A Once Proud Organization

I am the Committee Chair of a Cub Scout Pack.  I knew this was coming.  Nevertheless I find myself saddened not only by the decision, but by the fact that the decision was made public before it was disseminated to local Scout Leadership.  Whether this lack of communication is a failure at the National Council or my local council I do not know, but I do know that it is a failure.

The bigger failure, however, is the decision itself.

On my Honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

A Scout Is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, it is clear that homosexual behavior (separated by act of free will from homosexual urges or proclivities) is sin.  Indeed, being “openly gay,” is an active choice to live in sin – to engage in that homosexual behavior.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, you cannot be doing your duty to God, you cannot be morally straight, and you cannot be reverent if you are choosing to engage in homosexual behavior.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, those three things: duty to God, morality, and reverence are part of being a Scout.  It is one thing to allow openly homosexual children.  I believe it is sick on many levels to assume that children of 12 or 13 can *be* homosexual in any meaningful way, but allowances can and should be made for Scouts.  They are, after all, still learning about that duty to God.  Leadership, however, must be held to the strictest standards.

The Scouts do not allow consumption of alcoholic beverages at scout functions.  Why?  Is it because alcohol is morally wrong?  Is it because duty to God or Country requires one to abstain from drinking?  Certainly not.  The Scouts do not allow consumption of alcoholic beverages because it is unwise.

Openly homosexual leadership is beyond unwise.  It is undermining the very Oath and Law we expect these boys to uphold.  It is proving to them, in a way words will never be able to overcome, that the Oath and Law are “just words,” and have no meaning.  It is proving to them that morality is based on convenience, and duty to God ends at doors of the church building.

What is worse about this decision is this: the homosexual lobby will not stop with this success.  We already have proof of this.  It will not be enough that religious charter organizations can decide about their own leadership.  Ask Sweet Cakes in Oregon.  Ask Memories Pizza.  Ask any of dozens of photographers, bakers, and caterers who have been forced by the homosexual lobby with the assistance of the government to act in ways contrary to their consciences.  Ask the homosexual lobby itself- the lobby already calling for the end of tax-exempt status for churches which do not support homosexual unions.

The Boy Scouts of America had won in court many times – as a private organization, they were under no requirement to accept homosexual leadership.  Now they have thrown that away.  Obviously the Boy Scouts of America no longer find it necessary to their charter to restrict homosexual parents to non-leadership roles.  How much defense will local charter organizations and local packs have when the homosexual lobby comes again demanding acceptance?

An American Movie

So I finally got to see American Sniper on Friday (I have an awesome wife: she took me for Valentine’s day).  A lot of ink has been spilled, and a lot of pixels lit about this movie, so there’s not a lot I can add.  But I do think there’s one thing- a something at the back of all the hate on one side, and love on the other, for this movie.

This is an exceedingly American movie.  Heck, you could almost imagine it was John Wayne playing Chris Kyle.  Okay, Bradley Cooper is a better actor than John Wayne really was (no offense to the Duke, but he cycled through about 3 characters), but the point stands.  This wasn’t a “war movie,” it was a warrior movie.  This was not about a soldier in Iraq.  It was about a soldier in Iraq.  And at home.

I think this is simultaneously what repels the Left and draws the Right.  Chris Kyle is not portrayed as a good man.  He is not some D&D Paladin.  He is not Galahad.  If anything he is Lancelot.  And I think he’s more Gawain.

There were more “fucks” in the first ten minutes of the movie than I think I’ve heard in a year.  Kyle is portrayed as the worst kind of cowboy (early on, at least), and later his violent nature overcomes him at a family picnic.  No, Chris Kyle was not portrayed as a good man.  He was, however, absolutely portrayed as a man on the side of Good.

It was clear in the movie, and is even more so in the book, that Chris Kyle took threats to his fellow servicemen, and to his country, very personally.  He was a hero in every sense that mattered.  And the Left hates the movie for it.

To the Left it lacks “nuance.”  It lacks “even handedness.”  It is “black and white.”

To the Right it lacks nuance, even handedness, and it is black and white.

In many both sides are separated by a common sense of the movie.

Wait, what?

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.  At today’s national Prayer breakfast, Barack Obama made some remarks.  That’s surprising enough, really- he doesn’t seem to be too big on prayer- but it’s the contents of the speech that are so insulting.

After talking some time about Mohammedan terror, he went on to say this (quote taken from the CSPAN link above)

HUMANITY HAS BEEN GRAPPLING WITH THESE QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, AND UNLESS WE GET ON OUR HIGH HORSE AND THINK THAT THIS IS UNIQUE TO SOME OTHER PLACE, REMEMBER THAT DURING THE CRUSADES AND THE INQUISITION PEOPLE COMMITTED TERRIBLE DEEDS IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. IN OUR HOME COUNTRY, SLAVERY AND JIM CROW ALL TOO OFTEN WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.

Take a look at that again.  We should not “get on our high horse” about Mohammedan terror because “during the Crusades and the Inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” also because “slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

You have to love the moral equivalence there, right?  Because of things that happened 1000 (ish) years ago (the Crusades), several hundred years ago (the Inquisition- I presume he means the Spanish Inquisition), and decades ago (Slavery and Jim Crow) we should not “get on our high horse” and think ourselves better than Mohammedan terrorists.

Seriously, he could have saved some poor closed caption transcriber a lot of words by simply saying “Godwin” and sitting back down.

But. lest the historical inaccuracies continue to propagate, I felt I should address them.  Let’s do it in reverse order:

Jim Crow

Jim Crow laws (enacted by southern Democrats, mostly) were laws designed to keep blacks from doing a great many things, including vote.  To my knowledge, never once was Christ invoked as a reason blacks should not vote.  So while southern Democrats were, indeed, Christian, there is no indication it was their Christianity that excused Jim Crow laws.

Slavery

Slavery existed long before the United States of America, and continues to this day (largely because of Mohammedans, in fact).  Slavery as practiced in the United States (and other places) was a horrible evil.  And, indeed, some people did claim that African slaves were slaves because of Noah’s curse on Ham. 

However.  It was precisely this nation’s foundation on Christian principles which lead many religious types to oppose slavery.  Far more Christians (as Christians) were abolitionists than were slavery apologists.  If you are going to claim that Slavery existed “in the name of Christ” it is only right that you also point out that it was opposed (violently, when that became necessary) in the name of Christ.  Indeed, the Battle Hymn of the Republic states: “as He died to make men holy let us die to make men free.”

“The” Inquisition

Apparently the President is unaware that there were numerous agencies which went by “the Inquisition.”  The first- called the Medieval Inquisition- was created specifically to *stop* violence against so-called heretics.  They used much more strict evidentiary requirements than kings of the day, and when heresy was found allowed the heretic to repent and rejoin society. 

Eventually, Kings took over the reigns of the Inquisition.  This lead to the now infamous “Spanish Inquisition.”  But even there the reality is vastly different from popular belief.  Yes, the Spanish Inquisition was a terror for a time.  It was built on Jew hatred, and was used as a tool of political force.  But not for terribly long.  It was then reformed and became the most lenient and merciful court in Europe.  The witch hunts which spread throughout Europe (and put thousands of innocents to death) did not gain foothold in either Spain or Italy specifically because of the Spanish and Papal Inquisitions.  Indeed, almost everything you think you know about “The” Inquisition is likely wrong.

The Crusades

The Crusades were responses to Mohammedan aggression, pure and simple.  It was only after Mohammedans took over several of Christianity’s Holy cities- and then began butchering pilgrims- that the first Crusade was declared.  The second, third, and fourth Crusades were each called specifically to restore Jerusalem to Christian hands.

The thing about the Crusades was that they were *wars.*  Wars fought in the middle ages were brutal affairs at the best of times.  Yes, atrocities were committed by both sides.  But where Mohammedans claimed such atrocities were justified, the Church opposed all such instances by the Crusaders.

