Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NJCubScouter

Wheeler, "Socialism" and the BSA: An Historical Retrospective

Recommended Posts

(Maybe that should be "a" historical retrospective, I think that depends on what college you went to and in what decade.)

 

Anyway, since Wheeler likes to quote things, I thought some selected quotes from Wheeler might be illuminating. I'm starting this as a new thread because I am pulling together quotes from a number of different threads.

 

On Feb. 10, in his first post anywhere in this forum, Wheeler said:

 

Socialists teach and preach Unisexism. This is ungodly counsel. Unisexism is not Christian or godly or righteous. Socialists disdain virtue; look on how they attack the Boy Scouts. The very meaning of arete is contrary to unisexism. Unisexism is based on opinion that men and women are equal. To accomplish this task, one must masculinize women and effeminize men.

 

On Feb. 11 at 10:02 AM, Wheeler said:

 

Right now, the Boy Scouts of America are under attack. Why??? Have you done anything wrong?

 

And on the same date at 9:37 AM Wheeler said:

 

America is socialist. Most Americans are socialists.

 

Now, in the last few days we have had a number of posts from Wheeler criticizing the current BSA for using "socialist" words, specifically for using words that depart from the "male" character of the organization, and for failing to remain a male-only organization. I have not been able to find a post where Wheeler actually accuses the BSA of "being" "socialist," but I think the implication is there. I did find this, written by Wheeler yesterday, Feb. 25 at 8:43 AM:

 

But this is what takes the cake, the BSA has adopted language of the feminists and their agenda. The BSA has become 'effeminate' because it can not stand up (be brave) for their boys and call them boys. They are now 'people'. The BSA, an organization started in helping boys, has now adopted the language of hate toward boys. Feminization of the BSA? The BSA cannot stand up for manliness, manhood, or males.

 

OK, so what is the "big picture" here?

 

First, I think the reason why so many of Wheeler's conclusions are rejected by the vast majority of posters in this forum is that he starts with premises that most of us disagree with, and builds from there. I am sure most of us don't agree that "America is socialist" or that "Most Americans are socialist." There are others in this forum who have, in the past, opined that all social programs (or maybe just programs they don't like) are "socialist" (I forget who) and there are some who have in the past associated "liberals" with "socialism." But even for most of those people, I doubt whether the idea that "America is socialist" would be acceptable.

 

Second, Wheeler has gone from bemoaning the fact that the BSA is "under attack," to attacking the BSA himself. Now, I of course don't think there is anything wrong with criticizing a policy of the BSA that one disagrees with, as I obviously have done this myself. But I think I (and almost all others who have criticized some aspect of BSA policy in this forum) have at least been consistent. I don't say the BSA should change something one day, and then a few days later criticize someone else for suggesting that the BSA should change something else. If someone does criticize a policy that I agree with, I simply defend the policy. If, for example, someone criticizes the BSA for banning paintball as a Scouting activity, I don't say, "Oh no, the BSA is under attack." I simply say why I think it's a good thing, or at least an understandable and acceptable thing, for the BSA to ban paintball.

 

Third, if one were to accept that "America is socialist," then it probably shouldn't come as too big a surprise that the BSA has become "socialist" as well. (Obviously, I agree with neither proposition.) After all, it is the largest youth organization in the country, and is present in every state and just about every community. Although I have said that I think there is a "disconnect" between the BSA and the "social policy" of some communities on one specific subject, by and large I think the BSA is usually reflective of our American society as a whole. About 30-35 years ago (more or less in some aspects), this country began to accept the fact that a strict separation of gender roles and opportunities should no longer be considered correct or necessary. Women no longer had to choose between being a nurse or teacher or waitress or not working at all, or being considered an "oddity" for being in one of the male professions (including medicine and law) where their roles were usually limited. Now a woman can be a lawyer on an equal footing with a man; a woman can be an Army general; a woman can be a police chief. It should be no surprise that toward the beginning of the era in question, the BSA decided that after a particular age (14), there was room for a coed program in Scouting, and a little later, that a woman could serve the program as a leader in most capacities, and finally in any capacity. Although there still seems to be some controversy about this in this forum, I think most agree that the involvement of women (and young women in Venturing) is a good thing.

