The Boy Scout Shift Was Inevitable, in Hindsight

I realize that the title makes it sound like I was surprised at the change in policy. Not so. I simply want to draw attention to the fact that one can predict things over longer periods of time if an effort is made to keep track of unfolding events and properly extrapolate.

For instance, consider the placement of the BSA change of policy with respect to gay youth, gay leaders, and the disregard and repeal of DOMA.

February 2011 -- Obama orders the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in court.
January 2013 -- ban on women in combat roles lifted by military leaders
May 2013 -- BSA removes ban on gay youth  (scouts)
June 2013 -- SCOTUS rules DOMA unconstitutional
July 2015 -- BSA removes ban on gay adult leaders (scouters)

What's the significance? Only that the purpose of Scouting, from its inception in the UK as well as the BSA's founding ~10 years later, was to prepare youth with outdoor survival skills so that they would transition better into military service. Scouting has always been a recruitment center, of sorts, for all branches of the US military.

So when the military now recruits homosexuals, what logic is there for the military's primary enlistment-driving organization to have restrictions on who may serve, which the military itself does not have?

It was obvious, that when the Military began to permit openly homosexual soldiers, that the BSA would follow suit. After all, because of the close relationship, many campouts and jamborees are held on or near military bases or on public land, and it's to be expected that the US GOVT would rescind their favorable treatment/sponsorship of the BSA if the organization didn't submit to the new morality.

The BSA capitulated without a fight, though, indicating that the leadership is all too keen to please. In light of the rapidity with which they changed to match popular culture, I am truly curious as to whether or not the BSA will soon become 100% coeducational. Will there be a Title IX claim coming soon? What if the girls who want to join claim to be boys (i.e. transgender)?

Hindsight is always 20/20. I'm ready...surprise me.

~ Rak Chazak

Sarcastic Apologetic Response of the Day

One of the characters that I met through my university forum had an excellent response to a few aggressive feminists and postmodern pro-"transgender" debaters on a discussion thread a while back. I think it was succinct and powerful enough to be worth sharing here.

If I may demand of society how it perceives me in one way, then why not in another way? What limits that principle to gender?
Why can't I demand to be perceived as a different species? So my DNA says I'm human. Who cares? Species is a social construct, just like gender. Species is genetic, while species expression is external. I choose to live as a T-Rex.

…

[omitted for conciseness]

…

[OPPONENT], if I or my ancestors make money and I become wealthy, then I am wealthy according to the natural order. If I run for office and get elected President, then I am President according to the natural order. If I am born genetically human, then I am human according to the natural order. And so on. If I am born with XY sex chromosomes, then I am a man by the natural order.

I'm a middle class male human being. Economic and genetic reality dictate those facts beyond any doubt. So if I were to declare right now that "I am a millionaire" or "I am a T-Rex" or "I am a woman", why would the first two statements be nonsense while the third wouldn't?

~ Rak Chazak

Where Is the Intolerance?

I still remember the first time I was "cut off" by someone because they didn't tolerate my political or religious views (if you do it right, they're essentially one and the same).

I encountered a lot of information I'd never known before, in the Spring of 2010, and I was excited to share it -- surely others would want to know the truth as well! I was naive. I posted articles from Answers in Genesis and ICR that I found interesting. Many other web articles from obscure sites I don't remember, also. 

One time, I posted some quotes by Margaret Sanger that definitively proved her to be racist, on Facebook. A "friend" of mine immediately left a comment under the link, chiding me for not being open minded to the truth, and telling me "you are being unfriended. Do not approach me on campus."  Another time, I made a comment to the effect that I had just learned that a "drag show" was not a car racing competition, after all, and that I didn't like how a particular segment of the population would reappropriate words for their own use, defying their given definitions (by which I was referring to other words like "queer," "faggot," "gay," etc). This inspired another person to post "wow. Unfriended," under that post.

Shortly after that, I encountered online mobbing and did not feel that I could trust many of the people who had access to my private information via Facebook, so I slowly purged most of the people and eventually closed the account for about a year. Consequently, I wasn't publicly defriended by anyone else after that. If there were others who did it quietly, I never found out.

Today, I was having an extensive debate over email about feminism and gender roles with a young woman my age. I was surprised when she suddenly made this comment:

I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who does not believe that I am capable of rational thought just because I am a woman, worthy of questioning him because I am a woman, or capable of debating him. In fact, we are not having a debate. You are simply attempting to instruct me so that you can feel more manly, and that thought frankly makes me want to vomit. If I want instruction from men, I have a wonderful father who can give me advise, and I have a number of male professors whom I respect very highly. If you feel that that you are being oppressed, I am sorry, but I assure you that you are not being systematically oppressed by women because you are a man. If some women don't like you, it's because of the way that you view them and the way that you imagine an ideal relationship with them would go. If gay people don't like you, it's because you think that their sexual orientation is a choice, that their sexual orientation is evil, that they deserve to be lonely for the rest of their lives or else that some heterosexual person deserves to spend the rest of their lives married to somebody who isn't attracted to them just so that your jerkass version of the Judeo-Christian God will be happy, that they do not deserve the same opportunities that you do, and that their sexual orientation makes them irrational and violent. So, you're not being oppressed, if oppressed you are really being at all, for your maleness or your sexual orientation. You are just pissing off people because of your ridiculous prejudices.

Nice unknowing you,

Of course, many of the statements she made in that diatribe are willful misunderstandings of what I had said to her. It is certainly more convenient to reject an imaginary version of something than to deal with a complicated reality that doesn't suit your expectations.

It made me think. I have never angrily cut contact with someone else because of their strong beliefs. On the contrary, it appears that those who angrily cut others out of their lives are those who are politically liberal and theologically unBiblical.

Alfonzo Rachel, a black conservative Christian commentator, made an observation in a Youtube video to the effect that "democrats tend to believe what makes them angry. I believe what I believe, and it doesn't make me angry," and that that serves as one additional confirmation of the correctness of his belief. I have to agree. It's not so much a logically impervious argument, but it's a good point to consider -- wouldn't the truth, on some level, be emotionally satisfying? If your belief system makes you angry, maybe it's not a good belief system.

Those who are not Christian tend to be the intolerant ones. The irony of conservatives and Christians being accused of bigotry and intolerance would be laughable if it weren't for the sad fact that the people who make these statements are either trying to excuse themselves, or severely deluded. It's only funny at first. Then the realization makes me sad. 

~ Rak Chazak