Tag Archives: homosexuality

Scouting is OK and doing fine.

The Boy Scouts of America filed for bankruptcy some months ago, and I’d began this article as a project to discover what went wrong. They have gotten mountains of bad press amidst land sales and lost membership, and there is a class action law suit over sexual abuse. Everything about this suggested that scouting had lost its way, and I thought I explore what. My sense after some searching is that scouting is doing fine, serving its members despite its troubles and growing in part because of them.

Baden-Powell in Africa his Stetson The Boy Scout retained much form Baden-Powell, including the hat.

The basic idea of scouting was to provide an environment where boys would d become men, learning to be prepared, and be helpful, decent, active human beings. Some details have changed, but the goal remains, and I’d say they are reasonably successful. But that’s getting ahead. I’m better off starting my story by describing two army scouts, one British one American, who met fighting the Boer wars in the late 1890s. The American was an Indian-raised cowboy, a US army scout named Fredrick Burnham. He joined the British in South Africa as a scout against the natives and Dutch (The Boers). He was good at it, gaining valuable information, leading raids, and blowing things up. Such activities made him a hero of boys of a previous generation, but leaves current sensitivities a bit on edge.

The other scout was his boss, lieutenant general Robert Baden-Powell, an excellent scout himself, but also and organizer, artist, writer, speaker, and spy. He’d run intelligence in India, and now ran it in Africa, spying on the Boers and leading others like Burnham to do the same. Burnham taught Baden-Powell survival techniques he’d learned from the Indians, including “woodcraft”. Baden-Powell brought organization and a positive, faith-based attitude towards difficult situations; “Be prepared”

Frederick Russell Burnham with his signature Stetson campaign hat. The hat and curchif would become part of the Scout uniform, and the woodcraft methods of tracking and survival would become central to Boy scouting, both in the US and in England.

Baden-Power also wrote a book on military scouting illustrated with his own drawings, it became a hit with young, male readers in turn of the century England. Retiring from the military, Baden-Powell noted the enthusiasm among boys and put together a military-style scout-camp for boys on Brownsea Island, UK. From there, scouting grew: in numbers, in properties, and in scope. Baden-Powell devised the oath: “On my honor, I will do my best; To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.” It was the embodiment of a positive, active, masculine life — but it appealed to women too. A few years later “Girl Guides” were founded in England; Boy Scouts and “Girl Scouts” were founded in the US as independent, parallel organizations. So what went wrong?

It is clear that some of the military aspects of scouting are out of tune with current, non militarism, but that’s not something quite new. Perhaps, I thought, the current problems came because of gender dysphoria – -that active masculinity is somewhat out of fashion, as is the white-supremacy at the heart of the Boer war. Then I thought that, perhaps the problem was when the organization accepted women, and thus it wasn’t for boys, uniquely, or that it had dropped the physical requirements, or the belief in God. What was left. Perhaps the problem was poor financial management, or that sex-laws had become a minefield with #metoo and transgender. These are all problems, but not exactly new, and I no longer see them as problems with Scouts as such.

Boys still want to be active and relevant, and seem to still take to woodcraft even if they realize that woodcraft isn’t likely to be that useful. It is enough that woodcraft is sometimes useful, and that it’s fun and provides a training for other things. Though boy-girl interactions are fraught, I no longer see it as a problem. Scouting provides an avenue to maturity, and If the particulars of maturity have changed, the general attraction has not. That numbers are down is not a problem either. Some religious groups have left, particularly the Mormons, and some scouts have moved on to other activities: soccer, tennis, band, etc. Even with these other avenues, there are still some 4 million Scouts in the US including Scouts BSA and Girl Scouts. After 100 years, that’s not a failing organization.

A lot of the bad press comes, I think, from the fact that things changed fast in the US, far faster than in British version of scouting. In Britain, gay leaders were accepted in the 1980s; the US didn’t accept them till 2015. British scouting accepted girls in the 1970s, the Boy Scouts didn’t admit them till 2018, and didn’t accept transgender members till 2019. It was all so sudden. US scouting changed their name then and dropped the belief in God, also the need for wood lore and swimming. The rapid changes left older leaders dazed, but were probably for the best, and over-due. The law suits and bankruptcy also seems to have caused more trouble to the leaders than for the scouts; scout troops were always fairly autonomous.

As for the military aspect, some of it remains, and I get no sense that it’s resented. it seems to help distinguish the Boy Scouts (Scouting BSA) from the Girl Scouts; Girl Scouts focuses on economics and social activism, while Scouting BSA has been able to use the military preparedness to position itself as the more rugged alternative, and the more masculine, even if it accepts girls.

