I wonder if this post belongs over on the Patio. Maybe it does, though I'd have to pretty it up a little first. But let me get it at least written now, and think about where to post it later.
When I was out hiking with Debbie last week, at one point she started talking about her daughter and son-in-law and their family (two little boys). And somehow the topic of the Boy Scouts came up. Or maybe we mentioned the Boy Scouts first? (It's hard for me to remember exactly.) Anyway, Debbie said that her daughter and son-in-law had decided explicitly not to let their sons join the Boy Scouts.
"Gosh, why not?" I asked.
As an aside, I myself was never in Scouts, and I was kind of bored by it when Son 1 and Son 2 were involved. But they seemed to enjoy it more or less. Besides, there's a difference between not interested and forbidden.
"Homophobia," she replied.
I had no idea what she was talking about, but made a mental note to check later. And according to this article in Wikipedia, at least today, it looks like the Boy Scouts have lifted any ban on gay Scouts or gay adult leaders. So I'm still not completely sure what she meant. But maybe there's more than this, somewhere else. I didn't spend a lot of time on the research, honestly.
I was silent for a while as we trudged up the hill, and then finally asked, "Is this because they don't want their sons exposed to bad influences, or because they don't want to give money to organizations they disagree with?"
"I'm not sure. Probably both. I think really they just want to live consistently with their values."
At that, I stopped saying anything more. I reminded myself that I never cared that much about Scouting in the first place. I reminded myself further that, even if I thought it worthwhile to point out the weakness in this reasoning, there was nothing to be gained by pointing it out to Debbie because the decision had been taken by someone else and she had no responsibility for it.
But it irritated me. Not that I hold any special brief for the Boy Scouts, but I do hold some kind of brief for logical thought. And this ain't it.
As I see it, there are two possible cases: either the programs, skills, and training offered by the Boy Scouts have no value, or they have some (positive) value. Arithmetically speaking I suppose there is a third case -- viz., that the value of their programs, skills, and training are negative (i.e., that these things are overtly harmful). But practically speaking the "negative" case can be handled under the "no value" case.
In Case 1, where the value offered by Scouting is zero (or negative), the parents would decide against it not on the grounds of "homophobia" but on the grounds that Scouting as a whole was worthless (or harmful). This is not what the parents said.
In Case 2, where the value offered by Scouting is positive, I would expect to hear some discussion of trade-offs: On the one hand our boys could learn how to go camping and build fires, but on the other hand they'll be exposed to this or that opinion that we disagree with. And then there might be room for a further discussion about how heavy each side of the balance really is.
Are your children really more likely to adopt the values they clearly learn from you, their parents, every single day at home; or the values they might possibly hear from their den leader once a week?
For that matter, how likely is it that the opinions of the Scouting central leadership are actually reflected in the local groups?
Briefly, is there a real problem here, or only an apparent one?
And if Debbie's daughter and son-in-law truly believed they were giving up something important or valuable by giving up Scouting, … wouldn't they have talked like this? Wouldn't they have wrestled with the decision? On the other hand, if they thought it worthless, why make such a big deal over it? Why not just say, "Scouting? Naah, why bother? Such a waste"?
Of course I never talked to them directly about it. But I heard in Debbie's explanation no recognition that there might be any complexity to the decision. And this puzzles me.
The thing is, surely it would have been educational (at the very least) for Debbie's grandsons to study camping and fire-building under people who thought differently from their parents.
For that matter, since it is a simple fact that there are people in the world who disagree with their parents, surely it would have been valuable for these little boys to learn from an early age how to handle differences of opinion.
Since real life does -- in fact -- require trade-offs, surely it would have been valuable for these same little boys (when they are old enough) to hear their parents explain this one particular trade-off to them. They could pick up the idea and apply it in other cases. They might see that the world is not a perfect place, but you can still make a life in it anyway.
Also, if they were to come to feel affection for a den leader who taught them valuable skills but whose opinions were different from theirs or their parents', they might learn that human beings can be precious and irreplaceable even if you disagree with them about this or that particular topic. That notion used to be one of the guiding principles of Liberalism, once upon a time.
Of course the whole discussion was second-hand. But it disturbed me all the same. Maybe the daughter and son-in-law actually agree with me and their opinions just got garbled in transmission. That would be a pleasant thing to believe, if only I could.
Or maybe not. The world, after all, is not a perfect place. But you can still make a life in it anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment