Boy Scout national headquarters in Philadelphia.
It was an ugly scene in Irving, Texas, when the Boy Scout decided on Wednesday to delay a vote on whether to end the policy of prohibiting openly gay leaders. From today’s Wall Street Journal: “In a Web conference with Scouts leaders on Wednesday afternoon, Scouts Chief Executive Wayne Brock said that proposal to end the ban came as outside forces put pressure on the Scouts to address its policy on gays.” In this context “address” means “get with the progressive program.” Merck and Intel have already withdrawn financial support.
This is one episode among countless that have and will continue to take place. The Selma analogy to the civil rights movement means that gay rights activists believe they have a moral justification for bulldozing all dissent and to force all institutions, private and public, to conform. If executives of companies like Intel aren’t entirely convinced of the cause, they are very fearful of being on the “wrong side.” And so the long march through culture continues.
Two thoughts:
First, America has a very conformist culture. It’s natural for elites to want to be on the winning side of most things—that’s necessary to remain an elite. But the degree of fear of being “outside” the magic circle of the progressive consensus bespeaks a striking sense of vulnerability and lack of independence. I find it amusing that many conservatives think America is exceptional because we’re so “free.” In a certain sense, of course, that’s true. But pyschologically? Socially? Culturally? In the building where we work at First Things a large internet company employs dozens of intelligent, interesting, and uniformly pleasant young people. I’m struck by the fact that they all dress in the same way: the urban hipster look (think Buddy Holly glasses, black jeans, and scuffed wing tip shoes with vibram soles and no socks). They’re all expressing their individuality in the same way. That’s America!
Second, postmodern progressivism has a tendency to spend social capital rather than build it. In this gay rights drama, the Boy Scouts will inevitably be weakened as an institution, because major constituencies will be mad no matter what the outcome. That’s typical, I’m afraid. The older modern progressivism was class based. It often strengthened working class institutions (trade unions, Grange societies, coops). Postmodern progressivism focuses on lifestyle liberation. It’s much closer to libertarianism than socialism. This view is gaining ground. I fear a future of hyper-individualism: everybody making claims to the right to satisfy their desires as we all scramble to get ahead in a competitive free market economy.
I plan to write more on this second point. Let me conclude, however, with this idea: postmodern progressivism is the perfect cultural match for Ayn Rand. As substantive cultural norms that define status (gender roles, marital status, parents and children, student and teacher, wise vs. foolish) diminish, we can only position ourselves with confidence in economic terms (rich vs. poor). Postmodern progressivism liquifies cultural authority. All that’s left is the authority of the market and raw political power.
To me that’s a nightmare, which is one reason I’m a cultural conservative.
February 7th, 2013 | 12:06 pm
In the attached photo, the caption is incorrect – the national headquarters for BSA is in Irving, Texas not Philly (that may be the local council offices).
February 7th, 2013 | 1:27 pm
Today’s progressives are about supporting the powerless against the powerful. That’s not libertarian at all. Progressives still support unions against conservative efforts to destroy them (see Wisconsin and Michigan).
Forcing a powerful institution to stop discriminating against powerless individuals who have harmed no one is not Radian, its justice.
The cranky billionaire libertarians are on the conservative side, not the progressive one. If you are worried about raw political and economic power, surely you would support pre-Reagan tax rates on the upper most income brackets, and serious campaign finance laws.
February 7th, 2013 | 2:15 pm
“Postmodern progressivism liquifies cultural authority”
That’s a rather bizarre assertion. Cultural authority is behind the drive to get the Scouts to change.
February 7th, 2013 | 3:22 pm
@Dano:
“Today’s progressives are about supporting the powerless against the powerful.”
That’s always been the case. You want to protect the least of society from inefficient markets or rigged markets.
“Progressives still support unions against conservative efforts to destroy them (see Wisconsin and Michigan).”
Really? Name some influential economists and policy makers who are huge supporters of unions. They are a dying brand just like pensions. Clintonites are neoliberals who do not deny the markets effectiveness in policies and wealth generation.
The most vocal libertarians are often labeled “conservatives”. But more and more, you find people who want to protect “their right to satisfy their desires”. This can only be achieved through wealth.
Economic freedom is addictive.
February 7th, 2013 | 3:42 pm
Progressives still support unions against conservative efforts to destroy them (see Wisconsin and Michigan).
The unions in question are predatory rent-seeking organizations for public employees. Unions mobilize their members on behalf of compliant politicians who award those members with bon bons from the public treasury.
February 7th, 2013 | 3:43 pm
Cultural authority is behind the drive to get the Scouts to change.
I think you mean higher education and Hollywood.
February 7th, 2013 | 3:44 pm
The Scouts are not entitled to Intel’s money, though. If the policies of the Scouts make them unpopular, why should Merck donate money to them?
This is not a rhetorical question.
February 7th, 2013 | 4:10 pm
Yes, see Wisconsin and Michigan for a classic example of progressive support for the powerful attempting extortion on the powerless. Exactly what government ought to protect us against.
February 7th, 2013 | 4:18 pm
Dano,
“Today’s progressives are about supporting the powerless against the powerful.”
So a private organization that receives no public funding is being pressured to change a policy regarding sexual orientation and so far corporate giants, like Merck and Intel have stopped giving financial support. I wouldn’t call that powerless.
The rest of your comment is fairly boilerplate. The federal income tax system today is actually more progressive than it was 1979. The top 1%, 5% and 10% of earners pay a larger portion of federal income taxes today than they did in 1979. The top marginal tax rate is way lower (39.6% as opposed to 70%) but the effective tax rate (that is the tax rate that the top 1% of earners actually pay on all of their income, not just the last dollar in) is not much different. It is actually a bit lower (~28% today as opposed to ~31% in 1979) – but do you know who else is paying a lower effective rate? Everyone else. That’s right, the bottom 20% of earners paid a higher tax rate in 1979 than they do now. Restoring Carter-era marginal tax rates would slightly raise taxes on the top earners (about 10%). But they would also raise taxes on everyone else – particularly the poor.
I could go on – but marginal tax rates are among the most meaningless of fiscal policy statistics out there. The system is pretty much rigged to benefit the rich, but this is every bit as much the doing of the Democratic Party as anyone else. Do a bit more research and thinking before just spitting out talking points.
February 7th, 2013 | 4:33 pm
The Selma analogy to the civil rights movement means that gay rights activists believe they have a moral justification for bulldozing all dissent and to force all institutions, private and public, to conform. If executives of companies like Intel aren’t entirely convinced of the cause, they are very fearful of being on the “wrong side.”
R. R. Reno,
Do you think it’s at least possible that Intel has a sincere commitment to nondiscrimination as a company policy, values its gay employees, and genuinely finds itself troubled by making large donations to an organization that bans gay people? It really does sound like you feel what we have is a war between good (cultural conservatives) and evil (progressives and homosexual bullies). Isn’t it possible that friends, fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers of gay people—in addiction to gay people themselves—believe there is unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and are sincerely believe they are trying to right a wrong by opposing that discrimination?
February 7th, 2013 | 4:46 pm
I’m a nineteen year old straight guy. I will agree with gay scoutmasters the moment they let me supervise a troop of girl scouts during a slumber party. Same thing.
February 7th, 2013 | 5:08 pm
ZZ,
Are you suggesting that you would deliberately do something improper, or that you could not resist doing something improper, if you supervised a troop of Girl Scouts? Are 19-year-old straight guys not to be trusted around Girl Scouts?
Also, do Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts have “slumber parties”?
February 7th, 2013 | 7:23 pm
David,
Your questions are beside the point, really. It’s irrelevant whether ZZ himself would behave improperly, it is simply improper for a grown man to be supervising something like a slumber party for young girls. At the very least it opens up opportunities for those who might be less disinclined than ZZ to commit improprieties. And at one time, though admittedly not for about the last forty-five years, there was such a thing as modesty. I think ZZ’s point is appropos.
February 7th, 2013 | 8:43 pm
My husband works for Intel. They will no longer dollar-match employee donations to local Boy Scout Troops unless the Troop’s Chartering organization signs a non-discrimination agreement…
“Regarding our volunteer matching grant program, as you know, Intel matches the amount of time employees volunteer to eligible non-profit organizations with dollars from the Intel Foundation when volunteer hours are reported. The Intel Foundation has an existing non-discrimination policy that states that we do not contribute to organizations that discriminate in the delivery of services. Last April a decision was made to require organizations that receive funding to confirm that they adhere to Intel’s non-discrimination policy in writing. We understand not all organizations that currently receive funding will be able to acknowledge their services are available to all, and we respect their right to make that choice and for our employees to engage. However, we will not be able to support them with matching dollars from the Intel Foundation from this point forward.
All organizations that have received funds from the volunteer matching grant program will receive a letter from Intel in the coming weeks asking them to return an affidavit that affirms that they do not discriminate in the delivery of their services. Only those organizations that sign and return the letter will be eligible for a matching grant of 2012 hours, which is paid out in Q2 2013.”
February 7th, 2013 | 8:50 pm
A reminder that your title, “Boy Scouts And Sex” is exactly what Boy Scouts was not supposed to be about. It was supposed to be a forum in which sex, sexual diversity, and sexual attraction are subjects better left to the discretion of the parents.
February 7th, 2013 | 9:11 pm
That’s a rather bizarre assertion.
Boo,
Bizarre, but not unexpected if you’ve picked up on Reno’s shtick that modern-day progressives, of whatever stripe, are (in some ill-defined sense) Marxists.
For example, Reno’s “Postmodern progressivism liquifies cultural authority” seems to be a reference to Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto: “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned…”
Reno’s “so the long march through culture continues” is an obvious reference to Rudi Dutschke’s 1967 slogan “Der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen.” Dutschke was a major player in the “generation of 68″ student movement in West Germany. “Der lange Marsch” is not just a tip of the hat to Mao, it’s also a condensation and elaboration of the cultural Marxism that pervaded the universities at that time.
That being said, I don’t agree with Reno’s post. He has presented no evidence that the folks who agitate for or support “gay rights” are in fact closet Marxists (of whatever variety) whose real aim is to undermine the institutions of bourgeois society. Nor does he articulate how one can plausibly see hyper-individualist and pro-capitalist Randians as being compatible those he claims are cultural Marxists.
February 7th, 2013 | 10:40 pm
As I’ve pointed out before, the policies of the boy scouts don’t allow any leader to supervise any group by themselves. Indeed, no leader is to be alone with any scout that isn’t their child. Google ‘two-deep leadership’ if you want actual information.
February 8th, 2013 | 12:06 am
Most progressivism isn’t; it’s actually neo-Victorian bourgeois morality. It’s not really about helping the poor as the knowledge-working, urban elite affirming what they think is good; this is why we have focusing on gay marriage, obesity, and other forms of correct thinking rather than real measures that help the poor. It amazes me that the anger over this isn’t greater than it is.
What’s sad is that in a way, conservatism is the same. Both classes are dominated by the knowledge elite, and their values. Correct thinking on moral issues is more important than actual change. We’ll at least be a nation where gays can marry while we see 15% unemployment, and God knows how much underemployment.
February 8th, 2013 | 12:50 am
“Progressives still support unions against conservative efforts to destroy them”
Do they really? Or do they protect faithful donors – aka the power brokers in the last paragraph? Especially when those fights stemmed from public union privilege of forced membership and dues. So the fight was really the party’s hold onto public coffers attained through coercive means.
February 8th, 2013 | 1:56 am
Everybody wants to say they’re counter-cultural but now we Catholics truly are.
I don’t know if BSA will approve gays now but I am almost certain they will in the next 15 years unless something radical changes.
Let’s go for authentically Catholic youth programs like Conquest & Challenge clubs [full disclosure: I write some of their stuff but I'm not paid], Life Teen, or the programs from Ecce Homo Press. There is nothing sacred about BSA that means we need to stick with them.
February 8th, 2013 | 3:17 am
David Nickol asks:
David, when you say “gay people” are you referring to all scouts or just scout leaders?
February 8th, 2013 | 6:59 am
Fred and ZZ- the Girl Scouts has been open to lesbians for a long time now, without incident.
February 8th, 2013 | 9:32 am
David, when you say “gay people” are you referring to all scouts or just scout leaders?
Douglas Johnson,
I was not advocating any specific policy for the Boy Scouts. I was addressing R. R. Reno’s tone, as in the following statement:
It seems to imply that supporters of gay rights are not people of good will trying to remedy what they consider unjust discrimination, but bullies trying to dominate everyone else by force. Let’s go back to Selma itself. Was Martin Luther King intent on “bulldozing all dissent”? R. R. Reno seems to be saying the gay rights movement seems to think it has a right to act like the civil rights movement. This would seem to imply the civil rights movement was about bullying people.
February 8th, 2013 | 9:50 am
Your questions are beside the point, really.
Fred,
I think ZZ’s was as well, for reasons I pointed out in my message and also reasons Raymond Ingles points out above. First, the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts don’t have “slumber parties.” Second, the Boy Scouts have policies that prevent any adult from being alone with minors under any circumstances. I would assume this goes double for any events that take place in some kind of isolation (like camping trips).
I have not taken any specific position on gay scout leaders, but I can’t imagine any openly gay scout leader would want or allow himself to be in a position where he could even theoretically abuse minors, since that would leave open the possibility of suspicion or false accusation. The people to worry about when it comes to abusing children are adults who are above suspicion—people like Jerry Sandusky.
February 8th, 2013 | 10:21 am
David Nickol
“This would seem to imply the civil rights movement was about bullying people.”
Well, it certainly went beyond peaceful persuasion. You cannot have a decaffeinated revolution – 1789 without 1793, that is, asserting equality, human rights and freedoms, whilst shirking from the consequences of defending them against opponents.
February 8th, 2013 | 11:53 am
Freedom of Assembly is as important as Freedom of Speech for the reason that if private organizations are not granted their autonomy, they cannot provide a check on the power of the state or on factions favored by the state. Or to put it another way, why should not Evangelicals have a say as to who gets to have authority in a gay-rights organization?
February 8th, 2013 | 11:58 am
“That’s a rather bizarre assertion. Cultural authority is behind the drive to get the Scouts to change.”
As it is behind the resistance to said drive. Non-state organizations have as much right to resist interference from other such groups as from the government.
February 8th, 2013 | 12:30 pm
You cannot have a decaffeinated revolution – 1789 without 1793…
I can’t agree, Michael PS. We Americans are pretty good at having “decaffeinated revolutions” (to the extent that it’s accurate to call the Civil Rights Movements of the 60s and 70s “revolutions”). The highlight of the 1963 March on Washington was a fine speech by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., not the holding of tribunals that resulted in the beheading of segregationist leaders on the Mall. When time ran out for ratification of the ERA in 1982, the women’s libbers didn’t respond by having the Justice Department judicially murder Phyllis Schlafly.
Almost all of the violence surrounding the African-American Civil Rights movement came from the supporters of Jim Crow. That being said, even that regrettable level of bloody violence cannot be reasonably compared with the carnage in France in 1793, or in 1832, or in 1848, or in 1871, or even after the fall of Vichy.
February 8th, 2013 | 1:12 pm
” First, the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts don’t have “slumber parties.”
I’m not sure how precisely you’re defining the term “slumber party,” but I Googled “boy scout lock in” and “girl scout lock in” and got at least two pages worth of relevant unique hits for each one. For the purposes of the point being made, a slumber party and a lock in is the same thing.
February 8th, 2013 | 2:18 pm
If gays want to complain that no one lets them marry, they should stop trying to interfere with the rules of other groups. Their rights do not include treading on those of other people.
February 8th, 2013 | 2:34 pm
Ha ha. Intel discriminates against those who don’t believe in property rights – a lifestyle choice just as much as the “gay” lifestyle is.
February 8th, 2013 | 3:42 pm
Progressives ARE the powerful who now oppress those who get in their way. Homosexual men who want to take young boys camping. What could go wrong? And to even ask that question, or think it, is a thoughtcrime.
February 8th, 2013 | 4:15 pm
David Nickol writes:
No, David, 19-year-old straight guys are not to be trust around Girl Scouts. This is why the BSA co-ed Venturing program does not allow overnight trips with male-only leaders when teenage girls are in attendance. If there are teenage girls on the trip then at least one female leader must be on the trip as well. This is in-addition to the two-teer leader requirements.
I have a friend who is very high up at the national organization for the BSA. He supports the proposal to allow homosexual Boy Scout leaders. He explained the Venturing program policy was put in place to help guard against any possible situation where a girl(s) could be molested by a male leader. He said, however, there was no plan to institute such protections for the 11-17 year old boys potentially sent on overnight trips with two homosexual males.
He agreed it would be consistent with the Venturing program policy to put in such protections, but he said “that would require asking the sexual orientation of every leader, and then treating homosexual men as potential child molesters [as they treat male leaders who take teenage Venturer girls on overnight trips].”
February 8th, 2013 | 6:53 pm
@Ray Ingles: “The Scouts are not entitled to Intel’s money, though. If the policies of the Scouts make them unpopular, why should Merck donate money to them?”
Fair enough. Of course, Intel is not ENTITLED to my money, either. There are other chip manufacturers. “Oh, but they support the same things!” you might object. Yes; but it is my policy to “shoot the deserters first”, to use the military analogy.
Besides, it would be one thing for Intel to say, “Hey, we don’t give a crap about right vs. wrong, except for right and wrong business decisions. It’s all about $$$ and nothing but $$$ for us.” Such a position would not be particularly admirable, but at least it would be honest. It is when they try claiming to be more morally “evolved” (as Obama would put it) than the rest of us that they become particularly obnoxious. (Note that in making this claim, they are careful not to hold themselves to any rigorous and unchanging standard. They are quite prepared to evolve away their eyes, like a cave salamander, or their limbs, like a snake, or their souls, like typical CEOs.)
February 9th, 2013 | 9:11 am
Psychological science should not be ignored in regard to the attempt to permit homosexual scout masters in the Boy Scouts. The crisis of the sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic Church in which adolescent males were the primary victims of abuse by homosexual males should be thoroughly evaluated. (1.)
A 1988 study of molesters of minors by W.D. revealed, “86 percent of the offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” (2.)
Also, members of the homosexual community are more likely to have a positive view of sexual relations between adult and adolescent males. (3)
Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a member of the first Bishops Conference National Review Board and, stated in an interview about the crisis in the Catholic Church:
I’m amazed that this fundamental bombshell [of the homosexual predation of American adolescent males] has not been the subject of greater interest and discussion. . . . I’m astonished that people throughout America are not . . . wondering about what the mechanisms were that set this alight.” (4.)
We need to protect male youth from the risk of being sexually abused by adult males.
(1.) Fitzgibbons, R & O’Leary, D. (2011) Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Clergy The Linacre Quarterly 78(3) (August ): 252–273.
(2.) Larry Kramer, Reports from the Holocaust (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981), 234
(3.) W.D. Erickson et al., “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83)
(4.) Tim Drake, “Abuse Progress: Board Winning Uphill Battle,” National Catholic Register, November 13, 2005.
February 9th, 2013 | 9:46 am
Two homosexuals supervising a Boy Scout is like two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner. Not even two-deep leadership will solve that problem. Excluding self-described “homosexual” males from supervising boys is reasonable and prudent.
February 9th, 2013 | 11:22 am
Do you think it’s at least possible that Intel has a sincere commitment to nondiscrimination as a company policy, values its gay employees, and genuinely finds itself troubled by making large donations to an organization that bans gay people? It really does sound like you feel what we have is a war between good (cultural conservatives) and evil (progressives and homosexual bullies). Isn’t it possible that friends, fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers of gay people—in addiction to gay people themselves—believe there is unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and are sincerely believe they are trying to right a wrong by opposing that discrimination?
Do you think it possible that institutions might be left in peace to pursue their own educational and cultural missions, and that there might be areas of life not infected with discussion of human sexuality or the detritus of other people’s sexual problems?
Corporations respond to pressure groups, but the pressure groups are manned by people unwilling to leave anyone else alone.
February 9th, 2013 | 12:54 pm
Can the Boy Scouts remain true to their original mission or will they give in to pressure and betray their foundational morality?
Unfortunately, the BSA have no infallible Magisterium to prevent them from going from “morally straight” to the new morality.
February 9th, 2013 | 4:13 pm
Two homosexuals supervising a Boy Scout is like two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.
Vince in Lousville,
Leaving aside the implication that all gay men are sexual predators at heart, which is wholly and completely unwarranted and a slander on gay men as a group, there is also the implication that gay men in general find boys between the ages of 11-1/2 to 18 enormously attractive sexually. I would venture to say that the number of straight men who find 11-1/2 to 18-year-old girls highly sexually attractive is roughly the same as the number of gay men who find 11-1/2 to 18-year-old boys sexually attractive. I think the people here who have equated putting heterosexual men in charge of Girls Scout “slumber parties” with putting gay men in charge of Boy Scout “slumber parties” have not been wildly off base. But to imply that gay men in general can’t wait to get their hands on young adolescent boys is as unwarranted and slanderous as implying that straight men can’t wait to get their hands on young adolescent girls.
Most people, gay or straight, would not prey on minors if given the chance, because most people, gay or straight, are not sexual predators.
February 9th, 2013 | 7:00 pm
Do you think it possible that institutions might be left in peace to pursue their own educational and cultural missions . . . .
Art Deco
First, you didn’t answer my question, but then again, I don’t believe anybody else did. Isn’t it possible that many people who support gay rights do so because they sincerely and honestly believe discrimination against gay people is wrong? Even if you disagree with them about what is for the common good, can’t you grant that they are just as interested in it as you are?
To answer your question, no, I don’t think it is possible. As long as conservative groups seek to put pressure on corporations that support, say, Planned Parenthood, I don’t see why liberal groups should be expected not to pressure corporations that support organizations that discriminate.
You seem to assume that Intel’s financial support of the Boy Scouts sprang from some kind of neutrality on their part, and that pressure on them was breaking some kind of code of fair-play. But supporting an organization financially sends just as much of a message as not supporting it financially. Intel, just like Chick-fil-A, has a right to support the organizations whose work it agrees with, and it has a right not to support organizations who don’t conform to its values. If Chick-fil-A can donate to organizations that ban gay people, then Intel can refuse to donate to organizations that ban gay people. They are both doing the same thing—promoting their own values.
February 9th, 2013 | 9:18 pm
David, it doesn’t matter. Let’s take something similar: Male elementary school teachers. They’ve virtually disappeared from schools, because of the fears of abuse. Despite how rare those predators are, and I agree that gay scoutleaders are just as rare to be such, it’s still not a tolerable risk to people.
All it takes is a few incidents to create a climate of fear, and those incidents do happen. So we get a lot of suspicion and hoops for male elementary school teachers to go through. Gay scoutmasters will be the same way, and there’s a strong argument for them not to be them if just for self-protection. All it takes is one disgruntled scout intimating abuse and lives can be wrecked.
Everyone’s looking at it from one way. Look at it from the other-this also protects the adult as much as the child. It’s better if we could accept realistic attitudes towards rarity of abuse, but who’s willing to gamble their kids on it?
February 9th, 2013 | 9:22 pm
Assigning personhood to sexual preference does not change the fact that one is either male or female, thus it is not unjust discrimination to discriminate between sexual behavior that respects the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, and sexual behavior that does not respect the inherent personal and relational essence of the human person.
February 9th, 2013 | 10:28 pm
David Nickol,
Earlier you wrote:
And then today you wrote:
Characterize it anyway you want but the Scouts’ policy on co-ed Venturing is that it would be irresponsible for BSA policy to ignore that some male leaders might have an attraction for, say, a 17-year-old girl. And for that reason female leaders must accompany any overnight trips that have girl Venturers.
Unless you want to get tactical with your argument, I’m sure you’d agree the policy on overnight Venturing trips with girls in attendance is a sound one.
Could you provide a clear answer on the following: If the BSA someday allows gay troop leaders, do you believe the BSA should institute the same policy for Boy Scout overnight trips as they do for Venturing trips? To be more specific, do you think troop leaders should have to declare their sexual orientation, and that BSA policy should not permit two gay male leaders on an overnight trip without a straight male in attendance, due to the natural sexual attraction that some gay leaders may have toward the boys in their troop?
February 9th, 2013 | 10:54 pm
David Nickol writes:
I’m sure you read R.R. Reno’s post when he described exactly what he means by the Selma Analogy, but here it is again if you missed it:
I’ll let you search First Things for all the posts explaining the fallacy of equating the normalization of sodomy, and the sexual revolution in general, with the color of a man’s skin. But painting someone as a Mississippi Burning type racist is about the most vile way you could depict another human being in America today. If you accuse someone of that kind of racism in public, you aren’t engaging him in a reasoned debate. You are attempting to destroy him and to make sure he never opens his mouth again. It’s not only vile. It’s the work of an absolute coward.
February 10th, 2013 | 11:44 am
The Civil Rights Movement was about the denial of personhood due to ancestry.
February 10th, 2013 | 3:23 pm
To be more specific, do you think troop leaders should have to declare their sexual orientation, and that BSA policy should not permit two gay male leaders on an overnight trip without a straight male in attendance . . .
Douglas Johnson,
What we are talking about is allowing openly gay men to be scout leaders. You do not have to ask an openly gay man what his sexual orientation is.
I think any openly gay man in a scout leadership position would be a fool to ever seek—or let himself be put in—a position where possible allegations of improper behavior with scouts could occur. I have no problem with excluding openly gay men from situations where improper behavior could be falsely alleged or where it might actually occur. I have no problem in treating gay men interacting with Boy Scouts in a similar way to adult men interacting with Girl Scouts.
It seems to me there is a mini-hysteria here that gives the impression that all scout leaders do is spend the night with scouts at “lock ins” and camping trips. Surely there is a lot more to scouting than that.
February 10th, 2013 | 4:16 pm
The Selma analogy makes traditional views of sexual morality as noxious as racism . . . .
Douglas Johnson,
I think this is false. People who engage in premarital sex are doing something wrong according to traditional sexual morality. People who divorce and remarry are doing something wrong according to traditional (Catholic) sexual morality. The 40 percent of out-of-wedlock births in the United States indicate something is very wrong according to traditional morality, as do the 22% of pregnancies that end in abortion. I am quite willing to let all those who believe in traditional sexual morality to maintain their beliefs. What I am not willing for them to do is to discriminate against gay people, cohabiting people, “unwed mothers,” and women who have abortions.
The civil rights laws did not demand that any American change what he or she thought about black people. They demanded, in certain cases, that Americans changed their behavior so as not to discriminate against black people. People are free to think whatever they want about homosexual sex acts. They simply must not discriminate against gay people.
February 10th, 2013 | 4:41 pm
Douglas Johnson,
For good or ill, traditional sexual morality would still seem rather quaint today if gay people didn’t even exist. Why some people are obsessed with homosexuality is beyond me. The prevailing view on same-sex marriage seems to be, “We heterosexuals have messed up so badly over the last few decades, we have to draw the line . . . at same-sex marriage!” Robert George and his co-authors say in their paper What Is Marriage?
The message seems to be that heterosexuals have botched things up so badly on their own, that if they ever decide to attempt “reversing other recent trends and restoring the many social benefits of a healthy marriage culture,” same-sex marriage will get in their way. Those in the anti-same-sex-marriage movement never seem to want to impose any burdens on themselves. Look what a flop covenant marriage is, for example. And what are the odds of rolling back no-fault divorce? How many heterosexuals refrain from premarital sex? Apparently the only people truly expected to live celibately and chastely are gay people.
February 10th, 2013 | 8:53 pm
DAvid Nickol,
I can’t tell if you are intentionally trying to steal a base in your 4:16 post, or if you didn’t understand what R.R. Reno wrote. In the sentence you quote, Mr. Reno is saying that your side in the debate is using the Selma analogy to paint folks on my side of the debate as if we were Mississippi Burning-type racists. He aptly calls that a total war doctrine because if you can get away with publicly accusing someone of being that type of racist, you effectively destroy them economically and socially unless they are already at the bottom of the barrel.
What you wrote in response has nothing to do with what R.R. Reno wrote at all. What I can’t figure out is whether you honestly don’t know you are avoiding the topic, or whether you are just trying to frame the debate so you don’t have to address it.
February 11th, 2013 | 1:00 am
Douglas Johnson,
I saw Nickol’s post as a guarded attempt to obtain a clarification from R. R. Reno in regards to Reno’s characterization of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Please note that Nickol’s “request” for clarification is couched in qualifications:
“It seems to imply that supporters of gay rights are not people of good will trying to remedy what they consider unjust discrimination, but bullies trying to dominate everyone else by force. Let’s go back to Selma itself. Was Martin Luther King intent on “bulldozing all dissent”? R. R. Reno seems to be saying the gay rights movement seems to think it has a right to act like the civil rights movement. This would seem to imply the civil rights movement was about bullying people.”
Viewed through the lens of Reno’s current post, and also his earlier posts about the “Selma Analogy” (cf. especially his May ’12 Public Square), I see this as both a reasonable interpretation of and response to Reno’s words. A clarification would be useful. For example:
Why the consistently ambivalent attitude towards the African-American civil rights movement?
Why the accompanying eliding of other significant moments in the modern history of American civil rights (rights for women, the handicapped, labor, etc.)?
Why the apparent pretense that the “the vast coercive power of the civil-rights apparatus” (to use Reno’s words) isn’t also, and equally, defending the rights of the handicapped, women, workers, ethnic and national minorities, and even religious groups like Catholics?
February 11th, 2013 | 10:14 am
In the sentence you quote, Mr. Reno is saying that your side in the debate is using the Selma analogy to paint folks on my side of the debate as if we were Mississippi Burning-type racists.
