up!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Everybody wants to make the kid a tool.
 
Noztradamus said:
Everybody wants to make the kid a tool.
Click to expand...

Meh....he probably got paid for the appearance. Splashing his name all over the media is pretty bad....but if he's getting paid for it, why not?


I'll have to see if I can find more about it. I can see all sorts of interesting issues possibly popping up, depending what he said.
 
Meadmaker said:
Meh....he probably got paid for the appearance. Splashing his name all over the media is pretty bad....but if he's getting paid for it, why not?


I'll have to see if I can find more about it. I can see all sorts of interesting issues possibly popping up, depending what he said.
Click to expand...

He told her he would try!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom