Adrianvs

"SOCRATES: Gorgias, I take it that you, like me, have experienced many discussions and that you have observed this thing about them: it's not easy for the participants to define jointly what they're undertaking to discuss, and so, having learned from and taught each other, to conclude their session. Instead, if they're disputing some point and one maintains that the other isn't right or isn't clear, they get irritated, each thinking the other is speaking out of spite. They become eager to win instead of investigating the subject under discussion. In fact, in the end some have a most shameful parting of ways, abuse heaped upon them, having given and gotten to hear such things that make even the bystanders upset with themselves for having thought it worthwhile to come to listen to such people. What's my point in saying this? It's that I think you're now saying things that aren't very consistent or compatible with what you were first saying about [the subject at hand]. So, I'm afraid to pursue my examination of you, for fear that you should take me to be speaking with eagerness to win against you, rather than to have our subject become clear. For my part, I'd be pleased to continue questioning you if you're the same kind of man I am, otherwise I would drop it. And what kind of man am I? One of those who would be pleased to be refuted if I say anything untrue, and who would be pleased to refute anyone who says anything untrue; one who, however, wouldn't be any less pleased to be refuted than to refute. For I count being refuted a greater good, insofar as it is a greater good to be rid of the greatest evil from oneself than to rid someone else of it. I don't suppose that any evil for a man is as great as false belief about the things we're discussing now. So if you say you're this kind of man, too, let's continue the discussion; but if you think we should drop it, let's be done with it and break it off." -Plato "Gorgias" Perhaps we should all approach these forums a little more like Socrates.

"DARWINISM can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you; it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably -- that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws. If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden." G.K. Chesterton "Orthodoxy" I couldn't resist...

Thanks for the link, OGE. I found the reference interesting and will enjoy listening to the other addresses. I really had no idea that BP had ever made such an invite. As for myself, I think that the qualities that make up a good scoutmaster are best expressed in the words of Lord Baden-Powell: "AS a preliminary word of comfort to intending Scoutmasters, I should like to contradict the usual misconception that, to be a successful Scoutmaster, a man must be an Admiral Crichton--a know-all. Not a bit. He simply has to be a boy-man, that is:-- (1) He must have the boy spirit within him; and must be able to place himself on a right plane with his boys as a first step. (2) He must realise the needs, outlooks and desires of the different ages of boy life. (3) He must deal with the individual boy rather than with the mass. (4) He then needs to promote a corporate spirit among his individuals to gain the best results. With regard to the first point, the Scoutmaster has to be neither schoolmaster nor commanding officer, nor pastor, nor instructor. All that is needed is the capacity to enjoy the out-of-doors, to enter into the boys' ambitions, and to find other men who will give them instruction in the desired directions... He has got to put himself on the level of the older brother, that is, to see things from the boy's point of view, and to lead and guide and give enthusiasm in the right direction. Like the true older brother he has to realize the traditions of the family and see that they are preserved, even if considerable firmness is required. That is all. The Movement is a jolly fraternity, all the jollier because in the game of Scouting you are doing a big thing for others, you are combating the breeding of selfishness." In my opinion, a female scouter can fulfill these requirements. She should do it in the role of an older sister. I think that much of the perceived problem is that the role of mother or "nanny" is often very difficult to put aside for some women. Many men have trouble putting aside a role of "commanding officer" or "schoolmaster." But it is not impossible for either group to make the necessary adjustments. Yes, it is probably hard for some women to relate to boys. I submit that many men, although they once were, have forgotten what it was like too. Instead of being a boy-man at heart, perhaps we should say that the female scouter should be a "tom-boy" at heart. I don't know if this is helpful or not. I do recognize that the role of mother is somewhat more distant from the Scouting program than that of father. I would guess that this is because fathers are, on the whole, much "chummier" with their sons than mothers are. The relationship is just different. Of course there are exceptions, but the trend exists and people pick up on it. Do women have to make different adjustments to be part of an effective scouting program than men do? Yes. Are they any less able to do this? No. I don't think that there should be a bunch of schoolmasters running around camp any more than a bunch of nannys. Are the nannys easier to pick out than the schoolmasters? You bet. The goal, however, is to have dedicated older brothers and sisters with child spirits to help guide the youth in the program. While I find women a welcome part of the scouting program, I must agree with Scoutingagain regarding the importance of an environment of mostly male mentors (in the Boy Scouting program). I think that this creates an important dynamic for a number of reasons, including essential gender-specific modeling. Others are as simple as keeping the boys' interest and serving as a reminder to the females of the nature of the program (just as the presence of females often reminds the males of program goals). So would I try to restrict the activities of a troop with all-female leadership? Of course not. I just don't think it would be the ideal situation. The same holds true for Girl Scouts, although girls are more likely than boys to have adult female mentors outside of scouting (with single parent homes, elementary school teachers, etc).

Whoa.... It is a world without FOG. I must honestly say that it creeps me out. Is this some kind of glitch in the ignore feature? Although I may regret saying it later, I miss the big guy already.. :.(.. Seriously though, is it an error, or is he being punished (and silenced) for something he said?

"Discussing poetry strikes me as no different from the second-rate drinking parties of the agora crowd. These people, largely uneducated and unable to entertain themselves over their wine by using their own voices to generate conversation, pay premium prices for flute-girls and rely on the extraneous voice of the reed flute as background music for their parties." Socrates states this in Plato's "Protagoras." The Greek philosophers say many things that still apply to our time. That is why we are still reading them. The point is not to say, "This problem is nothing new so it is not our concern to solve it." Things don't simply tend to get worse over time. Nor do they simply tend to get better, either. All the work that human history has accomplished would be lost if we were to stop for just one generation. It is a constant renewal as the same problems are faced time after time again. That's the mission of education, which includes the Scouting movement. I've said before that the important point is not whether generation D is better or worse than generation E or vice versa. The point is to examine human nature and determine what the proper state of the soul is. Aristotle and Plato give us three parts of the soul. Perhaps that model is correct. Perhaps it is not. The article isn't about fashon statements to drive one's parents crazy. That has been happening for a long time, too. But barbarian children drive their barbarian parents crazy, wimp children drive their barbarian parents crazy, barbarian children drive their wimp parents crazy, etc. That issue is not identical with that of moral virtue or a balanced soul. Sometimes conventions can be mistaken for virtues, but the trick is to see the difference. We all (including the author) make that mistake, but it shouldn't be cause to abandon our mission of education (and self-education).

Matua, I agree that the religous institution in question should be allowed to give its own flag precedence over the national flag. The issue here is that the institution is asking the Boy Scouts to carry out a flag procession. Since the policy of the BSA is to follow the US Flag Code, it seems that the troop should be acting in accord with the code. If this may be a problem with the institution, I think that someone should be notified ahead of time. Perhaps individual scouts of the local community in question could perform the flag ceremony to the religious institution's liking. I am unsure about the policies regarding the Protestant flag (white flag with red Latin cross on blue field), but I have seen it posted with the American flag having prominence. Regarding the Papal flag, the Knights of Columbus can be considered the official color guard of the Church in the Americas. The following is from the organization's protocol: "The U.S. Flag Code as approved by Congress and signed by President Ford on July 7, 1976, should be strictly adhered to (Public Law No. 94-344)...The precedence of flags shall be U.S., Papal, State and Order." While this may seem counterintuitive, especially given the international nature of the Church, it must be remembered that the papal flag is not a primary symbol of the Church or religion. In practice, the flags usually lead the procession and then part to the sides as the liturgical procession begins. While the knights simply followed the colors into the nave, they will usually remain along the central aisle and salute the liturgical procession. While this is not strictly relevant to scouting color guards, it does demonstrate that it is the processional symbols (including processional crucifix), and not the papal flag which represent the sovereignty of God and His Church. It is also recommended that the flags are not posted in the sanctuary itself, but in the nave (main body) or vestibule. If the flags are being carried to the front of the church, then they could simply be posted on the "ground level" of the nave and not in the sanctuary which is usually raised. There is no official policy on this matter, however, so it should be left to the discression of the pastor and bishop. I know that some synagogues use the Israeli flag. Whether this is primarily as a symbol of the religion or in solidarity with the nation, I am not sure. It should also be noted that the Papal and Israeli flags are recognized national flags and should not be posted below the American flag on a pole. This is unlikely to be an issue during a religous service, but perhaps an outdoor one..? I found an interesting point in Section 7e of the Flag Code: "No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy." While having a church flag proceed before an American flag during a service is not allowed specifically, it would seem within the same vein as the above situation. I wonder if the national flag status of the Papal or Israeli flags would affect their ability to be flown in the "Navy exception" above.

"America is the 50 states and the Territories or anyplace that two or three Marines gather on November 10th." Can you explain that please? The two or three Marines part, that is. I find it interesting that Jehovah's Witnesses will even join a patriotic organization whose aim (at least in the words of Baden-Powell) is to "improve the standard of [its members] citizenhood." I say this because Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves citizens of any nation. At least that is my understanding. Perhaps someone could clarify.

Our troops are still all over the world from Clinton's "peacekeeping" missions. Where are the protests to "end the occupation?" Likewise the UN is still running Bosnia. Perhaps when they finally finish their mission and pull out, the US will give them a shot at a "quick rebuild" of Iraq.