Some in management would like to go further away from Badden-Powell’s Boer-war outlook, to be more like the Girl Scouts. In Market Week, the Scouts’ director of communications claims to have …”positioned BSA to be the primary internet organization that serves diversity and deprived communities.” That sounds like a me-too to Girl Scouting, and the Girl Scouts have filed suit to prevent it.

In terms of predators and law suits, while one could claim that scouting should have done better, I think the troops themselves did well, though the upper management fell short, and tried to protect their own. Still, it is something of a defense to say you tried your best in an uncertain situation. There are no claims that leaders encouraged pederasts. The only claim is that they did not do enough to prevent them. While not everyone did their best, many did. Pederasts are drawn to kids organizations, and there is always be a tension between inclusiveness and protection. I’m reminded of the Be Prepared song (Tom Lehrer). it seems appropriate to the new scouting.

Robert Buxbaum, February 12, 2021

Republicans vs conservatives

Most of the great divides of the 1800s pitted conservatives against Republicans. This was the Divide in the Mexican civil wars of the 1800s, and there were several; it is the divide in the South American wars of Independence, and in much of the US and European political debate of the 1800s as well.

Ned Flanders, cartoon conservative from "The Simpsons" He's generally well meaning and helpful, but also a bit creepy.

Ned Flanders, cartoon conservative from “The Simpsons” He’s generally well-meaning and helpful, but also a bit creepy.

In general, the difference between conservatives and republicans is that conservative governments favor religion, and religion-based leadership, while republicans favor individual liberty. In 1800s Mexico, conservatives backed two emperors (Maximilian I and Agustin I) and Santa Anna, the ruler who suspended all personal rights an ignited the war of Texan independence. Conservatives generally favor the religion of the majority: Protestantism in England, Catholicism in Central and South America, Judaism in Israel, and Islam in most of the Muslim world. This tends to annoy the irreligious and minority religious populations, who tend to become republicans. Cinco de Mayo celebrates the 1862 victory of Mexican republicans over the French-backed, conservative Maximilian I, at the battle of Puebla. The US Civil War, in essence, pitted the irreligious, industrial, republican north against the conservative, evangelical South; slavery is in the Bible so it must be good.

Conservatives usually favor government actions against sin in all it’s forms: miserliness, drunkenness, drugs, pornography, wild music, money-making, and freedom as such. Conservative-ruled countries have generally had anti-blasphemy laws and enforced “blue laws”, restrictions on business on holidays. Republican governments have few, or none of these. In pre-revolution France, the penalty for blasphemy was death, just as the Bible mandates. This changed when the republicans came into power. In England, private blasphemy was prosecuted as late as 1977. Similar penalties are still in force in Iran and other conservative Islāmic countries. Many US states still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sunday, for similar, conservative reasons. Conservatives usually favor sexual morality laws, putting strong restrictions on homosexuality, abortion, and divorce. In England, amicable divorce wasn’t legalized until 1930, and homosexuality was illegal until 1970. In the US, sexual laws are a fairly bizarre mix, in my humble opinion, the result of republicans, liberals, and conservatives making inelegant compromises.

In republican democracies like modern-day France, Holland, and Germany, sexual immorality laws are more lax than in the US. Republican governments strive to protect the rights of the individual; among these their right to property and to a fairly unbridled pursuit of pleasure. Republican countries tend to suffer from (or benefit from) significant income inequality. People can become rich due to hard work, talent, luck, or birth. And they very often become arrogant and obnoxious after they become rich — and sometimes before — to an extent that bothers conservatives and liberals alike. People can also become very poor: from laziness or bad choices, or just from bad luck or having been born to the wrong parents. Conservative and liberal elements then strive to help the very poorest, providing them with food, money and basic housing — generally achieved by taxing the rich. This is good in moderation, but taken to excess, this can lead to dependency of the poor, and redirection of the rich into less-productive fields like politics and the church. Conservatives very rarely leave a good pathway for the poor out of dependency, nor have they found a way to keep scoundrels out of the government and the church.

Scrooge McDuck. he'd likely be a Republican, if only to protect his wealth.

Scrooge McDuck, banker, railroad tycoon, steel magnate; he’d likely be republican, though not likely conservative. Motivated by money and power, he may do good, but not in any direct way, usually.

