The Fundamental Transformation of Oaths
You have no doubt heard about this by now. Apparently, the Boy Scouts of America are about to come prancing into the 21st Century. Traditional American beliefs and institutions, both public and private, are falling like dominoes now. The churches, the military, political parties, institutes of learning, private clubs and corporations, entire professions – all prostrate before the Socialist Progressive onslaught.
We don’t know whether in the end the rationale for the Boy Scout’s decision will be financial, or just that whatever vestiges of old-fashioned scouting precepts that can be salvaged after the surrender would be worth it. And it doesn’t matter. Nothing shocks anymore. But accompanying the article chronicling the dancing in the streets by the gay activist groups over this latest development was a little side bar predicting that the atheists will be next to storm the Boy Scout bastille:
THE NEXT DEBATE: ATHEISTS
The potential policy shift raises a question about another group shut out of scouting — atheists who decline to say the Boy Scout Oath because it begins “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.”
David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said, “If they are considering lifting the ban on gays, that’s a good thing, that’s progress. If they lift that bigotry from their requirements, I would hope they remove the rest of the bigotry and admit atheists as well.”
Refusing to admit atheists who decline the oath, said Silverman, “tells boys that atheists are immoral. If local groups want to behave in an ethical way, I’m confident they will make Boy Scouts about scouting, not about bigotry.”
We read those words of the Silverman character and it’s like enduring fingernails screeching across a chalkboard. To hear the atheists talk about ethics and morality, while smugly proclaiming they do not believe one word of anything contained in the Bible or the Ten Commandments, because there is no power greater than themselves, is maddening. Especially so when it is unrebutted. But surrender, on all fronts, is the order of the day.
We will leave further philosophical considerations of the whole beliefs/values/fairness issues for another time, but the reason we brought up the atheist thing is the article mentions the Boy Scouts’ Oath. Oaths are usually included and required for membership in service or fraternal organizations, or as a condition of assuming public office, or in giving testimony in an official inquiry, so as to impress upon the oathtaker the seriousness of the undertaking. If there is no consequence for refusal to take the oath, or for flagrantly violating it, or for renouncing it, then it is meaningless from the start. The purpose of the Boy Scout’s Oath is not mindless devotion to a mere object of worship or a swath of land. It’s to impress that the conduct of one’s life is to be according to a set of principles and to protect and defend the sovereignty and integrity and legitimacy of a nation-state that most benefits it’s citizens.
We constitutional conservatives have long recognized that the ultimate aim of the Socialist Progressives is to take down America, not as a power, but as a power constituted by core beliefs and intents expressed in the early days of it’s founding. We know that many of these precepts were inspired by belief in a deity and recognition of the desirability of using the principles associated with that belief as basic organizational and operational standards. We also know that many of the institutions, both public and private, that arose over the course of the following centuries signed on to those values because they realized that preserving them was vital to their own self-preservation. They knew that they couldn’t survive and be viable without that thing which is America, whether or not they knew that America needed them as well.
Of course if you don’t believe in a higher power, and you don’t believe in fealty to your country and the principles embodied in its founding documents, why should you be required to pledge allegiance to them just so you can learn how to rub two sticks together and create fire? On the other hand, if you’ve got a Frank Marshall Davis or GLAAD watching your back, what do you need the Scouts for? The answer is you don’t. You don’t need the Scouts. If you don’t believe what the Scouts believe in you can get Uncle Frank to teach you how to rub two sticks together. The point of the exercise for the Progs is not a well-rounded, emotionally healthy Johnny/Johnetta. It is bringing another American institution to heel.
When American institutions realize, or admit, that those groups who seek to dilute their membership requirements do so not so that little Johnny/Johnetta can be included but to destroy the linkage those groups have to God and America and thus weaken the underpinnings of the American polity, maybe they will quit surrendering, although there aren’t many left in the fight.
Continuing with the Oaths, then. The Boy Scouts don’t take an oath to be a good, efficent stick-rubber-together out in the woods, or an oath to do their best at knot tying. And that’s not why the Scouts were created. Similarly, elected officials who raise their hand and take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, are not taking an oath to be efficient lawmakers or an oath to get along in the halls of Congress with people whose values they don’t agree with. They are taking an oath to protect the founding principles of the institution, the state or nation or locality they serve. If you don’t take that oath, you don’t get seated. And this is in the public domain, WHERE DISCRIMINATION IS NOT ALLOWED.
So why should an elected official have to raise his hand and swear an oath? (Oh, yes, he doesn’t have to swear on a bible; he can atheistically affirm the Constitution is the thing of things without all that swearing, but he is , well, promising something).
But, can’t he vote yea or nay on bills and get along with those people across the aisle without being forced to agree with the founding principles of the organization he is seeking to enter? If he truly, truly feels that the founding documents in large measure no longer apply, but the people elected him anyway, why force him to pledge something? The answer, of course, is as simple as the reason why contracts must be signed, but here again that’s another subject, and another American institution on the way out.
DO YOU SEE WHERE WE ARE HEADED WITH THIS?
More importantly, do you see where they are going with this? Those seeking to nullify or otherwise make irrelevant or at least encourage ignoring parts or all of the Constitution could not expect to realistically do so without undermining as many as possible of the typically American, traditional institutions holding it up, even if those institutions had “modernized”, had agreed not to ‘discriminate’, indeed had gone out of their way to give their blessing to those with different values. They contorted the Constitution to pervert the context in which discrimination was acceptable or not and extended it to any and all public and private organizations.
Now you might say ‘Well, the Supreme Court ruled this or that” but that didn’t stop ‘The Culture’ from creating a defacto regime of sanctions which ultimately wormed their way into the wonderful world of federal rulemaking, did it?
But the statists had to finally get to the founding principles of those organizations, those ‘reasons for being’ extending beyond the immediate physical needs of the members. Those principles comprising the logical, philosophical, spiritual framework of the organization. They had to bereft those organizations of any historical or contextual meaning. So the Boy Scouts accepting homosexual youth and homosexual scout leaders is not the end. That Oath is going to have to go as well.
Meanwhile, back at the White House, and in the Legislative bodies, the Oaths that the occupants of those offices have taken are meaningless because they have allowed the distinction between the public and the private to be obscured or eliminated by assenting to Laws and court rulings erasing the Constitutional rights for persons, and corporations, and private clubs, to be secure not only in their persons and their property, but in matters of their conscience. So let’s just drop the pretense and eliminate the Oath-taking in DC because it is a sham and there is no consequence for violating the Oath. They, like the little atheist kids can get their benefits of membership without swearing an oath. It’s discrimination to force them to do so. Or at least we (the communal “we”) could have the oaths be a little more realistic, like “I promise, on my honor, to get really good at rubbing sticks together to make a campfire.” And “I solemnly feel like I can give all bills an up or down vote.” Now wouldn’t that be……Progress? We cannot continue to force our values on our congressional representatives. As the atheist above said, it’s unethical and immoral.
Crossposted at Grumpy Opinions