Replies

Setting aside whether it was correct or not to change the Council name, your analysis of how how the Council Directors measure up against the twelve points of the Scout Law simply based on their vote to change the name is nonsense.

How does that vote deem them not "kind" or "reverent"?

Perhaps one or more believed that the change was right -- but knew it would be met with objection. Wouldn't that make him "brave"?

In short, personal attacks on the Council Directors based on a decision that has valid arguments on both sides is neither helpful to the discussion, nor Scout-like.

"kind" - The PC agenda has fostered more unkindness than almost anything I can think of. If the directors think that they are being kind by being PC, then they are mistaken.

"reverent" - I mean reverent, not in the religious sense, but in revering history and its prominent figures.

"brave" - It's not bravery when you know the legions of the PC army are with you as your allies. Those that stand against them are the brave ones, but they are apparently in the minority on this board.

"In short, personal attacks on the Council Directors based on a decision that has valid arguments on both sides is neither helpful to the discussion, nor Scout-like."

You are correct, and I wrote it in the heat of the moment, which was a mistake. However, the reasons given for the change are hollow, which is infuriating. One would expect better from one of the few remaining organizations that has a set of decent values.

What is definitely not Scout-like is not being honest about the motives behind the change and making the change sub rosa. If they were honest and forthright, it would make it much more palatable.