Douglas Johnson,
Obviously in any campaign for rights that are being denied, whether they are the rights of African Americans, women, Jews, gay people, Catholics, etc., one facet of the campaign is to argue that denial of rights should be socially unacceptable. Race and sexual orientation are not perfectly analogous, but neither are race and religion, or religion and national origin. Yet there is something similar enough about all kinds of discrimination that speak of them together when we say, for example, “race, color, creed, or national origin.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “They [people with a homosexual orientation] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” If people on your side of the debate can’t make a convincing case that denying what gay-rights advocates seek isn’t “unjust discrimination,” then you will be judged accordingly. Gay rights groups don’t argue that discrimination based on sexual orientation is exactly the same as discrimination based on race. But it is similar in some ways. There is no way gay rights organizations can trick people into thinking one way or another. The side that makes the better argument is the side that will win—or at that is what people who believe in American democracy will trust to be the case.
February 11th, 2013 | 10:57 am
Benighted Savage,
Just about everything David Nickol writes is drowning in qualifications and protectors. The moment anyone quotes him in a troubling way on any topic, he always retreats with something like “hey, I didn’t say X, I was merely wondered that something was unresolved here, but if you look at his use of the word “were” here on 1/22/2010 and then compare that to the tacit implication again on 6/10/2012…”
As for your comments, please point out where R.R. Reno said one word ambivalent about the moral rightness of the cause of equal rights for black Americans.
You then go on to say that it’s inappropriate to make an argument about the civil rights movement that led to the 1964 Voting Rights Act unless one also says something about the feminist movement, the labor movement, and handicapped access.
I keep having to remind myself that I’m supposed to love you. I keep having to remind myself that all I should really concern myself with is helping you to love Christ and seek his forgiveness along with me. I wish I were better at it.
February 11th, 2013 | 11:36 am
David Nickol write:
What would that case look like? And if you can’t think of one then am I to take it that you feel you are judging us accordingly as vile human beings?
Someday I hope you will consider a more Christian approach. Let me leave you with some words by S.M. Hutchens from Touchstone magazine:
February 11th, 2013 | 11:38 am
DN writes: “Obviously in any campaign for rights that are being denied, whether they are the rights of African Americans, women, Jews, gay people, Catholics, etc., one facet of the campaign is to argue that denial of rights should be socially unacceptable. Race and sexual orientation are not perfectly analogous, but neither are race and religion, or religion and national origin. Yet there is something similar enough about all kinds of discrimination that speak of them together when we say, for example, “race, color, creed, or national origin.”
I think we all agree that a denial of legitimate human rights should be socially unacceptable.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say, “Every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided”; It says every sign of “unjust discrimination” should be avoided. It is not unjust for the BSA to bar homosexual men from supervising boys. It has a justifiable rational basis. It is not unjust for public authority to limit marriage to men and women.
February 11th, 2013 | 11:58 am
Just about everything David Nickol writes is drowning in qualifications and protectors.
Douglas Johnson,
From Merriam-Webster:
One of the principal reasons that prompts me to comment in forums like this is a belief that things are rarely as simple as they are made out to be. There are almost always two sides to every issue, and there is almost always room for people of good will to disagree.
February 11th, 2013 | 12:16 pm
As for your comments, please point out where R.R. Reno said one word ambivalent about the moral rightness of the cause of equal rights for black Americans.
Douglas Johnson,
R. R. Reno does not question the moral rightness of the cause. He is clearly ambivalent, however, about what was done in the name of the civil rights movement. Read The Selma Analogy if you don’t think so.
February 11th, 2013 | 12:25 pm
David Nickol,
I wrote:
You responded with:
And then you added:
So you will judge us accordingly as socially unacceptable. But you’ll still regard us as “people of good will” who happen to disagree. I guess I’m having trouble getting my head around your branding us as socially unacceptable people of good will.
February 11th, 2013 | 12:46 pm
David Nickol,
FYI, that’s not how Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines nuanced (and neither does any other dictionary at my finger tips). But that’s beside the point.
You used all those “seems” in your previous comment about R.R. Reno to accuse him of suggesting that the civil rights movement that culminated in the 1964 Voting Rights Act was about “bullying people.”
New Oxford American Dictionary
February 11th, 2013 | 1:58 pm
David Nickol,
I guess I’ll just keep trying. To repeat:
And since you won’t find where R.R. Reno says equal rights for black Americans is morally wrong, then please quote me the specific sentences where R.R. Reno implies, in your words: “the civil rights movement was about bullying people.”
February 11th, 2013 | 3:00 pm
So you will judge us accordingly as socially unacceptable. But you’ll still regard us as “people of good will” who happen to disagree. I guess I’m having trouble getting my head around your branding us as socially unacceptable people of good will.
Douglas Johnson,
I said nothing about “socially unacceptable people.” I said “denial of rights should be socially unacceptable.”
February 11th, 2013 | 3:22 pm
please point out where R.R. Reno said one word ambivalent about the moral rightness of the cause of equal rights for black Americans
Douglas Johnson,
Perhaps my reply above had not appeared when you wrote this. I said, “R. R. Reno does not question the moral rightness of the cause. He is clearly ambivalent, however, about what was done in the name of the civil rights movement.” Please follow the link and read The Selma Analogy.
Bullying was my own word, but bulldozing is R. R. Reno’s word. He said:
I find it difficult to read that to say anything other than that those in the civil rights movement believed they had a moral justification for bulldozing all dissent and forcing all institutions, public and private, to conform. It is clear (and note that I don’t say “seems clear”) that no matter how morally right R. R. Reno thinks the civil rights movement was, he has serious reservations about what was done by government, which he believes was an unprecedented intrusion on personal freedom. Ultimately, as I understand him, he seems to think, at least in retrospect, that it really was necessary. But clearly he is ambivalent.
February 11th, 2013 | 4:11 pm
David Nickol says:
Well let’s review. Up above you quoted a sentence I wrote:
And then immediately after quoting me you justified the Selma analogy tactic, saying:
Well I guess it comes down to what you think. Do you think that denying gays “the right to marry” denies their “rights”? I am kind of under the impression that you do think that.
But I really want to be fair here. So you are saying that anything we do to oppose the redefinition of marriage is “socially unacceptable” because such actions work to deny gay people their rights. But just because you think people like us go around doing things that are socially unacceptable (i.e. working to stop the redefinition of marriage), in no way, shape, or form means you think we are socially unacceptable. Do I have that right? Now THAT’S nuance.