In short, there is absolutely no moral equivalence between Mohammedanism, which really does preach death to the unbeliever and conversion by the sword, and Christianity, which teaches personal nonviolence (turn the other cheek, he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, etc.).  To suggest there exists such an equivalence is insulting to Christians.  Worse, it is a way to white-wash or soft-sell Mohammedan Terror.

If we are going to confront Mohammedan Terror, we must admit the truth: the writings of Mohammedanism teach forced conversion, death to the unbeliever, and jihad.  Mohammedanism is an evil death cult, and it must be treated as such.  These comments show, yet again, that the President is either unwilling or unable to understand that fundamental fact.

Progressivism & Mohammedanism: Fellow Travelers

What philosophy espouses the following?

• “They” are out to get you
• Your problems are not your fault, but “theirs.”
• You can’t possibly be expected to better, because “they” have stacked the deck

If you answered “Progressivism,” congratulations!  You’re correct!

If you answered “Mohammedanism,” congratulations!  You’re also correct.

 

As terror attacks increase in frequency, and Liberals fall all over themselves to proclaim “That’s not Islam!”  It’s important to ask ourselves why.  And the answer is that they are fellow travelers.  Their aims, at current, are the same.  Both seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian Western culture which has seen so much progress.  Both seek to undermine our institutions and proclaim themselves the only true rulers over humanity.  Certainly that will cause problems between them in the future, but for the moment that makes them allies.

Mohammedanism is an evil death cult.  They worship an evil god (who once went by the name Baal) and his evil servant, the pedophile Mohammed.  It teaches that Jews and Christians are to blame for almost everything that goes wrong in the world, and that the only reason Mohammedans are not already ruling the world is because “they” (Jews, Christians, and even Western culture more generally) are conspiring to keep the Mohammedans down.

Progressivism is not an evil death cult, but it sure likes them (Mohammedanism, Communism, Fascism- these are all Leftist philosophies).  It teaches that “the White Man” (a stand in for Western culture) is to blame for almost everything that goes wrong in the world, and that the only reason [Insert Victim Group Here] is not already ruling the world is because “Straight White Men” are conspiring to make sure no one else sees any success in life.

Both are evil.  Both are predatory.  They prey on the fear and even self-loathing of their victims, and convince them to do or support some of the most evil things.  Mohammedanism convinces its adherents to, among other things, mutilate young girls’ reproductive organs, stone women for the crime of being raped, stone women for the crime of fighting back against rape, and kill random people in order to achieve “paradise.”  Liberalism convinces its adherents to lie, cheat, steal, and murder the not-yet born.

Judeo-Christian Western culture opposes all of these things, and therefore both philosophies.  Judeo-Christian morality teaches its adherents to show deference to, and defend, women.  It teaches them to kill only in defense- and sometimes not then.  It teaches them that it is better to fail or be defeated that to lie or cheat.  It teaches them that it is better to do without than to steal (and that a man who won’t work shouldn’t eat).  It teaches them that all life is sacred, but especially life which is defenseless- like the not-yet born.

Because these things resonate so with all people everywhere (because they’re True), Progressivism and Mohammedanism must destroy Western culture.

So while Progressives in the MFM safely tweet “Je sui Charlie,” and promptly scold Conservatives for the “backlash against peaceful” Mohammedans, remember this: the two philosophies travel together because they currently have the same goal.

And if you are a Progressive who so hates Western culture because of the evils you perceive in it, stop and think for a moment- Mohammedans hate all the things that you claim to support.  Homosexuality will get you killed in a majority Mohammedan country.  If you think UVa has a “rape culture,” wait until you see how the Mohammedans view things.  And by the time you realize what you have done, it will be too late.  They will turn on you and kill you or subjugate you.

And the “hard men with guns” you so hate today will not be there to protect you anymore.

Listen to the Difference

This video comes to me via commenter “Lauren” at the Ace of Spades HQ.  Lauren an a host of others went to Austin, TX this morning to help counteract the (largely astro-turfed) pro-baby-murder (wait, I’m supposed to call them “Pro Choice”) crowd.  You know, the ones who stood with Wendy Davis who, if her mother believed as she obviously does, would never have been born.

Hear that singing? It's "Amazing Grace." That's the pro-life group. Here that angry chanting? (I think it's supposed to be "choice! now!") That's the pro-baby-murder group.

Now, that would be bad enough.  I mean, really, “Choice! Now!” as though there is no “choice” in Texas at the moment?  Let’s look at this bill they’re “protesting.”

First, it would prohibit abortions after the 20th week.  Specifically it would prohibit “elective” abortions after the 20th week.  For the record, here are a bunch of ultrasounds of human babies at 16 weeks (4 weeks prior to that deadline).  I’m sorry, but at 20 weeks (well into the 2nd trimester) we’re no longer talking about a “choice.” 

Second, it would hold abortion clinics to the same health and inspection standards as Ambulatory Surgery centers.  Considering the risks involved (see the “complications” section of that second list) involved with D&C or D&E procedures, I would think women would want that level of sanitation.  Wasn’t the whole point of “safe, legal, and rare” that women were getting these abortions in “back alleys” and that’s bad because back alleys are, well, dirty?

Third, it would impose some limitations on doctors performing the butchery (sorry, “procedure”).  They would have to have admitting privileges to an actual hospital, among other things.

So, with the exception of the week limit, these are all for women’s health.  These changes make it more likely that women will even survive the procedure.  Taken as a whole, they will help prevent (or at least punish after the fact) any further Kermit Gosnells.

And, somehow, that’s a bridge too far for the pro-baby-murder crowd.

But they didn’t stop there.  Lauren also chimed in with this:

My Source* is a huge pro-abortion activist. So great, in fact, that she had knowledge of and and invitation to, the OWS tactics meeting that was held yesterday.  Basically, she went and was really disgusted by their tactics because she recognized them as the ones that were used against her when she was a precinct chair for Hillary 4 Texas. Obama's minions used these tactics way back then.

She says that she just got back from the tactics meeting, and instead of the "how to not get arrested" meeting that it was billed as it was actually a "how to cause as much disruption as possible without getting your hands dirty."

Basically and OWSer marks a random person as a target. This is usually someone in a position of power on the opposite side. The OWSer calls over the police and tells them that the target has been harassing them and demands an on the spot investigation.

The police oblige, and spend the next 30-45 minutes interviewing the target. Obviously this disrupts the opposition's protest and also, more importantly, it pulls police away from their duties which gives the OWSers room to do whatever nefarious deed they have planned.

*- Source was identified to me, but Lauren asked that I withhold the identification.  Also, this is an edited version of a lengthy email, I believe I have represented it in all material ways correctly.

So it’s not enough to attempt a “public’s veto” of a duly passed bill.  It’s not enough to claim that baby-murder (sorry: “choice”) is so important that we must not have the least amount of regulation and oversight of the facilities in which this butchery (sorry: procedure) will be done.  No, we also have to attempt to have the authorities interfere with the opposition, lest anyone hear their side of it.

Well, murder-bots?  Now our side is being heard.  Whether you like it not.

More, Please Part 2

Take a look at this article (I know, it's Rachel Maddow- think of it as opposition research).  Now, tell me the unnoticed bias which is just completely wrong.

Here, I'll highlight the specific paragraph:

Congress passes hundreds of resolutions, meant to commemorate everything from a special awareness week or Little League champions. The resolutions lack any real power of law and are predominantly ceremonial. For example, earlier this month the Senate passed resolutions to mark "World Plumbing Day" and commemorating the three-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake.

Found it?  Why is US Congress "commemorating" anything?  What business are "special awareness week(s)" or "Little League champions" of the Federal government?  If they so "clutter the floor," maybe we should just do without them?  If they're so much ceremonial fluff, why have them at all?

