Category: Culture

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/eagle-scouts-return-medals-over-organization-anti-gay-184508093.html

“Today I am returning my Eagle Scout medal because I do not want to be associated with the bigotry for which it now stands. I hope that one day BSA stands up for all boys. It saddens me that until that day comes any sons of mine will not participate in the Boy Scouts.”

Christopher Baker

I am an Eagle Scout. As such, I suppose I have a dog in the fight regarding the Boy Scouts of America allowing sodomites to serve as Scoutmasters in their organization.

To state the obvious, the sodomites aren’t really upset with bigotry as is said in the letter above. What the sodomites, and the useful idiots who support their sodomy are upset with is that people don’t share their bigotry. The sodomites are bigoted against anyone who would suggest that a morality that leads to a life expectancy for a 20 year old gay or bisexual man that is 8 to 20 years less than all men is something to be avoided like the plague. The sodomites are bigoted against anyone who would dare suggest that the best role model for very young men probably aren’t Scoutmasters who find other Scoutmasters to be pin up material for their tents. The sodomites are bigoted against anyone who doesn’t share their perverted moral code.

And speaking of “moral code,” in what moral universe do the former Scouts who are sending in their Eagle badges live in? When they were Scouts they took an oath,

Boy Scout Oath

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Do sodomites really believe they are fulfilling their duty to some god when they engage in action that calls for the source of life to be surrounded by death? If there is such a god his name is Molech.

And since sodomy, as a lifestyle, cuts decades off a man’s life how does such behavior keep him “physically strong?” How is it that the sodomite is a “help at all times” to his co-sodomite with whom he is engaged? Especially when one considers the STD’s and ADIS that are typical in the sodomite community?

And what of the oath to remain “morally straight?” By what standard, and in what world, is sodomy embraced and said to be “morally straight?” Only in the world of Dr. Moreau or in our current culture, which amounts to much of the same thing as proven by sodomite former Boy Scouts getting all righteously indignant because the BSA doesn’t want their boys to be chaperoned by perverts.

When the writer of the letter above piously says “I hope that one day BSA stands up for all boys,” does he mean that he hopes that the BSA will one day stand up for boys who are rapists? Does he mean that he hopes that the BSA will one day stand up for boys who like farm animals? The point here is that the BSA must have a standard that excludes boys who will engage in certain kind of aberrant behavior. Sodomy is aberrant behavior just as is any number of other sexual perversions. If we are going to have Scoutmasters who are sodomites then why not Scoutmasters who are necrophiliacs or why not Jerry Sandusky as a Scoutmaster?

The Boy Scout Oath above includes a claim of fidelity to the Scout Law.

Scout Law

A Scout is

trustworthy,
loyal,
helpful,
friendly,
courteous,
kind,
obedient,
cheerful,
thrifty,
brave,
clean,
and reverent

As the Scout Oath talks about “Duty to God,” I take these adjectives to only find their meaning in reference to God and to be part of the duty that a Scout owes to God.

I could write reams on each one of these adjectives but I will only focus in on “obedient.” If a Boy Scout is to take his “Duty to God” seriously and be obedient then that obedience must be consistent with the way God speaks and the God of the Bible (the only God there is) explicitly says that sodomy is sin. If then the BSA is to be obedient, per their own Scout Law, they must exclude sodomite Scoutmasters from their troops.

And the fact that anybody has to provide an apologetic for why that is so, reveals how twisted our culture has become.

“… at the beginning of this century (20th), attempts to arrange things outside of God and outside of Christ finally appeared. Without the instincts of bees or ants that create their beehives and anthills faultlessly and precisely, people undertook to create a faultless human ant hill…. Socialism aims at organizing human society according to new principles which are compared to the instinctive actions of insect societies.

Igor Shafarevich
Socialist Phenomenon — pp. 251, 252

Shafarevich, more than once, makes the case the Socialism is a distinction eliminating philosophy. That this would be the case is inevitable since Socialism is the anti-religion religion. Socialism is atheism as applied to social order arrangements and as atheism begins with the elimination of the distinction between the Creator and the creature it is inevitable that in order to successfully eliminate that most basic of all distinctions, all other distinctions must likewise be eliminated in a socialist informed social order. Because this is true socialism seeks to eliminate not only the distinctions of class, but also the distinctions between what constitutes family and what doesn’t constitute family, the distinction between differing races, the distinctions between genders and to look at where some of the piercing and tattoo culture is headed, the elimination of distinction between man and animal. The aspirations of all socialist social orders, is to, as Shafarevich writes, organize human society in keeping with the leveling, distinction-less instincts of insect societies.

Now couple the insight that socialistic social orders are merely the incarnations of the atheistic denial of the Creator creature distinction with the insight that with the destruction of the Creator creature distinction the only place left for God to be located, for the socialist, is in the State as the expression of collective humanity and what you get is the reality that the socialist must look for uniformity in the social order since the State, in order to successfully be God, must have divine unity. In a socialist order, all is for the state and nothing is outside the state. If the State is to be God therefore everything must be uniform since all gods have unity of being and purpose. So, not only does Socialism push for insect organization because of its atheistic denial of the Creator creature distinction, but also Socialism must push for insect organization in order to realize the unity of the Godhead that has been located in the State which the social order is to everywhere incarnate.

Many putative Christians can’t seem to get their minds around the idea that whenever they deny God ordained distinctions they have at that moment become more cultural Marxist (the current best selling flavor of socialism) then they are Christian. Those Christians who deny that gender, race, class, or set God defined family exists, in part, or in whole, have embrace the agenda of cultural Marxism.

Over at,

http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/how-to-be-aware-of-a-culture-war-without-becoming-a-culture-warrior-thoughts-on-acton-university/

Matthew Tuininga strikes again.

He titles his piece,

How to be aware of a culture war without becoming a culture warrior: thoughts on Acton University

I might subtitle it …

How to be aware of a culture war without becoming a cultural warrior, or, how to become a cultural warrior without admitting you’re a cultural warrior.

For those who want the whole article, I direct your attention to the link above. I’m interacting with only the bits I found curious.

Mr. Tuininga wrote,

But is not the work of the Acton Institute simply a culture war in reverse? Do not many Christians simply seek to impose their own agenda and ideology by means of the power of the state? To be sure, I did hear some people at the Acton University talk in this way. While the speakers and attendees were very sensitive to liberal accretions on state power, there was less criticism of the ways in which conservatives have sought to use the state to advance their own ideology. In general, however, this was not the spirit of the conference. In general the speakers and lecturers recognized that it is vital for both freedom and virtue for government to be kept in its place.

The problem here, of course, is that the Obama administration does believe that it is keeping to its place when it desires to force Christian institutions to provide abortifacient measures. The Obama administration believes that people like Mr. Tuininga are being reactionary conservatives by desiring to limit the Government from a place it believes it has a right to enter. Now, in this example, I agree with Mr. Tuininga that the Government is overstepping its bounds in seeking to make Christian institutions a arm of the State. What I don’t agree with Mr. Tuininga on is that somehow the State can remain in some realm designated as “neutral.” If the Obama administration doesn’t get its way on this matter then the Christian agenda of more limited more decentralized government will have won the day. If the Obama administration does get its way on this matter then the progressive pagan agenda of a Centralized top down system will have won the day. There is no neutrality. Whoever wins on this battlefront moves the culture war in one direction or another.

Mr. Tuininga offers,

As one speaker pointed out, Christians should not argue for a free market or capitalist society because Scripture or the Church has given us such a system. Rather, the moral case for a free market and for capitalism depends to a significant degree on the fact that it works. Principle, in that sense, is inseparable from pragmatism. If you want to help the poor, why would you support any system other than that which has done more to create economic growth and has lifted more people out of poverty than any other institution or force in the history of the world? If you value freedom, why not maximize it as much as is possible consistent with general prosperity, peace, and order?

However the reason that free markets and Biblical capitalism (as opposed to evolutionary capitalism or Corporatism Capitalism) work is because those economic orders are consistent with what is taught in Scripture. With the Eight Commandment we find the idea of private property, which is the foundation of Biblical capitalism. The problem with appealing to pragmatics is that it tends to peel the ethic away from the theology that creates the ethic. Biblical Capitalism works because it is informed by a Biblical theology that then gets into Biblical economics. I’m all for free markets (though I am a little enamored with the ideas of the Distributists — man is, after all, more than a economic being) but I’m also for free markets remembering that freedom only has any possible sustainable meaning inside of a Biblical worldview.

Mr. Tuininga ends with,

(1)That does not mean our arguments for a free economy should not be fundamentally moral. Human beings are fundamentally moral creatures and must always be addressed as such. (2) That said, however, the arguments we make should not be designed to advance a particular ideological or religious agenda, but to appeal to human beings’ basic understanding of morality and truth in light of experience and sound scholarship. (3) In short, while we may recognize that there are those who are launching a culture war on American society, our response should not be to launch a culture war of our own. (4) On the contrary, our response should be to work as thoughtful, loving citizens, urging and convincing our fellow citizens of the best ideals, policies, and practices conducive to our prosperity as moral human beings. (5)To put it another way, our aim should not be to conquer, but to win hearts and minds with the truth.

The second sentence in that paragraph convinces me that I’ve fallen into Alice’s Rabbit hole.

If we make arguments that are not designed to advance a particular ideological or religious agenda, haven’t we at that point designed arguments to advance the ideological and religious agenda of not making arguments that advance a particular ideological or religious agenda? My point is that ideological and religious agendas are inescapable and Matt doesn’t escape them by insisting that he does escape them. The whole idea that an appeal to human beings’ basic understanding of morality and truth in light of experience and sound scholarship can be done absent of either religion and / or ideology is a howler of the first order. What is the interpretation of human experience based upon except for religious and ideological a-priori’s informing the interpretation? What is sound scholarship based upon except for some pre-commitment to a religion or ideology that is informing the scholarship? Has Matt forgot that both facts and a philosophy of fact must be considered simultaneously? Human beings are fallen creatures and it is a dangerous game to appeal to the basic understanding of morality and truth of creatures that are fallen as some kind of foundation for social order truths. What good was Stalin’s basic understanding of morality and truth in light of experience and sound scholarship? What good was Chairman Mao’s? Felix Dzerzhinsky’s? Pol Pot’s? One does begin to quickly get my point.

Sentence (3) is yet another curio. If someone is attacking me, is it war if I resist? If the cultural Marxist are continuing with their long march through the Institutions is it culture war on my part if I start my own counter long march through the Institutions to return them to what they were before the Cultural Marxists started marching? In sentences (4) and (5) we have a whopper of a false dichotomy. We are not to try and conquer but we are to win hearts and minds with the truth … which of course would mean that if successful we would (shh … don’t say it to loudly) C-O-N-Q-U-E-R.