February 11th, 2013 | 5:38 pm
Well I guess it comes down to what you think. Do you think that denying gays “the right to marry” denies their “rights”? I am kind of under the impression that you do think that.
Douglas Johnson,
I have never argued that same-sex marriage is a right. I have said in my messages here a number of times that I am not convinced it is a right, although it may indeed be. I do support same-sex marriage, however. I think gay people have a right to form legal unions. I think it makes sense to open marriage to same-sex couples rather than create a new legal union specifically for same-sex couples.
But just because you think people like us go around doing things that are socially unacceptable (i.e. working to stop the redefinition of marriage), in no way, shape, or form means you think we are socially unacceptable. Do I have that right? Now THAT’S nuance.
I have never said anything about people being “socially unacceptable.” I am not quite sure what that would mean. I suppose I would not invite Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church to dinner, but it would not occur to me to call him a “socially unacceptable person.”
Let me ask you this. Do you think it is socially acceptable for Pastor Phelps to hold demonstrations waving signs that say, “God hates fags”? If so, then maybe we can agree that there is some behavior directed against gay people that is not socially acceptable.
February 11th, 2013 | 7:19 pm
February 12th, 2013 | 9:19 am
After 25 centuries of grounding morality on God in the individual conscience, we may relapse into the tryanny of a tribal morality.
Douglas Johnson,
I am not saying the way to make something morally right is to make it socially acceptable, and the way to make it morally wrong is to make it socially unacceptable. I am saying discrimination against gay people should be socially unacceptable because it is wrong. This is why those in the civil rights movement sought to make racial discrimination socially unacceptable—not because they wanted to find a new basis for morality, but because they wanted people to realize that existing moral principles made racial discrimination wrong. Those who fought against centuries of Christian support for slavery, or anti-Semitism, or burning heretics were not trying to overturn morality and replace it with something arbitrary. They were trying to get people to realize that what they believed to be right, and often even justified by quoting the Bible, was actually wrong.
February 12th, 2013 | 10:46 am
DN is clever. He is right to argue that we should judge laws on the basis of what is really right and wrong. He is wrong that all legal discrimination in regard to homosexuality is unjust. The big lie he implies is that the crusaders on his side aren’t trying to overturn traditional morality.
“Those who fought against centuries of Christian support for slavery, or anti-Semitism, or burning heretics were not trying to overturn morality and replace it with something arbitrary. They were trying to get people to realize that what they believed to be right, and often even justified by quoting the Bible, was actually wrong.”
Homosexual activists ARE trying to overturn traditional natural law and Christian morality and replace it with something arbitrary. They want what they want and they want to be approved for it.
February 12th, 2013 | 10:53 am
David Nickol,
I had a two-part comment and only the second was posted because the first was too long. I shall try again.
You asked me if I thought it was socially acceptable for some guy to walk around shouting “God hates fags.” Saying “God hates fags” is plainly wrong because of what Christ said. But “socially acceptable”? The phrase itself is pure trash.
The following was a BBC radio address delivered by Don Cuputt in 1974. I’ve edited most of it down for space reasons:
February 12th, 2013 | 11:04 am
David Nickol writes:
The civil rights movement was lead by a preacher that quoted the Bible endlessly to demonstrate that we were obliged by the teachings of Christ and the Bible as a whole not to discriminate against someone based on nothing more than the color of their skin.
The same moral basis in Scripture makes clear that sodomy, fornication, adultery, etc. are sins.
February 12th, 2013 | 3:17 pm
CoastRanger and Douglas Johnson,
There may be threads where I will get into discussions about “traditional morality” and scripture, but what concerns me here is mainly the law. As I have said a number of times, people who divorce and remarry are doing something wrong according to traditional (Catholic) sexual morality. However, that does not prevent federal law from prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. Our government is not Catholic or even Christian. US laws are not based on the Bible. You don’t have to be a Christian to be a citizen in the United States. You can be a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew, an atheist, and so on.
February 12th, 2013 | 5:54 pm
DN,
Every just system of law has to be based on some kind of morality. The Catholic Church actually advocates legal systems be based on the natural law.
Under natural law I don’t think there is any such thing as homosexual rights. There are human rights that all persons possess but nothing specific that pertains to homosexuals.
February 12th, 2013 | 6:39 pm
David Nickol writes:
You said that it is not discrimination if the federal government does not redefine marriage. So no discrimination there.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts do not have to admit gay leaders. So no discrimination there.
You do think that it constitutes discrimination if unmarried gay people aren’t treated like married people. And yet, I’M not married, have intimate friends, and yet I’m not treated like a married person with respect to marriage. This is because I’m not married. Am I discriminated against because the federal government doesn’t treat me like something I’m not?
February 12th, 2013 | 7:02 pm
CoastRanger,
You are right that DN is clever, but to what end? It all sounds like such laboriously contrived prose, ever so sensitive to making sure that he never actually says anything in particular. Oh it’s plain enough what he believes, so why these endless efforts to conceal, dodge and pose for our audiences or 1 or 2 (plus the censor!)? I have to admit sometimes I keep participating because I find the display fascinating at times.
I’m reminded of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are about to get into a fight. But before they do they wrap themselves in bolsters, blankets, hearthrugs, tablecloths, dish covers, and coal scuttles.” Alice remarked that were really like bundles of old clothes more than anything else, as she tied a bolster around Tweedledee’s neck. Tweedledee responded, “it’s one of the most serious things I can possibly happen to one in battle – to get one’s head cut off.”
February 12th, 2013 | 7:08 pm
CoastRanger writes:
I don’t know if you saw this excerpt by S. M. Hutchens I posted (taken from Touchstone magazine) that speaks to your point:
February 12th, 2013 | 7:15 pm
The Catholic Church actually advocates legal systems be based on the natural law.
CoastRanger,
First, not everyone believes in natural law. Second, there are many different theories of natural law. Third, the Catholic understanding of natural law is (in my opinion) simply one aspect of Catholic teaching, not a verifiable, objective look at the world. The Catholic Church may believe that everyone should arrive at its understanding of the natural law, but obvilusly they don’t.
