Get Off My Honor: A Review

[fgoodwin 23]

Get Off My Honor: A Review

 

http://www.sierratimes.com/05/08/15/66_82_9_27_59304.htm

 

Rudy Takala

 

I recently finished reading Hans Zeigers new book, Get Off My Honor: The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America. It attempted to demonstrate, as most political books have done as of late, that a certain institution is being victimized.

The way we attempt to frame political debates in modern times is an amusing phenomenon to observe. People arent so interested in whats philosophically right or wrong as they are in what factions are being most oppressed by other factions in society. From David Limbaughs Persecution to Ann Coulters Slander to David Brocks The Republican Noise Machine, everyone wants to be a victim.

 

While the thesis of Get Off My Honor isnt exactly an exception, the cases backing it are a bit more credible than those frequently used to prove the persecution alleged in other books. In the past decade, liberal assaults on the Boy Scouts have been more organized, more numerous, and strangely more viperous than their assaults on other conservative institutions. The Boy Scouts embody everything liberals hate, and liberals seem to believe that the mood of the American people is such that theyll be more agreeable to regulating the Boy Scouts than other Christian institutions.

 

Thats probably because many Americans have an absurd predilection for equality, and they dont like anyone excluding anyone else from anything for any reason. As Zeiger observed, What [Alexis de] Tocqueville said about the desire of democratic peoples for equality is certainly a reality in America today. Instead of a movement toward equal rights of opportunity-the right to the pursuit of happiness and such-minority groups have made a loud cry for an inalienable right to absolute equality of condition.

 

The book also takes a slight deviation from the norm of its peers by detailing why, exactly, the Boy Scouts are actually a good thing. Many books, in their authors zealous quest to incontrovertibly demonstrate the malicious victimization of their favorite group, fail to inform us why their organization is worth appreciating. Zeiger bothers to remind us that the basic virtues for which the Boy Scouts stand, such as honor, loyalty and honesty, are good things.

 

At the same time, however, there are many flaws in his analysis. While the Boy Scouts are certainly not a malignant organization, they arent a sacred one, either. Is it true that their age and place in tradition alone makes them good? Young people desperately need permanent things to understand life and grow into responsible, respectful citizens, writes Zeiger, and he purports that this in contrast to modern America, where Americans [exist] on a perilous, unspiritual diet of change and instability.

 

Why do we need the Boy Scouts to provide an icon of stability in our culture? Isnt the Bible stable enough? Biblical precepts that are thousands of years old shouldnt need recreational organizations to help reinforce their constancy.

 

Another curiosity posed by the book is the manner in which almost all liberals are accused of being extreme individualists. At one point, Zeiger praises the words of Frank Hearn: One may have the right to self-esteem or feeling good but being good-being in a way that permits one to realize institutional goals-is an achievement. One earns self-respect only through the disciplined work of performing institutional duties or achieving institutional ideals.

 

Such words were reminiscent of Julius Evola, a former Italian fascist, when, in Men Among the Ruins, he described the sort of people who supported fascist regimes. The inferior never lives a fuller life than when he feels his existence is subsumed in a greater order endowed with a center; then he feels like a man standing before leaders of men, and experiences the pride of serving as a free man in his proper station, wrote Evola.

 

It seems almost absurd that a conservative today could come to a consensus with Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy in scorning the evils inherent to individualism. Throughout history, fascists and communists have been alone in spitting on individualism. Individuals dont destroy societies through war and genocide. It takes a collective, and that destruction is pretty much all collectives are good for.

 

In another instance, Zeiger wrote, Honor is cultivated within communities and organizations that compose the culture. The culture-its ideas, customs, symbols, and heritage-causes individuals to find for themselves a higher calling, a purpose connected to the culture. Why does this sound like Hillary Clinton reminding us it takes a village? More often than not, villages are full of deranged cannibals. Virtue, of which honor is a component, proceeds from God. Communities, if anything, are usually little more than an obstruction to virtue.

 

Get Off My Honor details the history of the Boy Scouts, the nature of its enemies, and the implications of allowing them to destroy the Scouts. Unfortunately, many of the objectives for which the book claims we should strive are questionable. Still, the Boy Scouts are in the midst of an unfinished war on American culture, and Hans Zeiger represents a strong element of conservatisms coming vanguard. Get Off My Honor is an illuminating hermeneutic with which we may understand the nature of the conflict within our culture; a conflict, I suspect, that has yet to reach its apogee.

[emb021 16]

While an interesting review (I have been planning on getting the book myself, anyway), I should point out that the BSA is most certainly NOT a 'Christian institution'. It is open to people of many faiths. At the Jamboree, there were booth for the Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim (2 different groups, in fact), and many other faiths. And the recognized religious awards include Hindu, Shinto, and other non-judeochristian faiths.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

There is a lot in this review that I disagree with, some things that are plainly preposterous, even a thing or two that I do agree with, but this has to be the pinnacle of absurdity:

 

The Boy Scouts embody everything liberals hate...

 

This is just patently ridiculous. I understand that it is sort of a fad among some (I said "some") conservatives today to paint "liberals" as being the "enemy," "traitors" etc. (rather than just an ideological group with different views), and if you follow the link for this article you will find that the web site for which this person writes is not exactly moderate or objective in its views. I saw one article listed on the side of the page, by the same writer, with the title "Not All Liberals are Evil," which is nice of him to acknowledge, I guess. But as for the statement about the Boy Scouts embodying everything "liberals" hate (a ridiculous statement, as I may have mentioned), this guy does not even bother explaining or justifying it, as if his readers would not need any explanation, since the evil nature of almost all (though "Not All") "liberals" is well-understood. Looking at the web site in question, I can see why he would feel this way, since "liberals are (almost all) evil" is basically the theme of the entire site, but unfortunately I also realize that a few of the regular posters in THIS forum seem to share that viewpoint as well.

 

So I know that some people will not understand this statement, but the true values of Scouting are in fact values on which both "liberals" and "conservatives" of "good faith" (in the sense of respecting other people, not the religious sense) can agree. It is really just one "value" that actually is a political/religious doctrine that a temporary majority of those currently controlling of the BSA have forced on the entire organization, in the false guise of "values," that is causing most (not all) of the trouble in the BSA today.

 

I do agree with this writer's introductory section where he talks about the victim mentality that some of the BSA's defenders are promoting. I have pointed out a few times in the past few weeks where that victim mentality is often promoted in THIS forum, most often by the person who started this thread.

[berkshirescouter 11]

I am reading this book now and will post my thoughts when I finish. I have read Hans Zeigers material before so this should be an interesting read.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

"All Liberals are not evil" is a low blow right between the willywhammies. It is still pretty funny. I wonder which one he likes. It sounds like a 30's resurrection of any number of several prejudicial and stilted tracts. At one time, the Boy Scouts was decidedly liberal, an extension of a Social Gospel. That is one reason for the Royal Rangers. It is strange to hear someone say that the BSA is now the bastion of Conservative thinking with liberals railing against it.

 

It was said about Hans' work, "Get Off My Honor is an illuminating hermeneutic with which we may understand the nature of the conflict within our culture; a conflict, I suspect, that has yet to reach its apogee." I agree, the split between the Liberals and the Conservatives has yet to reach its zenith but if we keep at it, maybe we can learn to hate enough to create something really horrible.

 

FB

[Student 10]

"Get Off My Honor" is, by far, the most rigorous review and analysis of the activities of the anti-BSA groups in print. I commend Mr. Zeiger for the considerable amount of research he conducted and for the clarity of his editorial position. His argument is compelling, and I found myself getting upset (again) at the various special-interest groups attacking the Scouts. (Side comment: how many hours is the ACLU spending in service projects this year?) One aspect I found quite fascinating was the review of some of the internal BSA responses to the opposition, such as policy changes by individual councils.

 

Mr. Zeiger wraps up the book with useful suggestions for supporting the BSA. One suggestion he did not list is to attack the source of the funding of the ACLU (by amending USC Section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases--in summary, this entails a change in U.S. law so that the ACLU is not automatically paid by the federal government each time the ACLU files a "violation of rights" case of the type being filed against BSA.)

 

As will undoubtedly be mentioned in most reviews (and as I will do here), Mr. Zeiger is 20 years old and is presently a student at Hillsdale College. Wow! Mr. Zeiger, you rock!

 

Student

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I plan to get this book and read it before commenting on it, but if its contents match the description by the reviewer quoted by fgoodwin, and the admiring comments by Student, it sounds to me like a political polemic rather than a true study of anything. But I should wait until I read it.

 

I do need to comment on one statement by Student, though, and it is an issue that has been brought up in this forum before:

 

One suggestion he did not list is to attack the source of the funding of the ACLU (by amending USC Section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases--in summary, this entails a change in U.S. law so that the ACLU is not automatically paid by the federal government each time the ACLU files a "violation of rights" case of the type being filed against BSA.)

 

What is missing from this description of "USC Section 1988" (or more accurately, 42 USC section 1988) is that in order to be awarded attorney's fees, the plaintiff has to win the case. Or in the words of the statute, to get attorney's fees you must be the "prevailing party" (the "winner" in other words.) And in practice, that does not just mean the winner in front of a jury, but the winner after all appeals have been concluded. So contrary to Student's statement, when the ACLU "files" a lawsuit, that is just the beginning. Based on many years of experience, I can tell you that there is a very, very big difference between filing a lawsuit and winning it. I could tell you stories. A lot of people today seem to think that when an attorney files a lawsuit, suddenly people are wheeling barrels full of money up to the plaintiff's (and attorney's) door. I can assure you it is not that way.

 

Also it is not automatic that you get an award of fees, even if you win. Here is what the statute says, though I have cut out some parts that do not change the meaning because otherwise it would be confusing to many people:

 

"In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [certain listed federal statutes mainly dealing with deprivations of rights by the government], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs..."

 

(What I cut out at the end is an exception involving suits against judges, basically it severely restricts the circumstances under which a judge would have to pay attorney's fees. In plain English it means a judge is not going to be personally liable simply because a later judge does not like his/her decision.)

 

So, if you win in a suit against the government (which is who the ACLU almost always sues, another fact that often seems to be forgotten in this forum), you may be able to recover your attorneys fees. In the case of the ACLU what it means is that they can take a case for nothing, on behalf of a citizen or group of citizens, which often involves huge expenditures of resources, in the hopes that (1) they will win, and (2) they will be able to convince a judge to award fees, and then if they do get fees, the award is used to pursue future cases and to pay operating expenses of the organization (which overlap anyway.)

 

I think it's a good law, myself. It allows for people (either on their own or through a group like the ACLU) to pursue a claim that their rights were (or are being) violated by the government, because if they had to pay a lawyer up front, chances are they couldn't afford it.

[stlscouter 10]

NJCubscouter-so if a lawsuit is filed you have a 1 in 2 or worst case senario 1 in 3 chance of winning $- in the big leagues a .333 hitter is on track with an MVP award. I don't think that the ACLU has ever had to pay a defendant for having lost a suit and had to pay $ or am I wrong?

[packsaddle 753]

My review:

Among the thinking errors are Victim stance, maybe self-pity stance!

http://www.hazelden.org/HAZ_MEDIA/and_release_9729.pdf

[johndaigler 10]

Let's hope (assume) that court cases aren't decided based on the laws of simple probability of random outcomes.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Student writes:

 

Side comment: how many hours is the ACLU spending in service projects this year?

 

Quite a large number of hours, unless you don't consider defending people's civil liberties for free to be a "service project".

[johndaigler 10]

Like it not, he kinda knocked that one out of the park!

 

 

jd

[NJCubScouter 1389]

stlscouter says:

 

NJCubscouter-so if a lawsuit is filed you have a 1 in 2 or worst case senario 1 in 3 chance of winning $- in the big leagues a .333 hitter is on track with an MVP award.

 

I do not know what the ACLU's "winning percentage" is or what their "record" is on motions for fees. I am not sure what that has to do with Student's position that the ACLU should be able to recover fees, or with my disagreement with that position. The reason I brought up the fact that the ACLU gets fees from the government only when it wins, and that there may be cases where they expend resources without any compensation at the end, was to refute an impression that Student was apparently trying to leave, which is that all the ACLU has to do is file a lawsuit and the government pays it money, or that there is anything "easy" about getting fees in these kinds of cases. I think that this sort of impression is part of how Student (and previous posters in this forum) have tried to persuade others that the law ought to be changed. After all, if the ACLU can get fees just by filing a lawsuit, that isn't very fair, is it? Especially when the people paying the fees are us taxpayers? Well, of course that wouldn't be fair -- but it isn't the law anyway.

 

I don't think that the ACLU has ever had to pay a defendant for having lost a suit and had to pay $ or am I wrong?

 

Well, they would not have to pay if the suit is against the U.S. government, at least not under 42 USC sec. 1988, the statute says so. I am not sure whether this is a possibility in a case against a state or local government. If the lawsuit is "frivolous" (which means something more than just the plaintiff losing the case), the defendant (presumably including the federal, state or local government) could seek sanctions (which can include attorney's fees) under a court rule that is applicable to all kinds of civil cases, not just "civil liberties" or "civil rights" cases. I do not know whether that has ever happened to the ACLU, but if it happens it is probably rare.

 

But again, is there a point to the question?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I said:

 

I am not sure what that has to do with Student's position that the ACLU should be able to recover fees, or with my disagreement with that position.

 

I meant:

 

I am not sure what that has to do with Student's position that the ACLU should not be able to recover fees, or with my disagreement with that position.

 

I hate it when I do that!

[Student 10]

Merlyn_LeRoy, is the ACLU declining to accept court-authorized payments? I was under the impression they accepted payment awards and contributions and they paid their lawyers.

 

"Free" is what you do as a volunteer Scouter.

 

NJCubScouter, thank you for your explanation of how the funding process works. What is unfortunate about the process is that while the ACLU may receive cash if they prevail, they are not penalized if they fail. However, their target IS penalized, because the target had to pay legal fees and take time from other work to defend itself. So the ACLU can file lawsuits knowing that some percentage of the suits will succeed and the ACLU will receive funds from these (sort of like pricing a stock option). On the other hand, the target will either (1) lose, based on the court's decision, or (2) lose, due to the time and expense of its defense.

 

And that is not fair.

 

Student