At present, the US Republican Party, the GOP, consists of approximately equal halves conservatives and republicans. That is, GOP leadership is currently an approximate balance between kindly folks like Ned Flanders who would rule by the Bible, and an equal number of rougher individuals, more like Scrooge McDuck who would rule by money.  in a sense, this is a wonderful compromise as the excesses of each group reins in the excesses of the other. In another sense though, the balance between conservatives and republicans is an ungovernable mess that leads to regular de Condorcet failures. I’m not sure how this will play out in the 2016 elections.

Fortunately, not all irreconcilable differences are as irreconcilable as one might think. Many de Condorcet problems are solvable by compromise, or by the effects of time. Compromise between charity and commerce can produce the best of all worlds, a major theme point, as I understand it, of Dickens’s Christmas Carol.

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 20, 2015. I use these essays to refine my thinking — here, more than usual. Any help you can provide will be welcome, feedback, corrections, comments. I’m trying to figure out what I, myself think. The divide between Conservatives and Liberals produces some of the most wonderful quote – exchanges, e.g. between Churchill and Attlee in 1950s England. Liberals, and I have not quite made up my understanding here, seem like a sort of like conservatives in that they believe in wealth redistribution, but without the guidance of a church, or church-based morality. At some point in the future, I’ll hope to arrange my thoughts about them, and about the difference between liberals and democrats.

Grammar on the high seas, pirate joke

Grammar Pirate by Scott Clark, 2013.

Grammar Pirate by Scott Clark, 2013.

Pirate grammar has a special place in American English. The father of our country’s navy was likely John Paul Jones, a pirate; he redesigned our ships, captured some 16 British merchant vessels in the Revolution, and helped supply Washington’s army with guns and powder. Jean Lafitte, pirate hero of the war of 1812, may have been Jewish! The state of Michigan officially celebrates “Talk LIke a Pirate Day” September 19, the day before national pickle day.

No other country states in their constitution that a purpose of the government is to give out letters of marque — that is to mint pirates. Piracy is a great way to fight a war –severely underestimated. ISIS does it quite well. By taking supplies from the other side you weaken them while strengthening yourself. Assuming you need the stuff, you avoid the cost of manufacture, shipping, and logistics, and even if you don’t need some of it, you can usually trade these items you for items you need. It’s a great way to make foreign friends and allies. Ben Franklin sold our pirates’  captured stuff for them during the American Revolution making himself and us better liked — we had no direct need for red uniforms, for example. Pirates should not kill captured merchant seamen, I think, but ransom them , or put them to service in the cause. The Somali pirates do this; not everyone is impressed. Pirate beards may encourage bravery by showing commitment to a revolution. Here’s a song relating beards to piracy: mannen met baarden (men with beards). Bet your aaars, it’s in Dutch.

Pirate grammar is a dialect, not a sign of poor education or lack of success. I suspect that pirate grammar is more useful than standard for referring to people on the fringes of society. For example, how would you introduce a patent lawyer who’s a some-time cross-dresser? It’s simple in pirate-speak: ‘Ms Smith, pleased to meet Johnson, arrrgh patent lawyer.’ Pirate speak can also avoid the uncomfortable he/she by use of the pirate “e”: ‘E’s a scurvy sea dog, e is.’

Robert Buxbaum, July 2, 2014. I think I’ll be havin’ a rum now, and toast to Arrrgh country.

On gays, God, and owning Canadians

Here’s a great letter to Dr. Laura. I don’t know what Dr. Laura said to get this guy started, but I’ll answer at the end as if it came to me. I get good comments too, but mine are more thoughtful, and  less funny.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian.)

And my answer is: You CAN own a Canadian: go ice fishing with the right bait; put out some Molson’s or Labatt’s while playing the “Hockey Night in Canada” theme. They’ll come, eh.

Just because the Bible allows something, that doesn’t mean it’s a general good, and just because the Bible opposes something that doesn’t mean it’s a general bad. Generally, it’s not up to the individual “believer” to correct things by smiting. Besides, figuring out what God really want’s of each person is really tricky. He appears in a cloud, as it were (Ex. 16:10; Deut. 31:15, etc.). I’d say it’s up to the preachers to try to understand individual people and help them change for the better, ideally he (or she) first improves himself (or herself). Bible literalness isn’t a great approach to religion, I’d say, not science, not threats, nor miracle stories, but real concern and a fine example. Failing at self-improvement (and I usually do) I’d leave it to God to do the smiting. He does an awfully good job of it in the Old Testament and you wouldn’t want Him to lose the knack. R. E. Buxbaum, April 28, 2014.

It's sometimes hard to guess what God wants if you just read the Bible. Gary Hart, BC.

It’s sometimes hard to guess what God wants by just reading the Bible. Gary Hart, BC.