Here is an entertaining clip of Justice Scalia giving his opinion on the place of natural law in our system. Briefly, he says judges are no experts on these questions (and he specifically mentions homosexuality), and in democratic systems, the people should decide in the political realm what they believe natural law requires. That is what is happening with gay rights. The decisions are being made through the political process.
As I understand the Catholic approach to natural law, one of its assumptions is “the Fall” (of Adam and Eve). That, to me, makes it fundamentally a religious understanding of the world. Not even Jews, who share Genesis as scripture with Christians, accept “the Fall.”
February 12th, 2013 | 8:48 pm
DN,
The Catholic understanding of natural law is based on reason, not any divine revelation. The natural law is reason looking at human nature to try to discover what is really good and bad for human beings.
If the natural law is not “a verifiable, objective look at the world” then nothing is and we are back to cowering at the feet of whoever has more raw power.
February 13th, 2013 | 9:14 am
CoastRanger –
And honest disagreement on such things is impossible? One of the issues, for example, is the nature of homosexuality itself – is it innate, learned, some admixture thereof, or something else yet?
February 13th, 2013 | 9:59 am
David Nickol,
You’ve made clear that after ten or so years of thinking and writing every day on every First Things post (at least every one that I’ve ever looked at) about the redefinition of marriage that you still don’t have an opinion on whether gays have a right to marry.
And yet you constantly refer to “gay rights.” In our country, what specific human rights are denied to a man because of sexual actions he takes with other men? Please contrast that with a heterosexual man, whom for whatever reasons, remains single his entire life.
February 13th, 2013 | 10:38 am
The Catholic understanding of natural law is based on reason, not any divine revelation. The natural law is reason looking at human nature to try to discover what is really good and bad for human beings.
CoastRanger,
But if the Catholic Church is right about this, then anyone capable of reason should be able to make judgments about the natural law that are just as valid as those of the Catholic Church. We would not need the Catholic Church to make pronouncements on aspects of the natural law. As Scalia implies, if natural law is based on reason, then determinations about natural law should be debated and voted on by the people. He doesn’t believe judges should decide what the natural law requires. Certainly anyone who is not Catholic does not want the Catholic Church to decide.
If the natural law is not “a verifiable, objective look at the world” then nothing is and we are back to cowering at the feet of whoever has more raw power.
Assuming the concept of natural law is valid, it does not follow that if we can’t know everything, then we can’t know anything. There is going to be a broad consensus about murder, stealing, rape, and so on. On the other hand, there is no consensus on the question of whether it is okay lie to the Nazis and tell them you are not hiding Anne Frank. There are varying views on this kind of situation going all the way back to St. Augustine. Even assuming there is natural law, there is no reason to assume that there will be agreement on every particular question that natural law applies to.
February 13th, 2013 | 10:41 am
@ Ray
“And honest disagreement on such things is impossible?”
Yes. Honest disagreement is possible. A question is, what do we do while the honest disagreement persists?
Wouldn’t agnosticism on the question argue not changing things? We know the union of man and woman to form a family has been a norm for all of history in all kinds of cultures and we know that homosexuality has never been one.
Until we know homosexuality is a true human good wouldn’t society be smart not to give people special rights based on that kind of behavior?
February 13th, 2013 | 11:43 am
@ DN,
“Assuming the concept of natural law is valid, it does not follow that if we can’t know everything, then we can’t know anything. There is going to be a broad consensus about murder, stealing, rape, and so on. On the other hand, there is no consensus on the question of whether it is okay lie to the Nazis and tell them you are not hiding Anne Frank. There are varying views on this kind of situation going all the way back to St. Augustine. Even assuming there is natural law, there is no reason to assume that there will be agreement on every particular question that natural law applies to.”
Then my comment to Ray holds. Do nothing. Don’t you agree that is the rational course?
February 13th, 2013 | 3:19 pm
Then my comment to Ray holds. Do nothing. Don’t you agree that is the rational course?
CoastRanger,
No, not at all. Honest disagreement persists on almost everything. You can’t just do nothing waiting for unanimity. That’s certainly not how the United States abolished slavery. Even in the Catholic Church, positions that were suppressed and thinkers who were silenced have in time won out.
February 13th, 2013 | 4:37 pm
Positions that are being suppressed and thinkers who are being silenced TODAY are those opposing your side.
February 13th, 2013 | 5:11 pm
CoastRanger writes:
David Nickol responds:
David Nickol,
You said you have gone to some lengths to make the point that, after a decade or so of daily writing about redefining marriage, you still don’t know if marriage should be redefined and whether gay people “have a right” to “marry.”
Hmm. You claim to have no clear picture as to whether or not gays “have a right to marry,” and yet you think we should move ahead on redefining marriage anyway. Why should we attempt to redefine an institution as old as mankind even if you think that might be wrong?
February 13th, 2013 | 5:33 pm
Positions that are being suppressed and thinkers who are being silenced TODAY are those opposing your side.
CoastRanger,
I see no shortage of arguments that homosexuality is immoral or that same-sex marriage is wrong. I believe it’s 31 states now that have passed constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. “My side” obviously did a very poor job of intimidating voters! First Things keeps up a constant drumbeat against “normalizing” homosexuality and “redefining” marriage. They haven’t been closed down by the PC police yet. The Catholic Bishops lobby against same-sex marriage. There may be people in certain professions that don’t want to go on the record on hot-button topics like homosexuality and abortion, but they are hardly silenced.
As I have said a number of times, with six seats out of nine on the Supreme Court, Catholics can’t seriously claim to be an oppressed minority. If you know anyone who feels he or she is being silenced, invite them to write here.
February 13th, 2013 | 9:23 pm
I lived in California when Prop 8 was on the ballot. The harassment that people faced from gay activists was appalling. If you want to teach on the vast majority of college campuses, forget it if you publicly support traditional marriage. Here in Illinois, the Catholic Church has been kicked out of the adoption ministry over homosexual “rights.”
This my last post, so you get the last word.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact