There has been a veritable firestorm of "controversy" over the continuing resolve of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude avowed Homosexuals from participation in the movement. What has aroused the public has not been the repeated claim, originating with self-appointed spokesmen for what has been euphemistically referred to as a Homosexual "lifestyle," that Homosexuals were perfectly suited to serve as Scout Masters and Troop Leaders for boys involved in Scouting. Those who flaunt sexual deviancy as a way of life, really do not enjoy much credibility with their more pedestrian neighbors. Certainly not those outside of New York, Massachusetts or California.
What has awakened and alarmed the American mainstream, has been the effort by much of the "Liberal" establishment in academia, the media and politics, to not only echo this absurd proposition, but to employ legal, economic and social coercion, to try to force the Boy Scouts to acquiesce. It has been as though a large segment of the more verbalized Americans have fallen down the Rabbit hole with Alice and dragged the rest of us along to observe this fantastic pantomime.
The arguments being employed by those seeking a forced end to "Discrimination," have involved just about anything and everything that could by a gross stretch appear to have a bearing; everything, except for what is actually relevant. Thus we have been told that most child molesters are "heterosexual"--a semantic stretch that begs the question as to whether it is permissible to define muscular activity with a preadolescent as "sexual." (Since heterosexual males are 30 times more numerous than "homosexual" males, it is questionable what significance the claim would have in any event.) But the issue is not molestation, but guidance--guidance illustrated by moral values and manly example;--and it is obvious that those who openly avow conduct that most of Western humanity considers to be an abomination, offer neither.
We have been told that the effect of such rejection can adversely influence the self-confidence and sense of personal worth of the adolescent with homosexual tendencies. But while the Boy Scouts are taught to perform good deeds, no rational person would define those deeds to include jettisoning one's own morals to make those with lower standards feel better. [Of course, some of those groups now expressing such concern over the "self-esteem" of youthful homosexuals, showed their true altruism a couple of years ago, when they heaped invective and hate-filled rhetoric on the efforts of the Athlete evangelist, Reggie White, to reach out in Christian love to help just such disturbed youths find a way back to traditional values. Those who claim to be seeking kindness, here, have a strange way of showing it. Even in the midst of such appeals to the Boy Scouts, they are hurling the most vicious epithets at those whose only offense is to believe in Biblical teaching or common sense.]
We have also been told that homosexuals are born that way, and that they should be protected--as other minorities have been protected--from all forms of "discrimination." We will return to this argument, and the notion that the civic activities of the Boy Scouts somehow subject them to a politically decreed public policy as to their membership, shortly. Yet the idea that an organization, devoted to turning patriotic boys into decent moral, ethical and patriotic men, should be coerced into hiring men who have publicly renounced a normal male role, to be male role models for boys of impressionable ages--for surely a Scout Master or Troop Leader is intended to be just that--must exceed anything that the fertile mind of Dean Swift ever imagined for one of Gulliver's adventures. Just what do those taking part in this almost obsessive demand for accommodation have in mind?
Have they considered the implications for a group of normal 12 year olds sitting around a campfire on an overnight, when someone asks the Scout Master about the sudden curvature or mood swings of some of the girls with whom they have gone through elementary school; or about how girls and boys will interact in high school, or the pursuit itself, etc.; or why men should respect a chivalric code to be protective of women; and instead of offering some practical advice--perhaps coupled with wisdom and encouragement--the Scout Master enters into a disgusting discussion of what interested him in High School and thereafter?! (We will spare the reader by not speculating further into that.)
It is only by taking the proposed placement out of the context of normal, completely innocent, interaction between man and boy--by ignoring the obvious--that the idea of employing known homosexuals in the Boy Scouts can be made to appear as other than ludicrous. It can have no rational purpose that is not mischievous; and in describing it as merely mischievous, we are being generous to an extreme.
The Boy Scouts Of America exist and flourish because over the decades, they have won the trust of millions of family oriented American parents. In the face of what has happened to other institutions that interact with and influence American children, they have maintained a traditional value system. By contrast, the N.E.A.--by far the largest association of American teachers--has long accepted the corrupt and arrogant notion that their duty is not to the parents who entrust children to them--not to reinforce traditional family values--but to a new ethic, implicitly accepting what was explicit in the Communist and National Socialist versions of Utilitarian Collectivism: That children belong to a collective! Whenever there is a dichotomy between the new Left in American academia and the traditional sentiments and values of American parents, the N.E.A. will be found on all fours on the side of the Left. Indeed, even as we write, the N.E.A. has announced an agenda to make homosexuality more acceptable to American school children!
A review of the content of much of what today's entertainment media has to offer in the nature of children's movies, television and literature, will reveal a similar and fairly consistent leftward--anti-traditional--movement in the values represented.
Putting a contrived Boy Scout controversy into the context of this wider, many front, moral deterioration and assault on family values, the issue becomes more critical than the health of the Boy Scouts alone. The issue has become emblematic of a moral and cultural battle for the figurative soul of America. If even still trusted private organizations may be coerced into abandoning both common sense and morality, we are well on our way to such a fragmentation of the underpinnings of traditional society as to render peaceful redemption virtually hopeless.
This issue ultimately comes down to the question of whether in a supposedly "free" society, where religious "freedom" is guaranteed, families have the right to maintain traditional values. If those in power claim that they do not, then the time for a new American Revolution may indeed have arrived.
To understand the game being played, one needs to understand Fabian Socialist methodology. While the Communist and Nazi road to Socialism involved violence and blood in the streets, the Fabian (the British Labour Party and America's "Parlor Pink") road involves slow incremental steps, each sold from inception as something quite different than it is. The cult of "non-discrimination" is an excellent example of this approach; how it operates, how well it succeeds when those who should oppose it, fail to appreciate the context of issues.
To discriminate has always meant to exercise good taste and critical judgment. Up until the 1940s and 1950s, discrimination was always a virtue, implying use of the higher faculties. Then a great hue and cry went up under the umbrella of "Civil Rights," a demand for an end to "discrimination" based upon race, religion or national origin, in employment, housing or places of public accommodation. And the proponents of this movement employed Fabian techniques to gradually change the public perception of discrimination from acting rationally to the equivalent of "acting unfairly."
Granted, in a free society, discrimination must involve subjective values. People use critical judgment in furtherance of personal preferences. But every intelligent exercise of freedom, involves an act of discrimination: An American discriminates when he patronizes one restaurant rather than another; when he buys one newspaper or watches one TV news program rather than another; attends a particular church, supports a particular political party, courts a particular woman, or--if of the gentler sex--encourages the interest of a particular man. An American discriminates when he moves into a particular neighborhood, buys a ticket for a movie or sporting event, or marries a particular woman. And it is unlikely that anyone denied employment because of the superficial color of his skin, or his worship in a particular mode or disagreement over doctrinal niceties, was ever hurt half so much as the poor girl who had to live all her days a spinster because she happened to be ugly.
In other essays we have discussed the Fabian roots of the American "Civil Rights" movement. (See Creating Hate In America Today, linked below.) The legislation, finally adopted in the 1960s, after a protracted struggle, which added sexual discrimination to the previously proposed forbidden categories, was sold to politicians in Congress on the theory that they were outlawing unfair treatment. In reality, they were restricting the personal freedom of all Americans. An American free only so long as he exercises his freedom in a politically prescribed manner, is hardly free at all. In effect Congress had appropriated an important aspect of the attributes of private property, without compensation and without any semblance of a Constitutional mandate for such appropriation. Indeed, to the extent that the appropriation interfered with the right to reflect religious values in employment and entering into business relationships--which surely must include the right to believe that"true" Faith improves character--it obviously transgressed the First Amendment proscription against laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
Yet so successful was the employment of Fabian techniques in the "Civil Rights" movement--especially in masking the clear interference with religious practice--that when some on the American Left decided on a further extension, even into restricting the freedom of private associations, even into extending the protected categories into sexual deviancy, the general Conservative answer was largely confined to an attempt to distinguish the concept of outlawing racial preferences from that of outlawing discrimination on moral grounds. We witnessed an absurd debate over whether or not Homosexuality was innate, like race--and hence non-volitional--or whether it involved sinful intent. But this argument, both logically and tactically, was fatally flawed--a trap only possible because of the success of the Fabian Left in focusing the debate since the 1940s on the question of "fair" treatment, without ever facing the real question: Where Government is supposed to acquire the power to substitute its values and preferences for those of a supposedly free people, managing their personal affairs on their own property, or in their own wholly voluntary associations.
We have no doubt that there are some people who for one biological reason or another are sexually dysfunctional. (And the existing "Civil Rights" legislation attacks biological discrimination.) We also have no doubt that many involved in asexual activities that simulate the sexual experiences of normal people are simply people who experimented with certain behavior at some time in their life, and fell into a pattern correctly described as "homosexual." (And the existing "Civil Rights" legislation attacks moral or religious discrimination.) Both the innate and the volitional have long been involved in the issue. Both are irrelevant to a proper response to the assault on the Boy Scouts.
When we get drawn into tortured, verbalized "hair splitting," we play into the hands of those malevolent forces that want to change the warp and woof of American society. We need to start with basics, real images and true context--to build on what is unassailable. And it is obvious that there is no legal or moral basis for a Government founded upon a written compact, which makes no provision for such intrusion, to tell a voluntary organization, providing a service to youth whose families want that service, that they must admit, employ or associate with those who have values or patterns of behavior, offensive to those families. We will return to this under "A Moral Or Utilitarian Society," below.
We have discussed taxonomic methodology (specifically the abandonment of descriptive classifications) as a tactic of ideological warfare in a number of articles. To save space, we will merely offer references: [See, The Battle Over Patterns Of Personal Identification and the Leftist War On Social Cohesion, links below.]
If those seeking to undermine a social infrastructure and values can confuse a people's sense of personal identification, they can undermine the moral fiber--the underlying psychological value structure that helps sustain an individual in a course of conduct or system of beliefs. This is what is being accomplished by the substitution of linguistic or geographic terms for terms that identify racial heritage or a long cultured lineage. It is also part of a continuing process by which the forces of the Left seek to instill a sense of victimization in any definable group susceptible to such methodology.
Similarly, if those wishing to make deviant sex acceptable can confuse the nature of what is involved by shifting terminology, it is not surprising that they would do so. Thus they have redefined normal sexuality in its many forms, and abnormal sexuality or asexuality, as different "lifestyles"; reducing questions of the dynamics of God's ongoing Creation to the level of a discussion of the style of house or neighborhood in which one lives! Thus, also, a misappropriation of the term "gay" for conduct that bears no resemblance to the words actual meaning. If Homosexuality is only a different "lifestyle," refusing to hire an avowed Homosexual may be considered more capricious than rational. Again, this is a variety of the same game that is played when the descendant of the Spanish Conquistador is lumped with the descendant of the Aztec serf, under a racially and culturally meaningless term, "Hispanic," where the new identification tends to undermine the pride of each and redefine both into a usable rather than non-usable minority.
Another form of the same process may be seen in a closer look at how, what we described above as the cult of "non-discrimination," was originally promoted. With a staccato iteration of the terms "hate," "prejudice," "bigotry," and the like, applied to anyone who disagreed with their legislative goals or premises, the "Liberals" of the third quarter of the Twentieth Century persuaded a significant segment of the American public that they should feel guilt over normal human preferences.
It is not hateful, nor does it reflect irrational prejudice, for people to prefer the association of those who share a close common heritage, whether of blood or culture, or of those who share a system of beliefs--honor the same "dos" and "don'ts" of life. Yet how often do we hear friends or associates apologize for such preferences as "prejudices," as though there really were something wrong with them. It is no accident that in the assault on the Boy Scouts, you hear an endless iteration of old insults.
Those who want to undermine traditional values have become very adept at the game of shifting terminology to confuse patterns of personal identification or the significance of old patterns of identification and conduct. The motives for such tactics may be varied, but they basically involve the pursuit of power over other people. Whether those playing this game seek that power purely for personal aggrandizement, or because they believe that they know what is best for others, little matters. Do we really care if Lenin was sincere? Confusing identities of persons and images of conduct can be a very effective part of an assault on our heritage.
The significant implication, in imposing politically derived criteria for employment or association, is not fairness, justice or tolerance, but the arrogation of power: The centralization and regimentation of decision making. If Government can tell you whom you must hire or associate with in one setting, it can tell you whom you cannot hire or associate with in another setting. As we observed in an essay on The Social Engineers (link below), the "Civil Rights" revolution in America, telling individuals that they could not exclude designated peoples in a private enterprise, represented the same abuse of power as a Nazi requirement that they must exclude certain people in Germany. And in each case, the suppression of even verbal dissent from the newly imposed values became the order of the day in institutions for public "education."
In each case, property remained "private." Yet the normal attributes of property were appropriated by a central authority claiming a level of power and direct control never previously exercised. The owners retained the right to private choice only to the extent that such choice was based upon priorities dictated by Government. But freedom to act only so long as one acts in accordance with the wishes of another, is not freedom at all.
The implied premise of both the Nazi and "Civil Rights" movements was a Utilitarian one: That the function of Government and Society was to provide the "greatest good for the greatest number." While the Nazis shouted about a "classless, casteless society" and a "Third Reich," American politicians prattled about "Democracy and Social Justice." Each was really talking about a new Humanist Dispensation where:
1. The powers of Government expand, as needed, to accomplish the Will of a Collective;
2. When previously vested individual rights conflict with the perceived need or Will of such Collective, the individual must yield;
3. Media and educational institutions act in concert to instill an uncritical acceptance of the contemporary values of those managing that Dispensation.
America was premised upon a moral rather than a utilitarian philosophy. (See The Moral Bases Of A Political Society, and the Declaration Of Independence, below.) To the Founding Fathers, Government was not a vehicle for the blind imposition of majority views or factional interests, but a compact intended to secure the Natural Rights of individuals to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The idea that Government, whether of the few or many, could decide that freedom of association would no longer be tolerated if exercised to allow unsanctioned individual preferences or to allow parents to restrict the associations of their children--is totally inconsistent with our system. It goes well beyond what was deemed a legitimate power or function of Government. The exponents of an overreaching Government have only been getting away with such intrusion into the lives of others, because few have really prepared themselves for an intellectual defense of freedom. The obvious remedy is to correct that failure.
Many have seen in Hans Christian Andersen's beloved fable, The Emperor's New Clothes, an allegory for the widespread acceptance of the intellectual pretensions of modern "Liberalism": The naked Emperor an obvious metaphor for the intellectual emptiness of ideological poseurs; the crowd of admirers, for their slavish, politically correct, media and academia. But Andersen wrote in the Nineteenth Century, when although there may have been no shortage of sycophants, there were still lengths to which most educated persons in a civilized society would not go. In the Nineteenth Century, a little boy pointing out that the ruler was absolutely naked, might have been "hushed" by one of the fawning crowd; his mental health would probably have gone unchallenged. He might even have woken someone up. But, as we all know, times have changed.
The Twentieth Century witnessed a number of movements, which did not limit themselves to fawning over politically correct nonsense, or simply restricting the freedom of individual action. The Communists and Nazis treated the whole being! It was not enough to do what you were told. You were not supposed to question the wisdom or challenge any part of the dogma. Pointing out the intellectual nakedness of one of those ideas, whose time had come, could result in premature death, slave labor, or at least having your head candled. Is America--or for that matter, the E.U., which has lately embraced its own version of the revolution--going down the same path?
As noted, the N.E.A. has already adopted a plan to sensitize American school children into accepting Homosexuality. With such minds manning the school systems of America, what might a little boy expect, were he to point out in one of those proposed sensitizing sessions, that Homosexuality is not an "alternative life style," but a life terminating, deviant substitute for the natural tendencies by which a tribe, race or nation, proceeds from generation to generation? We earlier witnessed the storm of hate and abuse, heaped upon the great Negro athlete evangelist, Reggie White, when he spoke in favor of a Christian outreach to help Homosexuals who wanted to try to find their way back to Grace.
The Left has taken to calling anyone who challenges the effort to force a public acceptance of Homosexuality a "homophobe." While this writer feels only pity and compassion for any sexually dysfunctional person who does not flaunt his affliction, we have no doubt that this article will be labeled "homophobic." The Boy Scouts have been asked by prominent American "Liberals," to renounce "hatred" and "bigotry," to be not "afraid" of "diversity" or people who are different. More and more the approach is to suggest that those of us who believe there is a meaningful difference between what is normal and abnormal, or good and evil, need some form of "help," or "intervention." We do not deserve to be heard as rational beings.
One of the ugliest examples of this mindset--one not even connected with Governmental action--has been provided by the Commissioner of Baseball, a prissy bully named Bud Selig, who has dealt with politically "incorrect" thought in the Major Leagues. Mrs. Marge Schott, a former owner of the Cincinnati Reds, and John Rocker, a relief pitcher, each made the mistake of trusting a Sports Illustrated Reporter. Each allowed a Reporter to "hang out" with them over an extended period--to observe them in unguarded moments. In each instance, the Reporter repaid their trust by publishing some of their unguarded comments out of context, in an obvious attempt to embarrass them.
The published comments, had not been made for the purpose of persuading anyone to do or think anything. They were more analogous to that innocent little tyke in the Andersen story blurting out the truth, than to anything malicious. But they contained thoughts that might be ethnically offensive, and they were in the view of a "Liberal" media, "homophobic." That was quite enough for the would be Himmler, Bud Selig, who ordered psychological intervention for each. Although a private business, organized Baseball could not, in the view of that loathsome toady, appear to tolerate thought processes offensive to the Fabian establishment.
At the time Andersen wrote, the world still defined Liberals by Voltaire's famous epigram. It was honorable to defend the right of your adversary to have his say--maybe not to defend it to the death, as Voltaire proposed, but at least to accept the fact that everyone did not think alike;-- to understand that it was not your business to try to control private thought processes or to suppress dissent--much less crush traditional morality. Conservative and Liberal, alike, we believed that the age of Inquisition was over.
However clothed in virtuous and high sounding rhetoric, what the Fabian Left offers the modern world is a hideous vision of a collectivist tyranny in which there will be no place for honest observation or guileless utterance--not where it might offend some recognized group that the Left has favored. If they succeed, that innocent lad in the Andersen fable, who for over a century was treated as a symbol of youthful integrity--or rather his real life equivalent in modern America--can expect a quite different kind of attention.
For good or ill, the Boy Scouts have become a symbolic ground zero in the ideological battle of our time.