GaHillBilly

Bob, you're baiting, but I'll rise to it anyhow! You wrote, "Which of thse practices do find impossible to be mindful of GaHillbilly?"

First, LNT is not Leave Minimal Trace -- that would be LMT -- it's Leave NO Trace. In English, "no trace" is NOT the same as any of the following:

- "little trace"

- "minimal trace"

- "minimized trace"

- "reduced trace"

- etc.

Rather "leave no trace" is logically and linguistically IDENTICAL to "leave no indication whatsoever of your passing".

LNT is EITHER (take your pick) a marketing slogan that every one 'knows' is not really true, like the old Pepsi slogan, "Pepsi. The Choice of a New Generation" OR it's meant literally, but interpreted insincerely. Either way, I don't like it. Trustworthiness is certainly not compatible with insincerity, and I don't think it's compatible with Madison Avenue implicitly deceptive marketing, no matter how commonly accepted that is.

But, the problem is not just a philosophical or ethical one.

Many of the rules present in the document FScouter are ones I've long followed, even without benefit of LNT or OC. Most of these rules could just as easily be derived from the Outdoor Code. But, some cannot, and it's those that worry me.

Here's an example from the BSA document FScouter referenced:

#6 Respect Wildlife: "You are too close if an animal alters its normal activities."

So, let's return to your bait, Bob. You imply I can't follow those rules, but let's see what you say.

If you tell me you CAN enter the woods, and comply with that rule, I'm going to tell you -- and be able to prove in any wooded area around here -- that you are an ignorant Scouter.

If you tell me you CAN'T follow that rule, then you've gone a long way toward proving my point: where LNT ethics make sense, they are not different from OC ethics. And where LNT adds something, what it adds, excludes Scouts from nature.

So, take your pick, Bob.

Am I correct?

Or are you ignorant?

GaHillBilly

Hey All;

Recently completed an OLS weekend. Too my surprise it was much more helpful than my prior encounters with Council training had been: not perfect, but surprisingly good.

But, I ran into a couple of situations where we were told that XYZ was THE policy, and what we MUST follow, primarily in the wood tools and LNT sessions. I know that these requirements are not in the Scout Handbook, and careful searching has assured me that they are not in G2SS either.

All the instructors were Wood Badgers, and I gather that these standards were ones they'd been taught there.

Here are my questions:

1. Are there any other authoritative documents that determine such things, for example the length of a knife a boy can carry, or can we take it all with a grain of salt, and establish our own troop policy, within the limits of the G2SS bold items (thx Bob White!)?

2. Are there any non-documentary methods, within either the Council or the BSA, for establishing policy in such areas?

3. Does Wood Badge commonly function as National's backdoor method for inserting undocumented policy into Council and District operations?

4. Is there any practical way to get around the conflict between the absoluteness of LNT teaching and the 'wink-wink' actual practices of fire building, cat holes, and the like?

5. Is there any AUTHORITATIVE documentation concerning what is required for awarding and removing the Totin' Chip and Fire'm Chit?

There were numerous other 'requirements' and practices taught at OLS that are not present in the listing at Scouting.org, in G2SS, or in the Handbook. There are conflicts, with respect to the "Chip" and the "Chit", even with the Scouting site which does not mention LNT, and the cards themselves which require subscription to LNT.

GaHillBilly

Mini-rant: As I've noted before, I don't like LNT because it's impossible, if taken literally, which means that we're promising to do what we know in advance that we cannot actually and factually do. So, any such promise has an embedded intent to take it 'figuratively' and interpret it 'liberally'. The Outdoor Code is far better written, because it's feasible to actually keep it.

It really bugs me that there are so many areas of 'say one thing; do another' in BSA practice. It especially bugs me that some of these conflicts are a result of the adoption of principles in LNT that are in obvious conflict with much Scout practice, both with respect to individual troop practice, and with respect to various MB and Advancement requirements.

I didn't say anything when the LNT instructor talked about recent campouts and campfires he'd participated in, where their ACTUAL practice -- while not abusive IMO -- clearly violated the rather extreme 'no fires unless you pack your fireplace in and out, and cut no wood' LNT practices he recommended. This sort of hypocrisy seems to have become so embedded in the BSA that these guys don't even notice any more.

sheldonsmom wrote:

"Yes, there is some disrespect but rarely to my son anymore. He proved his worth....the hard way. The skills the boys are drilled in here, first aid and emergency preparation escpecially, have been demonstrated. Our boys no longer ask why we need first aid training."

That's great. And, I know that other troops exist where that's true. But, the problem is not only that our troop is not -- and has not -- been that way, but that apparently many, maybe even most, troops are NOT drilled in those skills. Many Scouts in many troops possess 'advancement check-offs', not skills.

"Little Sioux is VERY fresh in our hearts and minds here. The medal my son wears was EARNED not for calling 911 but for trying to revive his friend who was killed by a tornado in front of his eyes. That heroism award is not a reward but a reminder of how fast your life can change."

In a way, you are making my point for me: real exposure to real adversity has persuaded your son and his fellow Scouts that real skills are what they need, rather than just the 'check-offs' from summer camp or merit badge colleges that are so common here.

"My son believes in all the ideals of the Scout Law and Oath. He may not always acheive them, but he tries. Can we ask for more than that?"

No. But I think that is just what I am asking for: real believe in those ideals, and real pursuit of them.

And, when bogus ranks and badges are awarded and bogus skills accepted, and when the camping and outdoor experience is so padded and 'hand-railed', we are teaching disbelief in just those ideals your son is pursuing.

"If we cannot believe in the ideals we teach our scouts, why are we here?"

Why, indeed?

Thanks, Eagle92. I'll try to pick those up on Ebay once I get back from camping this weekend.

GaHillBilly

I know this is off topic, but can someone tell me where I can find out more about the "urban Scouting of the 70's"? That is the era which produced many of the Scouters I'm dealing with here. I've already discovered that most of them understand Scouting to be what they experienced, and whatever that was, it's not what is found in the manuals or B-P or elsewhere.

It would help me a lot if I could get a clear picture of what sort of Scouting they experienced.

GaHillBilly

What's ironic in all this debate about energy policy, is that both left and right agree on many things that should be done.

Right wants less foreign oil use.

Right wants to cripple or weaking Arab economies supporting terrorists.

Left wants reduced carbon footprint from transportation

Left wants reduced carbon footprint from energy production

Answer #1: biofuels

Hopefully, we'll get something more efficient than ethanol, but both sides like efficiency. Who doesn't like efficiency? UAW and US auto lobbyists, because US automakers have preferred inefficient vehicles.

Answer #2: alternative energy, like wind, solar, tide pumps

Who doesn't like this? People bugged by whump, whump, whump sounds at night.

Right wants better national security

Left wants technology for all

Answer: Government network program, like the Rural Electrification Administration, enforcing IPv6, exit filtering of IPs (no spoofing), subsidizing net based work at home programs and network programs, especially in low income and rural areas. (Reduces carbon footprint; foreign oil use, etc.) Subsidize or grant favorable tax handling for relatively secure and cheap network appliances (IE, Linux based internet browsers based in pumped up 17" or 19" LCD monitors with built-in routers -- probably $250 or less each in 100,000 quantities. Enforce IP filtering at US border routers, so that spoofed IPs mostly blocked at US borders. (PS, enforced IPv6 with enforced autoblocking by ISPs of zombies could largely end spam and hacking over night. ISP's can't do it themselves, because people would whine . . . but if they all HAD to do it, they'd love it.)

Who would object? Microsoft, because they aren't cheap or secure, and because they have no business plan for Internet appliances. Some Linux weenies because they are knee-jerk anarchists and libertarians. Secret porno users because it would make their habit harder to hide from Momma.

I could go on, but there's area after area where the same basic program or action will deliver results desired by both right and left. I can't even begin to imagine why these things aren't being pursued. I'm guessing that the answer -- right & left -- is "Lobbyists".

GaHillBilly

"We considered going to New Mexico, especially as some of our leaders have private property out that way, but in the end it was decided we would be setting a poor example for the youth (Scouts and our young women) by avoiding the law like that, at least until we've made an effort to comply and/or correct the situation."

I would encourage you to reconsider -- not about camping, but about what constitutes a poor example of citizenship.

The simple fact is, even good well-written laws tend to assume a simpler world then the one that actually exists. And, most laws aren't that good, much less well-written. Anyone in business has had to choose to ignore laws. Anyone paying complex taxes has to guess at what the law is -- even IRS counselors don't know. Some business people have even been in situations where the ONLY choice was WHICH laws were to be violated, not WHETHER, because the laws were contradictory.

Your Scouts are going to have to live in a country with many bad, or unenforceable, or selectively enforced or even concealed laws. Help them to learn to do that ethically, and to understand that legality only partially overlaps morality. Sometimes, what's legal is wrong. Sometimes what's right is illegal. That's the truth, and one too few adults grasp.

I realize that, for adults who are "rule followers" this truth bends their minds till they hurt, but truth is truth, like it or not. Legally avoiding application of the law to yourselves is a freedom we sometimes have in this country, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so.

GaHillBilly

BTW, if you want some incentives to think hard about this, here are two:

=> If you EVER buy anything mail order or over the Internet, you are legally OBLIGATED to file a personal State Use Tax return on those purchases. (And, once you file, if Texas is like GA or TN, you'll get automatic audits and assessments in any month or quarter in which you do NOT file, or in which you file a $0.00 return.)

=> If you -- or a troop or church group -- washes a car or some cars, and the water runs off your property, you are in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, and subject to fines up to $10,000 for a first violation. This is true in all 50 states. These laws are mostly not enforced this way, but if I take pictures, and take them to the Texas state's EPA affiliate, they WILL cite you.

If you've done either of these things -- failed to file, or washed with run-off -- you are an unconvicted (presumably) criminal. No if's, and's or but's -- you ARE! Ignorance is NOT a legal excuse.

"In Maryland, state park regulations require 1 adult leader for every 10 youths for all activities except water related when 1 leader for every 5 youths is required."

It's probably worth checking out . . . some regulations are promulgated that have no legal basis. Of course, the ranger can still arrest you, and it will take a lawyer and $$$ to prove that he did it without a basis. And unfortunately, the ridiculousness of a requirement is no evidence that it is not an actual law!

Here locally, I've been told that in Georgia State Parks, I and the Scouts with me can be arrested for walking in the woods off trail, and that people are allowed ONLY on trail or in the developed camp sites.

If you think I'm making this up, here's the number for Cloudland Canyon State Park: (706) 657-4050. I think it's "0#" for a live person. I even called the regional director who hemmed and hawed and mumbled, but then basically affirmed what the ranger had said. Neither of them would cite a law or reference, but both were quite offended when I asked for one! Neither could tell me whether I would, or would not, be arrested if I stepped off the trail to pee.

In the Cherokee National Forest, there are several sign boards which publish detailed explanations / regulations concerning HOW to camp in undeveloped areas. Near two of these sign boards (less than 500' away) are new signs along the roadway which say, "Camp in Designated Areas Only".

I suppose that if we only camp on concrete and only walk on asphalt, we'll come closer to "Leaving No Trace", hey?

By the way, I discovered that many of the newly closed areas are awaiting trails due to be completed sometime in the next 10 - 15 years. What's the hold up? Because of rescue and handicap access requirements, the trails must be leveled and a minimum of 8' wide, costing $1,000's per foot! Man width trails, which could be finished quickly and cheaply, are verboten!

At this rate, we'll soon see safety belts and outriggers required on kayaks, silencers required on rifles and shotguns, non-locking carabiners forbidden, and match boxes with attached fire extinguishers! No doubt ropes will have to be certified as to stiffness, so that they cannot be accidentally formed into a noose. While we're at it, since knives and hatchets do so much damage to forest trees and human tissue, they will to be serialized, and sold by licensed dealers, And, since "cotton kills" (or so I'm told by many very authoritative BSA 'experts'), we'll have to pass fabric inspection stations on entering outdoor recreation areas, unless the TSA can come up with some remote scanners that will do the job.

Sounds like a blast! (Oops, sorry - forgot about hearing loss -- I meant a "Sounds like a quiet toot!")

GaHillBilly

For those that asked . . . I haven't been in Scouts long enough to know the camps. From what I can find out, there's enough year-to-year variability to make it uncertain what you'll encounter in any give year or session.

I HAVE encountered Scouts who've acquired MBs from both Sidney Dew and Skymont, but who have a total absence of the required skills. I no longer assume that an MB from either camp is any indication that a Scout actually possesses any of the skills required by the MB. However, I gather that the same problem exists with most Scout camps.

GaHillBilly

I couldn't help but note that knowing knots was sorta #1 on the list of useless skills . . . because the lack of knot knowledge has been a pet peeve of mine for years and years, long before I entered Scouting with my son 2 years ago.

I learned a few odd-ball knots, working around farms as a boy. I mastered some more basic knots years ago, climbing and camping in high school -- bowline, prusik, sheet bend, clove hitch, water knot, Swiss seat -- and have used them ever since. When doing plumbing work, I can remember repeatedly having to re-tie pipes my partner couldn't tie to the truck rack. More times than I care to remember, I've had to retie other people's gear in the back of trucks and trailers, because I could and they couldn't. I've had to cut painters off canoes and boats because most adults (including quite a few SCOUTERS) know nothing but repeated half hitches and granny knots. I've had to retie canoes and kayaks because those in them didn't know how.

Packages, truckloads from Lowes, boats, canoes, kayaks, bundles of paddles or sticks or poles, ladders, extension cords, tree houses, and more are likely to be part of many adults lives . . . and good knot skills are helpful in each and everyone of those.

Since becoming a Scouter, I've learned a few more really good knots: round turn w/ 2 half hitches, taut-line hitch (or the midshipman's variant), trucker's hitch, versatackle, icicle hitch, and plank hitch . . . and I've used every single one in non-Scouting activities.

I think the reason Scouters find knots useless, is that most Scouters don't know the knots well enough to USE them appropriately. I've watched experienced Scouters struggle to apply basic knots successfully. That's just plain STUPID! No wonder the boys can't use knots properly and don't know them well. But, the problem is NOT the requirements, and it's NOT the boys.

The problem is that most Scouters can't teach the skills well, because they don't 'own' those skills in the first place.

There are, in my opinion, two reason for this.

First, Scout skills are taught as a rank check-off, rather than a skill a boy should master and use.

Second, the average adult's life no longer includes many of these skills, with the result that most Scouters will have to work long and hard to actually master these skills.

There may be some useless skills still taught in Scouting. Probably "lashing" falls into this category, since lashing as a camping skills is totally incompatible with LNT, and often incompatible with even more reasonable camping ethics.

But, most of these skills -- first aid, land nav, knots, fire building, cooking -- will be of use to American adults during their lifetime IF they actually learn the skills. And, if you want people to actually ENJOY nature, as opposed to enduring it as check-off, or exploiting it purely as a giant jungle gym, the nature knowledge is basic.

But, to teach these things well Scouters have to

1) Admit* to the BOYS what they suck at, but commit to getting better;

2) Deep six the show-boat approach to 'skills' as a parlor trick. If I see one more Scouter demonstrating their 'mastery' of some flavor of the 3 second one-hand bowline, I'll think I'll throw up! That is NOT a skill!

3) Master the 1st Class skills AS SKILLS, not tricks or check-offs;

4) Learn to USE the 1st Class skills themselves;

5) Interest themselves in the skills (which will usually result in a desire to learn and improve them), since it's almost impossible to teach well what bores you!

* When I was a teen, I hated phony adults with phony skills who insisted that pretend along with them that they knew something. What I've learned as an adult, is that many (maybe most) teens tolerate honest adults who teach what they can, admit what they can't, and work to get better and do better. This apparently creates a problem for many Scouters, especially ex-Eagles and District Committee members who seem to often have a big part of their self-image tied up in their 'success' as a Scouter, with the result that they can't admit to anyone, especially themselves, how poor their skills really are.

To be fair, if you don't have the right background, learning all these skills is HARD WORK, and BSA training doesn't seem to do much at all to help.

GaHillBilly

"A bigger problem is one that I've commented on before. Boys really don't want to be Boy Scouts. Most are there because their parents push them, that's why parental involvement is so important."

You may be right.

My own son doesn't 'like' Scouts, but as homeschoolers, he prefers it to studying those things (merit badge topics) via hands on Scout methods, to book and junior lab techniques. He likes camping; he likes cooking; he likes hiking . . . he doesn't like all the slackers and whiners and goof-offs he's encountered. But, he's begin to buy in to the possibility of make the troop into something he would like.

Obviously, that's a unique situation.

Other guys in the troop? I think half are there at least somewhat on there own.

But when you look at it through their eyes, or even mine, as a never-was-a-Scout parent, what's to like?

=> Car camping in gravel lots with all parents present and signs everywhere.

=> Bad food, badly cooked, by dirty boys OR

=> Mediocre food with 80% of calories from fat cooked by adults.

=> Unplanned random weekly meetings, led by boys who haven't a clue, but who yell a lot.

=> Boys treating each other and adults with disrespect (not popular with many homeschoolers!)

=> Archaic and utterly irrelevant skills from Scouting's past (semaphores) taught badly by adults who never used or really learned them themselves.

=> Relevant and interesting skills (map and compass) by adults who've read the book, but would be lost if you plunked them down in some trail-less woods with a map and compass.

=> Nature skills taught by people who don't know a crow from a raven, limestone from quartz, or oak from beech. Yeah, that'll teach 'em to see the wonder of nature!

=> Camporees that are primarily bragging sessions for the adults.

=> Safety and LNT guidelines that suck the life out of a boy's curiosity (No, you can't go off trail. You might get lost, and besides that damages the forest.) My gosh, much of the fun for boys is in uncovering mysteries. There are NO mysteries along trails!

=> A Scouting history, in which Scouts did real stuff -- first aid, rescue, War Bond collection, etc. -- but a present in which they only pretend to do real stuff, and where Boys' Life recounts "heros" who "called 911" appropriately!

=> A slogan, motto, oath, and set of laws that mostly no one takes very seriously. (A Scout is brave? You gotta be kidding!)

=> An advancement program that many former Scouts treat as the Purpose of Scouting. Hikes are done grimly, as a endurance test that leads to Eagle "because you're regret it when you're 40, if you don't earn it now!" Yeah, right. That'll suck those 14 year olds right in!

=> A public reputation among park and forest service rangers that totally sucks. (Boy Scouts are by far the worst group we deal with -- from rangers at 4 different locations, now.)

=> A national organization that is focused on "building the brand" and "selling the benefits". I've asked myself what our troop would miss, if national put all the material in the public domain, set up an non-profit insurance program, and then closed their doors. The answer I came to: not much!

It can be done differently. I KNOW you can excite elementary school children about birds and flowers and seeds, with pretty minimal contact. I know because I've done it repeatedly, with kids in my wife's classroom. You get 'em going, and they'll drag in every feather, every rock and every seed they can find. It's not hard, but you have to know and you have to care.

Scout age boys are older and tougher. They are already partly ruined by TV and school, and think that if it's fun, it's useless or it's sports or it's sex, but if it's useful or involves learning, it's boring and school like. But, they want adventure. Or at least some of them do.

I suspect all do, in their heart of hearts. They just don't believe that they can, or that they will. So you have to shove them out there, and help them experience it for themselves.

I'm pretty sure, if we can work out some ways for them to do things that matter . . . they'll (some at least) will make the committment. For crying out loud, many of these kids will join the military in a few years, and will feel that doing so is "worth it", even if it costs them an arm or an eye.

I think many would love it if Scouting was real, even if it wasn't all fun. But, most of the Scouting I've seen is not real and it's not fun, either. And, that's a problem with us.

Frankly, I think if national wanted to 'build the brand' for real, they'd drop the focus on quantity, and focus on quality and substance. I think -- don't know, but I've got my suspicions -- that many kids today DO want to be part of a "gang" that means something real, and does something real.

But, we're Americans. It's the Japanese who focus on quality. We'll just get bigger and flashier and more 'macho' and that'll build the brand. Heck, we'll be just like GM! Let's go raise some money! Maybe the Fed will bail us out, too.

GaHillBilly

GW, I didn't say the program was the sole cause.

But, when you compare a system in which patrol leader selection is made, or at least guided by the SM, toward the end of putting the best leader in place, and keeping him there, with a system in which you are STRONGLY encouraged to put someone new in place every six months . . . the program is going to have a big effect.

Sure, you can find a way to do an end run around the mess. That's what I'm working on.

But the program is definitely an obstacle, even if it's not the only one.

GaHillBilly

Hey Kudu;

I need some advice . . . we don't have JASM problems yet, in part because another ASM and I have dug in our heels and argued every time it's come up that an Eagle who's afraid to camp without his mom along, who's afraid to swim or canoe, and who can't tie a square knot (and I mean this literally, not figuratively!) . . . MUST not be a JASM.

The irony is, there are some early signs that he's beginning to 'get it', and realize that his approach to Scouting may not have been the best. But, that doesn't change the fact that he's an obstacle, rather than an asset.

I hadn't realized the role PORs played in forcing this stupid process of replacing one unskilled, untrained leader with another one who's even worse, but your explanation makes sense of both what I've seen and what I've read.

But, now that I get it, the only question for me is, "How do I get around it?"

We're already moving toward making the "Troop Instructor" POR an EARNED position, gained by learning, practicing, and then successfully teaching a skill area (say, first aid) in TF through 1stC, as a way to give the older boys something to do. We could expand this, to open it to any boy who passes the test (we're still developing them). "Instructors" would have to agree to actually WORK at instructing, and be available to do so, to keep their POR.

This would allow us to return to the original view of the PL as the most competent Scout present, but allow anyone who needed a POR to gain one simply by doing the work.

I know some would gripe, but given the loosey-goosey structure of the BSA and the fact that this approach doesn't seem to really violate anything mandatory, it seems like it might be worth a try.

What do you think?

I'm sure I'm going to be told that this approach violates current BSA practice . . . but since I already know that current BSA practice violates original BSA principles, it won't keep me up at night! I really just want to know (1) if this could work, and (2) if doing so could cause council level problems for the troop.

GaHillBilly

If they need some more copies, my son (and some other Scouts in his troop) would be happy to donate his copies!

His comment: "Dad, it's all just advertising for overpriced stuff!"

GaHillBilly

OGE, if you are referring to me, I'm not calling Merlyn any names he hasn't called himself.

In Arthurian legend (ie, King Arthur), Merlin (ie, Merlyn) was the last of the great wizards. LeRoy is simply the Anglicization of le roi, which is French for "the king". So, calling M-LR "Great Wizard King" is simply calling him plainly what he called himself, slightly obscurely!

Granted, "delusions of grandeur" was unnecessary, but by the time I thought better of it, my 'edit' window had expired. On the other hand, do you really thing it's very unfair to describe someone who would name himself, in public, "the great wizard-king" as having such delusions?

He jumped in to try to slam an argument he only half-understood, with a half-grasped response, and a wholly silly attempt -- complete with egregious and obvious errors -- to marginalize the gospel writers. So, I was irritated.

On the one hand, I wish I'd left out the delusions bit. On the other hand, I don't think he got more than he earned.

GaHillBilly

The Lord Wizard King spoke thus, "Those aren't all the choices. Lewis' lord/liar/lunatic is a well-known false trilemma. It makes no allowances for simple things like inaccurate retellings of stories over decades by bronze-age sheepherders."

Oh, Wizard-King, if you'd bother to read what I wrote, before you trotted out your supposed answer to an argument you'd seen before . . . you'd have noted that I HAD in fact dealt with that when I wrote, "To make Christ just "a good man", you only have to butcher the New Testament, especially the Gospels". If you toss all the bits in the Gospels you don't like a la Thomas Jefferson or else rejigger them according to the latest textual theories a la the Jesus Seminar, you can have any Jesus you want. But, if you rewrite all the biographical info about B-P, you can also make him into a flaming fag and pederast.

In fact, if you'd ever bothered to read Lewis yourself, you'd know that he dealt with your re-interpreting at some length and in several ways. The one I found most interesting was his OBSERVATION that, of all the hundreds of critics who'd try to "really understand" and correct, either LOTR (which he'd known during it's entire long birth process) or his own Narnia Chronicles, he'd found that the percent of critics who got it right, in their multitudinous speculations, was precisely zero. For him, this pretty much scuttled the possibility that similar writers and interpreters, working across a gap of 1900 years, could succeed where his own contemporaries facing no such difficulty had universally failed!

Wizard-King, if you re-write a book you can make it say whatever you like. And, if you re-write proto-history, you can rustle up "bronze age sheepherders" a 1200+ years after they disappeared, and place them in the midst of the iron armed and armored Roman legions. As CSL noted, re-interpreters like yourself can't even get the simple stuff right!

Oh Great Wizard-King, with self-delusions of grandeur, pay attention! Use Google before you post!

GaHillBilly

"Re: The Biblical support for bigotry against Gays. Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to support slavery. Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to support "separate but equal." Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to keep women from being equal citizens. Y'all are wrong now."

The problem with your argument is that it simply and utterly ignores the facts.

At various points in the Bible, slavery is tolerated, but it is never promoted as a good thing. And, the sort of kidnapping that was practiced to collect the slaves brought here was a capital crime. So, Christians who tolerated slavery were always on thin ice, and many of them knew it, as their letters and writings made clear.

It's worth noting that much, if not quite all, the impetus to eliminate slavery in the English speaking world came from Christians. So while Christians did hold slaves, it was (mostly) Christians who fought to eliminate it.

The separate but equal thing was never, in any way, part of Christianity. In any case, those ideas were really rather localized (my South, South Africa, & Rhodesia) and sectarian (Protestant, not Catholic or (O)rthodox) and were never broadly accepted among Christians. People have used the Bible to support all sorts of things that it doesn't support, just as people use 'science' to 'prove' all sorts of things it doesn't prove. People are opportunists -- and this includes Christian people -- and will use what ever is handy when the fight starts.

At various points in the Bible, it is assumed that men will dominate or even own women, but this is never promoted as a good thing. The idea that women and men have distinctly different roles is promoted, but not fully explained. And since the Bible has no clear teaching about citizens of earthly kingdoms, equal or not, it's rather hard to construct an argument that the Bible supports citizenship, equal or otherwise!

But, the issue with gay marriage is altogether different.

The reason is utterly simple: the Bible does promote -- repeatedly, constantly and pervasively -- the idea that heterosexual marriage is the ONLY legitimate context for sexual relations.

You could argue that there's ambiguity about polygamy . . . and there is. It's clearly tolerated, but usually treated as a bad idea, or least a practice with bad results.

You could argue that bisexuality within polygamy might not be wrong . . . and if you accept that what's not prohibited MIGHT be sometimes allowed, you might get some traction.

But, what's crystal clear, even without any mention of homosexuality or lesbianism (which is mentioned only once in any case) is that the ONLY place where sexual relations are EVER allowed is within a heterosexual marriage.

This is so pervasive, so repeated, and so fundamental that there's simply no way to find 'permission' for anything else without tossing the whole book.

And, the committment to marriage as the ONLY place for sex is embedded far more deeply than even most Christians realize, in part because it embarrasses the heck out of many of them. Classically, in the Song of Solomon, but repeatedly elsewhere, heterosexual marital relations are presented as the image in flesh and history of the relationship between Jehovah and Israel or between Christ and the Church. This is a foundational image, present throughout the entire Scriptures.

Adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are all presented as reflections, in flesh and history, of the nature and character of the deeper, more real, but less visible problems of apostasy and idolatry (ie, worship of anything other than, or along side of, God).

You simply can't, no matter how you work at it, get this view of marriage out of the Bible without utterly gutting.

And it's the positive view of marriage, not the negative commands against homosex, that are the real obstacle to any interpretation of Christianity that would accept homosex or homosexual marriage.

CS Lewis makes the point, which is quite obvious to anyone who's actually read the gospels, that the popular idea of Christ as simply a 'good man' is utter rubbish. The man claimed to be God, to be the actual Creator of the universe. As Lewis observes, you've got very limited choices: He's telling the truth and is God, or he's lying and he's a Charles Manson, or he's nutty as a fruitcake and needed to be locked up (the precise conclusion his mother Mary and his brothers reached, at one point).

But, that's nothing compared to what it would take to get the Bible to support homosexual marriage. To make Christ just "a good man", you only have to butcher the New Testament, especially the Gospels. To make marriage anything other than between a man and a woman, you've got to butcher the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

So, let's be clear.

If you want to be a Christian AND approve homosexual marriage, you can only do it by utterly abandoning orthodoxy and biblical revelation. People who claim to do so are sometimes either pathetically naive or tragically deluded. But often, they are simply cowards, unwilling or unable to believe in Christianity, but too cowardly to actually say so and face what it means to be a genuine agnostic.

GaHillBilly

"The idea that science would be the base for extermination of a minority is idiotic."

Has been before, in Germany & Russia. Will be again, since it's a logical consequence of 'scientism'.

BTW, Baden-Powell -- along with many enlightened Western Europeans of his day -- at least to some degree bought into the idea that, in order to maintain the forward progress of evolution, we need to manage who bred, and who did not.

"Are you suggesting, GAHillBilly, that we should deny gay marriage because they are all just going go away eventually (perhaps soon) anyway?"

No, I personally think gay marriage should be denied because it's wrong, just like false testimony in a court case is wrong and theft is wrong and murder is wrong.

My point was, that based on the philosophical and conceptual principles at the root of most Western non-Christian thought . . . that there is no basis for a positive view of homosexuality. Actually, there's no basis for ethics at all. Socio-biology can explain how, within a social group, certain ethical values can come to be accepted. But it cannot offer any reason why you or I should accept those values, unless we happen to do so.

Most non-Christian ethics today are merely random detritus from Judeo-Christian principles, picked and chosen and modified according to personal preference and current social fashion, and destined to be abandoned whenever it becomes convenient or fashionable to do so. My point is, that when the dominant 'ethics' are so absolutely without an anchor or basis, other forces will eventually overwhelm any values that the majority find inconvenient. I'm not ADVOCATING this; I actually wish very strongly things were otherwise. I'm just stating that I believe these things are the case.

Unrooted ethics -- which is what most non-Christian ethics* in the US today are -- are based on whims, feelings, and fashions and inevitably will bow to stronger forces.

In such a case, where those stronger forces offer no basis whatsoever for homosexual rights, and when homosexual rights will always inconvenience the majority, such rights are inevitably going to vanish.

GaHillBilly

* There are exceptions, of course. Mormons, fundamentalist Muslims, orthodox Jews all hold ethical values rooted in something other than their own personal whim or accident of birth. But they represent a small majority of Americans. Most Americans, whether liberal Protestants, or atheists or agnostics or Gaea worshiping environmentalists or Wiccans, or what? . . . do not really believe that their beliefs are THE truth about what is. They just like believing what they believe. As one liberal Episcopalian told me, "I'm not sure if any of that stuff is true, but I feel better after services, so sometimes I act like it's true."

Such ethics will vanish soon after they cease to "feel better".

Actually, I should note that there is one 'rooted' ethical value most Americans seem to hold to quite strongly, if not so strongly as the French; that is that their own personal survival and benefit is the supreme value in the world.

"However, what I was referring to is the usual argument that homosexuality is not "natural" because it is rare among all animal species (but not as rare as used to be thought). To which I was pointing out that monogamy is actually more rare among all animal species."

I doubt that your statement is correct.

I know that there's been a lot of evidence of BISEXUAL behavior among mammals; I'm not aware of much, if any, evidence of primary HOMOSEXUALITY.

Also, as you well know, behavior varies widely by species, but tends to be consistent within species. Serial male dominant polygamy -- not promiscuity -- is quite common among herd mammals. However, as you note, care-giving structures are thought to be controlling. As you know, human young are unique in requiring stable & exceptionally long term care in order to achieve full function, including breeding function. Multiple bird species, in which success is defendant upon TWO care-giving mates ARE monogamous. So, within the control concepts thought to order socio-biological behavior, it would be EXPECTED that humans would, as a species, exhibit distinct mating and rearing behaviors in order to maximize the chance of successful reproduction. And, within THAT context, I'm not aware of ANY hypothetical OR reported reproductive or survival benefits of bisexuals, much less homosexuals, within human or higher ape social communities.

I realize much has been made of bonobo promiscuity, but it's my understanding that some of that research has been tainted (as was much of Margaret Mead's work) by a clear sense of what conclusion was correct that predated the research itself. And even then, I'm not sure that there's any clear conclusions regarding BENEFITS of the bisexual behavior apparently common among bonobos.

I strongly suspect that a very, very strong argument could be made, on evolutionary terms, that exclusively homosexual behavior in humans is vestigial and a superfluous burden on species success.

I continue to find it enormously ironic that if you abandon Judeo-Christian ethics, which value homosexuals as men capable of repentance, you are left only with philosophical and scientific ethics which do not value them at all! It seems to me that, in seeking to 'liberate themselves from fundamentalist repression' homosexuals are inevitably exposing themselves to scientifically based extermination, within a generation or two.

And, if they are right about the genetic basis of homosexuality, can they doubt for a moment that, once full manipulation of fetal DNA is possible, that proto-homosexuals will be utterly eliminated right along with embryonic Down's and spinal bifida babies?

GaHillBilly

Dan Kroh wrote;

"To make one of those unable to offend observations, every heterosexual I know had multiple sexual partners before marriage, and the vast majority of those were less than 2 years."

Assuming you you mean sexual partners to the point of intercourse, I would certainly recognize that the majority of hetero's today are not virgins upon first marriage. However, your "every" says more about the company you keep, than what's true in general. Certainly, I can't claim the converse, that every hetero I know was a virgin upon marriage, but I could certainly introduce you to dozens who were, including kids married in the last year. Granted, they could be lying, but it's also true that more guys have lied about their sexual adventures, than have experienced them, so it cuts both ways.

AND, he wrote;

"Neither is monogamy [natural]. Best put a stop to that, too. "

Actually, Dan you're rather behind the times on your evolutionary socio-biology. Granted, the accepted 'truths' in this realm of 'science' change almost daily but I believe the current 'truth' is still that, while monogamy is not believed to be natural for some MEN, it's thought to be entirely natural for women and so-called beta men!

The point I made earlier, that scientific naturalism can offer NO reason whatsoever for compassion toward, or rights for, homosexuals remains true. From an purely non-religious evolutionary point of view, exterminating homosexuals makes perfect biological sense!

AND HE WROTE LATER:

"Tell me, Ed, why did God want my son to die in infancy? Does that mean that the doctors defied God's will in fixing his heart so he could live?"

As Ed probably knows, and as you are educated enough to know, there is no Christian answer to such questions. Rather, there are many answers offered by Christians in many groups and these answers are often mutually incompatible. Thus, the evidence is, Christianity does not know, in any authoritative sense, the answer to your question.

Nevertheless, all Christians agree that this world, and everything in it, is broken. Virtually all Christians further agree that not only is it broken, but that it will not be fixed, but will rather be destroyed and replaced. Christians, both individually and in groups, get seduced by this or that movement or man or idea, and begin to think things here can be fixed. Notwithstanding that oft-repeated error, orthodox Christian theology has always rejected that as a false hope, while simultaneously affirming our duty to do what we can, while we may.

Ed's "if God had wanted . . ." argument is unfortunately one oft thoughtlessly resorted to by Christians. However, it is intrinsically invalid, and suffers just the sort of weakness you attack. Your argument correctly recognizes that for Ed to know what God wants, he would either have to produce revelation from God supporting that claim, either from the Scriptures or else from a claimed personal revelation. Since Ed has not, so far, made such a claim, his argument is rightly to be rejected by both Christians and reasoning non-Christians.

The Bible, as far as I know it, does not say why homosexuality is to be rejected, only that it is. For that matter, it does not say why, except in circular terms, why hetero marriage is the only legitimate context for sexual relations, but it requires that as well.

Many conservative Christians are much more intolerant of homo-sex than they are of adulterous sex, but this discrepancy says more about their unwillingness to be governed by what is taught in the Scriptures, than about Christianity itself.

But, if you choose to be honest, two facts remain:

1. Orthodox Christianity can never accept homo-sex as a non-sinful activity.

2. Scientific naturalism (ie, modern evolutionary non-religious humanism) can not offer a single compelling, much less scientific, reason for tolerating homosexuals, nor can it offer a single argument against exterminating them all.

(CAREFUL: I am not advocating this position: I am a Christian; not a non-religious humanist. But when the tide turns, when Christians are gone, and when the propensity to feel guilty (guilt is, after all, a religious concept) left over from America's past dissipates . . . homosexuals better watch out! It would behoove them to remember that, unlike other 'minorities', their minority status is biologically enforced! They should also remember that ALL 20th Century societies based on atheistic scientific naturalism punished, marginalized, or attempted to exterminate homosexuals! They have NO reason to suppose it will be different in the future. )

GaHillBilly

CalicoPenn wrote:

'Since it's now apparent that arguments like this aren't insulting anymore, as they're observational, I'm going to post it:

"I have never met an intelligent Christian"

While we're at it, I've never met a reasonable and non-prejudiced Southerner.

I've never met a good looking heterosexual male.

I've never met a person who drives a Honda Goldwing that wasn't a dweeb.

I've never met a sports fan that is mentally or emotionally stable.

I've never met an NRA member who wasn't compensating for size.'

CalicoPenn, it's obvious that you don't 'get it'.

My statements were primarily about language and reasoned discourse, not about homosexuality. The distinction I made between "argument" (you) and "observation" (me) is critical, and crucial to understanding what I was saying, but you seem unable to recognize that distinction. If you were willing to use them, any Webster's -- on or off-line -- will help.

Some of your statements could be observations; some are highly unlikely to be; some are purely emotive statements, which express only your own preferences.

Take your first statement, "I have never met an intelligent Christian". This might well be atrue observation. I've met quite a few Christians, including a few who are extraordinarily intelligent, but would immediately grant that the Christians I know are, as a whole, less educated and less intelligent than the average (based on my OBSERVATIONS) for their class / social situation. It might surprise you to know that such a result is actually consistent with Christian theology, which teaches that (roughly speaking), 'the more you've got it together, the less likely you are to become a Christian.". In fact, the first statement of the sort was made by Christ himself!

Unfortunately, most non-Christian self-identified intellectuals I've known attempt to reason -- quite irrationally -- like this:

A. I'm smarter than most Christians I know.

B. I'm not a Christian.

C. Therefore, my reasons for not being a Christian are better than their reasons for being a Christian.

This is, precisely and obviously, what has been traditionally called a non sequitur . . . but it's one I see almost daily. I rather imagine it was the 'argument' you had in mind behind the 'observation'! But I'm guessing now, so I'll return to my first response: your statement may well reflect a valid observation on your part. After all, statistically valid judgments about overall intelligences can be quickly made simply by observing the scope of a speaker's vocabulary!

Your second statement --"I've never met a reasonable and non-prejudiced Southerner."-- is not so simple. It sounds like it might be an observation, but it's really not. The problem is with the words "reasonable" and "non-prejudiced".

If they are taken absolutely, then the statement is an attempt to insult with a truism that sounds as if it is saying something, when in fact it is saying precisely nothing at all. Taken absolutely, the argument is this:

A. No man is absolutely reasonable and non-prejudiced.

B. Southerners are men (at least in the traditional sense, where "men" = "humanity').

C. Therefore no Southerners are reasonable and non-prejudiced.

Of course, under this interpretation of your statement, we can conclude that you, also, are neither reasonable nor unprejudiced.

But, you might plead that you didn't mean to be taken absolutely, but intended the words colloquially. This does us no better, because colloquially "reasonable" means "agrees with me", as in "But, honey, can't you be reasonable!". I'm not surprised to know that many Southerners -- and perhaps all that you have met -- disagree with you, but so what? Perhaps everyone you meet, except for a handful of idiots, disagrees with you. All this tells us precisely nothing, and reveals your statement to be something less than a definite, and thus meaningful observation.

I could go on, because your statements deteriorate from there.

I'll mostly refrain, except to speculate on which kind of "size" you had in mind. After all, in general American discourse, when one "compensates" for "size", this is almost always 'coded' psychobabble, unless a specific mechanical context is made explicit, as in, 'we need to design the truss compensate for the size of snow loads typical in this area". Since you did not specify a such a context, I can only wonder how you might have become so familiar with the "size" of multiple NRA members.

Perhaps, on reflection, you may wish to confess that that particular statement of yours was not, in fact, based on actual and trustworthy observation?

GaHillBilly

"If they're insulting to her then they're insulting."

Packsaddle, you need to pay attention to what Lisabob actually said, which was that the "remarks" were "insulting", not that SHE was insulted! Your response would have been relevant if she'd said, "I was insulted by . . .", but that's not what she said.

Instead, she deployed the nowadays standard leftist ploy of claiming that an argument is too "insulting" (or "red state" or "uneducated" or "right wing" or "fundamentalist" or even "ridiculous), thus relieving herself of the obligation to respond to G-W's claimed statement of fact.

This sort of response is fundamentally dishonest and irrational.

GaHillBilly

Lisabob wrote,

"If you find it problematic that I think GW's comments were insulting - and frankly, probably intended to be insulting, given the fact that he frequently uses provocative and hyperbolic language rather than engaging in thoughtful discourse - too bad. I stand behind what I said."

You may stand behind it, but that says more about you than GW.

Granted, GW has often said provocative things . . . and I've been told by others, that he doesn't really mean it. I don't know that, since I don't really know him, or you. I only know what he wrote.

And there's the problem: what he wrote is a statement of his OBSERVATIONS; the things he has SEEN or KNOWN OF. Now observations may be bogus, they maybe misinterpreted, reports of observations may even be lies. But, by their very nature, they are not "insulting" . . . unless you KNOW that he was deliberately lying or distorting, simply to provoke or insult.

I don't know that, and I suspect you don't either.

Let me say again, more generally: written statements describing a person's OBSERVATIONS are, by their very nature, incapable of being "insulting". To insult requires, at a minimum, some sort of intention. This is made clear by the common phrase, "unintentionally insulting". This phrase exists precisely because, in the normal case, an insult IS intentional. Consequently, when we refer to the case where someone delivers an 'accidental' insult, perhaps because they are not speaking their native language and use a word with a meaning they do not intend . . . we feel obligated to explain how insult could have been taken, when it was not intended!

Before you can legitimately claim that GW's statements were insulting, you have to know much more about them then is visible here, or then you have claimed.

Again, this is statement about logic, language and linguistics, more than it is about homosexuals or GW. The problem is, you used a speech form that is irrational, but which has become accepted in left-leaning intellectual circles as a snooty and condescending way of opting out of arguments!

It's a style of anti-intellectual dismissal I'm very familiar with, having grown up in the Bible Belt, though the form it takes in right wing religious circles is rather different.

Either way -- left or right wing -- that sort of dismissal is dishonest and untrustworthy. It assumes a position of superiority which you have not earned by rational argument but rather by your position from within the 'accepted circle'. From this high stance, you then condescend to speak to the one who has putatively 'insulted' you. I've watched this sort of thing take place dozens of times, in a different style, among evangelicals as they address those who disagree with them. Currently, my older son experiences this same sort of anti-rational dismissal in his college classes, taught by a variety of proselytizing atheists, agnostics and Wiccans!

And if may I say it, it is your posture which is actually and truly rather INSULTING in its dismissal of the original speaker!

GaHillBilly

Lisabob, one of the problems with modern intellectual discourse is that certain ideas cannot be voiced because they are politically incorrect (aka "insulting"). This approach eliminates the need to address the facts, since any facts found to be "insulting" can simply be ignored.

While I'm definitely not in GW's fan club, when he recounts his own personal observations of facts you may legitimately:

+ question whether his memory or observations were accurate. (Given some past statements by GW, a reasonable challenge.)

+ question whether his observations are representative, even if true. (I have no idea on this one, since I don't know what sort of contact he has with homosexuals.)

+ question whether he's telling the truth.

What is not legitimate, at least in terms of rational discourse, is to dismiss his observations, simply because they are "insulting". If they are true and correct, then they are facts to be reckoned with, whether you like them or not. If you think GW is incorrect, say so, and say why. If you think he's a liar, say THAT!

But if you do not think he's either mistaken or lying, then the problem lies with you. In that case, you are reacting like the parents my wife has to deal with, who when they are told their children have lice, refuse to listen to instructions about treatment, because they find the facts "insulting"!

Many, many facts relevant to education, science, politics, . . . even Scouting are ignored not because they are mistakes or lies, but because they are "insulting". Personally, I find THAT "insulting". Perhaps more to the point here is that such a reaction is not "trustworthy".

Regarding G-W's observation, I will add that my observations have been the same. I know of some very long term lesbian couples, but no young or middle-aged long term male homosexual couples. Some so-called 'couples' are actually communal living arrangements, but hardly a monogamous couple! I did know of an OLD 'long term' couple, but they only became a couple after they were old enough to be in poor health and 'floppy'! I also have knowledge of some statistics that suggest that these observations (mine & GW's) are representive of the homosexual community at large.

But this whole issue -- of setting aside certain kinds of statements as "too insulting to be true" makes my blood boil -- especially when I see it taking place in communities that claim to be "trustworthy", such as the evangelical churches I've been in, or among Scouts.

If you are trustworthy . . . facts are facts, and are to be dealt with, no matter how much you dislike them!

GaHillBilly

PS. If you really want to get into the issue of homosexuality, it's not hard, rationally.

In the US, there are, broadly speaking, two major moral frameworks which are operative.

The first is traditionalist, and based on orthodox Judeo-Christian principles, and rooted in an authoritative revealed text (either the Bible or the Torah). Under these principles, homosexuality is morally wrong, simply because God said so. Everything else is gloss.

The second is modern naturalistic rationalism, which recognizes no revelation, but accepts only discovery, preferably scientific discovery. Under these principles, morality is a artifact of the evolution of homo sapiens as a social animal. As such, once it has been self-consciously observed, morality has no more "moral force" than the 'practice' of breathing or eating, and it has MUCH less instinctual force. As self-preserving animals, we may choose to act according to social or legal norms, as a matter of self-protection. And, we may do so, out of habit, even when it's not protective. But we have far LESS obligation to be "moral" than we have to "breath" or "sleep".

Now, it might sound like I'm saying that, under modern naturalistic rationalism, homosexuality is not morally wrong. Well, under those terms it is not 'wrong', but it is non-functional and that IS my point. Homosexuality is generally non-productive in terms of preserving and protecting the species, and so a social grouping would be entirely prudent to reduce or eliminate the effects of such non-functional (genetically speaking!) members of the species. Outlawing them, or even exterminating them, is entirely reasonable, in terms of modern naturalistic or scientific rationalism!

The social confusion we are experiencing in America does not result because this is an intellectually 'hard' issue, or one that requires 'deep thought'. Rather, the confusion is entirely a result of people abandoning the first position, but not really thinking through what it means to reject it, and accept the second position. So, they float around in a fluffy intellectual la-la land, where facts can be "insulting" rather than correct or incorrect!

But, it is simply fact that, once you embrace modern naturalistic rationalism there is no more reason whatsoever to treat homosexuals with greater privilege than ants or bees do with their non-functional drones or workers!

Christianity is often thought of as the source of homosexual persecution. But, this is naive in the extreme, to the point of childishness. The FACTS -- no matter how offensive you find them -- that all (or almost all) of the political systems which explicitly embraced modern naturalistic rationalism (Communism AND Nazi fascism) BOTH treated homosexuality far more punitively than nominally Christian societies ever have! There is no reason whatever, to assume that once the US casts off (in a couple more generations) the vestiges of Judeo-Christian ethics -- which assign eternal value to the lives of even wicked men! -- that we will fail to restrict or eliminate homosexuals!

Ok, lemme see:

NEGATIVES:

+ your son doesn't like it.

+ your son is not benefitting (or so I gather)

+ there's no real prospect that he will like it, or benefit, in the future.

+ you don't like it.

+ you're not helping anyone.

+ there's no real prospect of helping anyone.

POSITIVE:

+ you've been doing this so long it will seem disloyal to quit.

If all those things are true, it really sounds like the conclusion is obvious, even if it's emotionally difficult to accept!

GaHillBilly

PS: I've concluded that Scouting as an "activity", as it typically appears in my Council, complete with bogus ranks, bogus MBs, bogus outings, bogus patrols, bogus boy-leadership and bogus (ie, unfit and unskilled) SMs is also not worthwhile. The Scouting 'sold' by the literature, and by Scouting's history is a far cry from the Scouting actually 'delivered' by the local Council. Of course, this is a performance entirely typical of American marketing!

But, for the moment it looks like other possibilities may still exist for my son's troop.