No, I appreciate this move by Ted Cruz.  More, please.  This is just more reinforcement to the idea that the Federal Government should be involved in our day-to-day lives.  I reject that premise completely.  It is not even partly true.  In a perfect world, I would never have to consider the Federal Government.  I could focus on my State and Local governments (places where a) my voice can really be heard and b) I can at least sort of pay attention to everything that is going on), and let the Federal Government get on with doing it's job.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has decided that I cannot do that.  Or, rather, that I cannot do that if I don't want more and more of my liberty stolen.  So I have to pay attention to this kind of crap.  Well, if I have to pay attention to it, then you'd better treat it seriously.  If it's not important enough to treat seriously, then don't do it.  Period.

I should also mention that I'm glad Ted Cruz does not seem to believe he is there to make best buddies with Harry Reid or (even) John McCain.  Rather he is there to represent the State of Texas and see to it that the Federal Government begins adhering to its actual Constitutionally granted authority.

An authority, I'll note, that includes not one word about "commemorating Multiple-Sclerosis Awareness Week" or anything similar.

Texas Schools: "Be Good Little Communists..."

...And design a flag for the USSA.

Thus is the analysis from EAGNews.org, a school-choice website.  I can't say I completely disagree, but neither does this peg my outrage meter.

In fact, here is my biggest problem with the requirement for kids to create a communist flag: is there one for free countries?  See, the requirement reads thus:

Notice socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system. Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?

Now, it is true that socialist and communist nations use symbolism on their flags, and specifically to represent aspects of their economic symbol (that's why so many of them have the hammer and sickle).  What is also true, however, is that all nations do that.  Our own "Stars and Stripes" are "symbolism" of our political beliefs.  It's just that in communist/socialist nations economic beliefs ARE political beliefs (given that both believe in government control of the economy).  Where the United States flag represents the fifty States, the thirteen original colonies, the bravery of those who fought, etc., etc., the USSR Flag (as one example) had the hammer and sickle to symbolize "The Worker."

So, here is my question- is there one that says, "Democratic/Republican nations use symbolism on their flags to represent various aspects of their political systems and/or national character.  Imagine a new Representative Republic nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag.  Use symbolism to represent aspects of democracy/republicanism on your flag.  What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?"

If the answer to that question is "YES" then I'm... well, not okay with it, but willing to let it slide.  Teachers do have a fair amount of discretion in the classroom after all.  Who's to say the teacher won't lead the kids such that they represent their new communist nation with shackles and a dessert? 

If the answer is "No," then I'm not okay with it.  In that case, either particular political/economic systems should not have been mentioned at all, or you are advocating for socialism/communism- which would be the height of inappropriate in a school curriculum regardless of my own personal beliefs.

According to the story, various officials in Texas have attempted to contact the authors of the curriculum.  Hopefully they will clarify or change the requirement.  Until then, make sure your school board knows about the requirement, and knows that you vigorously oppose it until such time as the correct clarification is provided, or the requirement is removed.

#CultureWar: Madison Rising

Welcome to the first in a new post category for Dedicated Tenther.  #CultureWar will focus on Conservatives in the trenches in the Culture War.  Mostly this will focus on music, because that's where we're best represented.

If you have tips about any #CultureWar soldiers (that would be: entertainers who are conservative, and not shy about it) please send them my way.

****

Madison Rising is a Conservative Rock (yes, apparently this is a genre) band.  You've probably heard or seen their version of the Star Spangled Banner.  That's only the tip of their rock and roll iceberg.  You can buy their music (please do) via the iTunes store or CD Baby, or you can just donate to the band via Pay-Pal (but why, when they're music is so good?).

I've listened to some of their music, and I have to say it's good.  This is not a case of a band receiving praise because they're trying to fill a niche I see needs to be filled, but because they fill it well.  Just as conservatives can listen to liberal weenies like (insert band here) and just enjoy the music, anyone can just listen to Madison Rising for some good hard rock and roll.

Their Star Spangled Banner is below the fold.  Go check 'em out and send them some of your coin.