 

As far as "language" goes, yes, the BSA has somewhat "modernized" its use of language when it comes to the genders, and there is nothing wrong with that. I doubt that all references to "boys" are out of the handbook, nor should they be; they are boys, though overuse of that term should probably be avoided, especially with young men nearing 18. In our troop I have noticed that the leaders try not to refer to the "boys" as "boys," at least not to their faces. It's not really necessary since the word "Scout" is handy, but there are times when the word "young man" is heard, and that obviously is gender-specific. (Our SM will sometimes address the assembled troop as "gentlemen," but I think they have come to realize that the next words out of his mouth are probably going to express displeasure about something. Much of the time I think he just says "you guys" when talking to the group, but that is just how he talks.)

 

The point is that in a Boy Scout troop, we still do recognize that the "people" we are there for are all of one particular gender, though we the leaders may no longer be all of one gender. The BSA also gives older boys a chance to be in a program where there are also young ladies, if that is what they want. That seems like a good thing too, because although you may not like it Wheeler, when the boys are in the "real world" they are almost all going to be in situations where they are dealing with women on a co-equal basis, and a little practice can't hurt.

 

I think I have made my point. Wheeler, there has already been some speculation that you are not "for real," that this is all a big joke. Regardless of whether that is true, it is clear to me that your whole argument regarding the BSA is just a house of cards. It contradicts itself, as I have shown. As for all the rest of it, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, etc., I guess they are just faces on the cards. (Ayn Rand must be one of the Jokers.) But the cards have already fallen down, Wheeler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it may seem odd that I am responding to my own thread when nobody else did, actually Wheeler started two other threads that both appear to be in "response" to different aspects of the post above. I don't want to write two separate posts, and I don't want to start yet ANOTHER new thread for this post, especially because I have made a decision:

 

This is where I get off the Wheeler train. This is probably my last response to Wheeler. A bit more about that below.

 

In one of Wheeler's new threads, he provides more "evidence" that the U.S.A. is a "socialist" nation (which should not be a surprise since in one post he also said that every nation on Earth is "socialist.") My response was to give him (second-hand since I am not a socialist) the perspective of socialists I have spoken to in the past, who would be happy if Wheeler were correct, but who have sadly assured me that this country is firmly in the capitalist category. Wheeler's answer to that was some quote that looks Biblical but is not cited, blessing the man "who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly," which I can only assume means that Wheeler thinks I should not have been talking politics with self-described socialists. Of course, since Wheeler things most Americans are socialists, I'm not sure who he thinks I should be talking to.

 

In the other thread, Wheeler posts a concurring opinion from a 131-year-old Supreme Court decision. As TwoCubDad pointed out, this is a "concurring" opinion and therefore not a majority opinion, so it has no real precedential value. Just out of curiosity, however, I looked it up, and it turns out Justice Bradley had two other justices joining his opinion, but I am pretty sure the Court was already up to 9 members by the 1870's, so it's 3 out of 9. I also read the majority opinion, which says that states could decline to admit women to the practice of law, for legal reasons having to do with the 14th Amendment that are more than I want to write a dissertation on right now. Suffice it to say that this is no longer the law and that the 14th Amendment has been re-interpreted so that the result today would be different. I know Wheeler believes in the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation, but that generally is not how the Constitution is interpreted, which I regard as a good thing because if it was, we probably would have needed a whole new Constitution before now, and I am not so sure that it would have come into existence through a nonviolent process. But that is a historical essay for another day.

 

The point is, ok, 131 years ago Justice Bradley wrote that a woman's place is in the home. (Not in those exact words, of course, but pretty close.) It almost goes without saying to say, So what? We all know that the general attitude toward gender roles in the 1870's was different than it is today. It also was different for most of the 1960's than it is today. As I discussed in my last post, it really began to change in the late 60's and early 70's. So all Wheeler has done is to provide a written example of what changed.

 

As I have suggested above, I no longer see any point in all this. I think I have said all I need to say about Wheeler's "false logic," his misuse and abuse of philosophy and philosophical writings, and the irrelevance of what he says to the Scouting program of today. Wheeler has long since started to repeat himself, including some of his quotes, and some of us are repeating ourselves in response to his responses to our responses to his...

 

Stop. At least, I will stop. It is madness. It is pointless. Worst of all, worst of all, it is boring. I will try to stop responding to Wheeler. I will limit myself to subjects that have not been completely beaten into the ground... like whether the BSA should permit openly gay leaders.

 

(That was a joke! :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with NJCubScouter.

 

WHEELER was posting to some other list, when he had an epiphany, decided his writings related to Boy Scouts and found us. (The other list is currently celebrating this fortunate event). I get the impression that WHEELER thinks:

* this is the "official" BSA website, and he is plugged in to the "powers that be",

* either OGE or BobWhite is a "nom de net" for Roy Williams, and either or both are hiding vital documents from the world,

* if he keeps posting, he will convince some or all of us, and therefore the BSA, how far we have fallen astray.

 

We feed his delusion by responding.

 

Since we do not agree with his posts, all of the rest of us are either yahoos, rednecks, bumpkins, and finally dunderheads. (I think that is the last one). Name calling isn't particularly Scout-like.

 

I could have kept reading, mainly for some of the humourous responses, but it is now, as NJ says, getting repeptitive.

 

And the final straw - the drink that Yogi Berra loves is YOO-HOO!!!

 

(This message has been edited by Marty_Doyle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when Wheeler posts here is when his medication has worn off!

 

I never liked Yoo-Hoo.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leon Podles is a Roman Catholic with six sons. In his book, on page 177 he talks of the Boy Scouts. He devotes three pages to this topic. His son is in the Boy Scouts. He has a PHD.

 

Pg 179, "It was a little visual reminder of the ultimate purpose of the Scout's training: to lead boys to accept responsiblity and sacrifice, even, although this is rarely mentioned among men even in the military, to the point of dying for their country."

 

Now, on page 137 he writes:

 

"Feminism is multiform, but many strains are clearly incompatible with historic Christianity. In our time, theologians and church authorities adopt a tolerant attitude to feminist aberrations. Ironically, this may be because women are not taken seriously as moral agents; their errors are regarded as silly female notions that will pass. Nevertheless, feminism may be as much a challenge to Christianity as was Gnosticism (to which it bears a strong resemblance.)

 

On page 194

 

"Moral relativism is a disguised nihilism because it destroys the objective and imperious character of the good."

 

Liberalism is a form of nihilism. Nihilism is the basis of all socialism. Socialism preaches feminism. When churches become more lead by women, men leave to seek other churches not dominated by women. Mr. Podles has the statistics to prove this point.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I'm sorry Marty Doyle to dissappoint you but everybody attacks the post on Virtue and low and behold Virtue is found in the original Federal Charter. Now, if you really knew how to train men, then virtue would be a common knowledge. Your attacks on the posts "The training of boys to men" and "To be a Man" are proof positive that you really don't know the first thing about manhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While ignoring Wheeler seems like a convenient and noble way of ridding of him, it will ultimatley prove impossible. When someone goes around calling America a socialist nation, people will get angry and speak up. The posters on this forum are outside the control of any of us, and so it remains likely that we will see arguments with Wheeler for a long while to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that WHEELER will go gently into that good night, if NJ or I or others do not respond to his posts. He will go, only when he comes to the realization, by himself, that we truly are "incompetent Judases" who will not change, no matter the level of enlightenment he reveals to us.

I selfishly think that if I could refrain from responding to him, I might have more of my "hour a week" for real Scouting stuff.

And I am biting my e-tongue to avoid answering in kind the post two above this.(This message has been edited by Marty_Doyle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto to what Marty posted. Our only other hope is Wheeler stays on his meds!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the principles of warfare that Sun Tzu laid out was the principle of "Know your Enemy". I know my enemy.

 

My enemies are Communists, Socialist, Liberals. I am an anti-Communist, anti-Socialist, an anti-liberal.

 

Why?

 

They are all nihilists to some degree. They are moral relativists and non-believers.

 

I believe that there is absolute truth. There is a standard of truth. And I am a born-again child of God. All forms of socialism are antagonistic to true orthodox Christianity.

 

Herbert Hoover wrote his book "The Challenge to Liberty" because Franklin Roosevelt was adopting many socialist policies in the government.

 

Kurt von Leddhihn-Kuenhelt in his book "Liberty or Equality" describes that socialism is psuedo-Christian and psuedo-Monastic because it adopts many of its principles from Christianity.

 

"America is socialist". You are what you follow. The first point is to define. The characteristics are all there.

 

On another website, I have been promoting the Boy Scouts as a way to train boys to men.

 

Now, I have come to the conclusion that the BSA program is riddled with socialist modalities and terminologies. Does not know what the word virtue is. What does that tell me?

 

I'm sorry this is not the first time around for me. I also went through this process at a "Strategic Planning" Committee for the Battle Creek Catholic Schools here in Battle Creek.

 

I mentioned the word "Virtue" and was soundly drowned out.

 

At St. Joseph's ChurchI went to Father O'Leary and said look it is right here in Scripture. His reply to me was "St. Paul is a misogynist". I went to the head of the Battle Creek School System and said the same thing. I heard the same reply, "St. Paul is a misogynist".

 

When Christian leaders start by demeaning and attacking apostles with even using feminist terminology, something is wrong. I left the Catholic Church immediately. If the Church itself starts attacking its founders then it has lost its "marbles".

 

Socialism is everywhere and so is Feminism.

 

It is curious that NJCub Scouter says "Women no longer had to choose between being a nurse or teacher or not working at all...""

 

Curious he says that. Why? We now have a nursing shortage. We are 400,000 nurses short in this country. The quality of health care is now in jeopardy. Why? because everybody listens to the liberals dictate policy.

 

Wis 9:14 "The thoughts of men are miserable; (16) hardly do we guess aright about the things of the earth."

 

Wis 2.1 "The ungodly reason but not right reason".

 

Psalm 33.21 "They who hate righteousness will go wrong".

 

The nursing shortage of this country proves these scriptures right. Scripture can not be broken. You are breaking scripture and you will pay the price. Health Care is failing because we believe in unisexism and we do not "restrict the manly function" from the woman.

 

Leon Podles, an assistant Scoutmaster, has seen that Feminism, which is the sociology of socialism, is a Christian heresy and has to be fought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know what city wheeler lives in. We all know that he spends a substantial amount of time in a library in relative proximity to a scout office of some sort or another. I propose an angry mob; its the time-tested system of getting rid of monsters. In my experience torches, farm tools, and clubs work best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Igor Shafarevich wrote in his excellent essay Socialism In Our Past And Future and Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in From Under the Rubble, the destruction of religion and the family are central to socialist ideology.

 

This is from the thread Socrates: Culture defines Politics(This message has been edited by WHEELER)(This message has been edited by WHEELER)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not in response to Wheeler. It is in response to Achilleez, Marty_Doyle, and to some extent to Sturgen though I assume his post is at least mostly tongue-in-cheek.

 

I do not disagree with what these posters have said, I just want to make clear what I am saying, and why am doing what I am doing. All I have said is that I do not intend to respond to Wheeler's posts, and why. I am not suggesting that anyone else do anything, or not do anything. Other people will do what they think is best, and I will continue to read the results. My main reason for "announcing" what I was doing, rather than simply ceasing to respond to Wheeler's posts, is that I didn't want anyone to misinterpret my sudden silence on subjects that I usually comment on. I'm not asking others to do the same, or for that matter NOT to do the same. And to the extent that there is any seriousness in Sturgen's post, I obviously am not suggesting torches and pitchforks at midnight.

 

I also have not stated or predicted what impact my silence, or anyone else's silence if that is what someone else chooses, will have, or may have, or is intended to have. I don't necessarily expect it to have any impact at all. I am not trying to "get rid" of anyone. I am simply ceasing to do something that I have concluded is not worth the time I have been spending on it.

 

As for Achilleez's use of the word "convenient," actually, it is not convenient at all. I like participating in this forum, which at the present time includes making my way through Wheeler's posts. I am continuing to read them, out of curiosity. Since my post yesterday about not responding to Wheeler, he has made a number of additional statements that I am just itching to respond to. Some of them are just factually incorrect, most of them involve really preposterous conclusions, and in at least one case there is another major contradiction between what he has said previously and what he is saying now (hint, compare previous statements about "monarchy" and its role in a "republic," and his post of this morning about "princes."

 

Yeah, I realize that got close to being a "response." But my normal inclination in this forum would be to respond to about five different posts by Wheeler since last evening, and I am not going to do it. Refraining from posting, when I normally would, and might even find it enjoyable, is not "convenient." My fingers are inexorably drawn to the keyboard to respond, but I am telling them they can't. I have even started writing responses a couple of times, and prefacing them with "Well, just this one more time." But no. I am sticking to what I said, however "inconvenient" it might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...