"The world has always had its share of wimps and barbarians. Throughout history and literature they have appeared under the names of rogues, scoundrels, boors, ne'er-do-wells, namby-pambies, fops, and macaroni men, to name a few. What needs explaining is why these two obviously defective character types have become so common, at times seeming like the norm." The author seems to indicate that there have always been barbarians, wimps, and real men. He is trying to demonstrate the difference today. He does state that wimps and barbarians are more common today, but that is not the sole point of the article. We would do well not to dismiss it as such. I don't agree on the music issue. I have found some forms of metal (mostly Scandinavian, haha) to be quite harmonious and excellent. I also happen to find most opera to be mediocre. While the lyrics may be witty or inspiring (I don't speak Italian), the music rarely compares with greats like Bach or Handel. All of this aside, I think that the points of thumotic balance and moral virtue stand most relevant.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"P.S. Out of respect for those whose 'designated' Sabbath is not Sunday, please refer to Scout Sabbath and not Scout Sunday." The term "Sabbath" is a specific term as "Lord's Day" or "Pentecost" or "All Souls Day." It isn't any more ecumenical than stating "Sunday." It refers to the Jewish day of religous observance of Saturday. While some Christians consider the Sabbath moved to Sunday, the "big guns" recognize that the Sabbath remains Saturday and that the day of religious observance has been moved to the day of Resurrection (Sunday). The point is that "Sabbath" is as exclusive and specific as "Sunday." Either can be used metaphorically, of course. One might refer to Yom Kippur as "the Jewish Good Friday," or Sunday as "the Christian Sabbath," but neither is preferable. Saying "Scout Sabbath" is no better or worse than saying "Scout Sunday." It fits nicely for Jews, and some Christians, I suppose, but the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Bah'ai, etc. don't really see any difference.

Our science club practices what you might call de facto exclusion. They say, "Sure, members of all religious and philosophical backgrounds are welcome. Of course, we will be discussing scientific issues under the premise that physical phenomena are real and controlled by constant laws. That is not so different from an Islamic club stating, "Sure, members of all religious and philosophical backgrounds are welcome. Of course, we will be worshipping Al'Lah, the supreme being." Would you object to such a group? What if the property was owned by the school. How is that different from the school owning and operating scientific equipment which presumes a philosophical disposition against idealism and some Eastern religions? Why is it acceptable for a school organization to promote one philosophical view (with religious implications), but not to sponsor (legally own property for) another group which asserts philosophical propositions regarding a supreme being? Regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation, I must ask you if you are ready for the BSA to remove any barriers to membership related to it. I'll even give you a freeby and let you rule out all illegal actions. Do you feel that the BSA should allow all individuals of ANY sexual orientation who engage in legal actions? Some of them may be engaged in these actions publically, mind you. Where do you draw the lines within that category and how do you draw them? You realize, don't you, that a no discrimination policy in regards to sexual orientation or activity doesn't allow you to draw any lines within the group?

Many public schools at all levels "charter" or otherwise host religous groups. This is less common at the elementary level, as student groups are uncommon for kids that age, but secondary and post-secondary institutions host such groups all the time. Islamic groups do not include "amuslims" and Christian groups do not include "achristians." Why should a theist group that excludes atheists be any different? A few religions exclude science as a valid means of knowledge. Does the local science club exclude "ascienters" as members. Yes. Why don't you go attacking science clubs for their religious discrimination?

I recently came across the following article. While I don't agree with some of the specifics, I found the general points regarding education and moral development to be true and salient. -Adrianvs Wimps and Barbarians The Sons of Murphy Brown By Terrence O. Moore Posted January 8, 2004 More than a decade ago the nation was in a stir over the birth of a fictional boy. The boy was Avery, son of Murphy Brown. Television's Murphy Brown, played by Candice Bergen, was a successful news commentator who, after an unsuccessful relationship with a man that left her alone and pregnant, bore a son out of wedlock. The event, popular enough in its own right, became the center of political controversy when then Vice President Dan Quayle in a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California lamented that the show was "mocking the importance of a father." Suddenly the nation polarized over this question of "family values." But the controversy over Murphy Brown's childbearing soon died down. The characters on the show became more interested in Murphy's hairstyle than her baby, as did perhaps Murphy, who eventually found a suitable nanny in her painter so she could pursue her career without abatement. The show was off the air before Murphy's son would have been seven. Vice President Quayle was not reelected. Eleven years later, it is worth pondering what might have happened to Avery had this story not been just a television show. More to the point, what is happening today to our boys and young men who come from "families" not unlike Murphy's and who find the nation as divided now as it was then over the "values" by which we ought to raise them? For more than a decade I have been in a position to see young men in the making. As a Marine, college professor, and now principal of a K-12 charter school, I have deliberately tried to figure out whether the nation through its most important institutions of moral instructionits families and schoolsis turning boys into responsible young men. Young women, always the natural judges of the male character, say emphatically "No." In my experience, many young women are upset, but not about an elusive Prince Charming or even the shortage of "cute guys" around. Rather, they have very specific complaints against how they have been treated in shopping malls or on college campuses by immature and uncouth males, and even more pointed complaints against their boyfriends or other male acquaintances who fail to protect them. At times, they appear desperately hopeless. They say matter-of-factly that the males around them do not know how to act like either men or gentlemen. It appears to them that, except for a few lucky members of their sex, most women today must choose between males who are whiny, incapable of making decisions, and in general of "acting like men," or those who treat women roughly and are unreliable, unmannerly, and usually stupid. The young men, for their part, are not a little embarrassed when they hear these charges but can't wholly deny them. Indeed, when asked the simple question, "When have you ever been taught what it means to be a man?" they are typically speechless and somewhat ashamed. The question for teachers, professors, and others in positions of moral influence is what to do about young women's growing dissatisfaction and young men's increasing confusion and embarrassment. Teachers cannot become their students' parents, but they can give direction to those who have ears to hear. Two lessons are essential. First, a clear challenge must be issued to young males urging them to become the men their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were. This challenge must be clear, uncompromising, engaging, somewhat humorous, and inspiring. It cannot seem like a tired, fusty, chicken-little lament on the part of the old and boring, but must be seen as the truly revolutionary and cutting-edge effort to recover authentic manliness. Second, a new generation of scholars must tell the tale of how men used to become men and act manfully, and how we as a nation have lost our sense of true manliness. The spirit of this inquiry cannot be that of an autopsy but rather that of the Renaissance humanists, who sought to recover and to borrow the wisdom of the past in order to ennoble their own lives. Historians and political theorists and professors of literature must realize that the topic of gender is not the monopoly of those who would try to eradicate gender but the natural possession of the great thinkers and actors and even the common folk of the Western tradition. Aristotle had a great deal to say about gender and manhood, as did Washington and Burke and Jane Austen. These two enterprises, the one rhetorical and the other philosophical, are and must be related. One comes from and appeals to the heart. The other comes from and appeals to the mind. Young men today have both hearts and minds that are in chronic need of cultivation. Specifically, they need to realize what true manhood is, what it is not, and why it has become so difficult in the modern world to achieve the status and stature of the true man. Character Counts Manhood is not simply a matter of being male and reaching a certain age. These are acts of nature; manhood is a sustained act of character. It is no easier to become a man than it is to become virtuous. In fact, the two are the same. The root of our old-fashioned word "virtue" is the Latin word virtus, a derivative of vir, or man. To be virtuous is to be "manly." As Aristotle understood it, virtue is a "golden mean" between the extremes of excess and deficiency. Too often among today's young males, the extremes seem to predominate. One extreme suffers from an excess of manliness, or from misdirected and unrefined manly energies. The other suffers from a lack of manliness, a total want of manly spirit. Call them barbarians and wimps. So prevalent are these two errant types that the prescription for what ails our young males might be reduced to two simple injunctions: Don't be a barbarian. Don't be a wimp. What is left, ceteris paribus, will be a man. Today's barbarians are not hard to find. Like the barbarians of old, the new ones wander about in great packs. You can recognize them by their dress, their speech, their amusements, their manners, and their treatment of women. You will know them right away by their distinctive headgear. They wear baseball caps everywhere they go and in every situation: in class, at the table, indoors, outdoors, while taking a test, while watching a movie, while on a date. They wear these caps frontward, backward, and sideways. They will wear them in church and with suits, if ever a barbarian puts on a suit. Part security blanket, part good-luck charm, these distinctive head coverings unite each barbarian with the rest of the vast barbaric horde. Recognizing other barbarians by their ball caps, one barbarian can enter into a verbal exchange with another anywhere: in a men's room, at an airport, in a movie theater. This exchange, which never quite reaches the level of conversation, might begin with, "Hey, what up?" A traditional response: "Dude!" The enlightening colloquy can go on for hours at increasingly high volumes. "You know, you know!" "What I'm sayin'!" "No way, man!" "What the f---!" "You da man!" "Cool!" "Phat!" "Awesome!" And so on. Barbarians do not use words to express thoughts, convey information, paint pictures in the imagination, or come to a rational understanding. Such speech as they employ serves mainly to elicit in others audible reactions to a few sensual events: football, sex, hard rock, the latest barbarian movie, sex, football. In the barbarian universe, Buckleyesque vocabularies are not required. Among the most popular barbarian activities are playing sports and lifting weights. There is, of course, nothing wrong with sports or physical training. Playing sports can encourage young males to cultivate several important manly virtues: courage, competitiveness, camaraderie, stamina, a sense of fairness. For this reason, superior cultures have invariably used sports as a proving ground for manly endeavor. As the Duke of Wellington said, "The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." The problem is that many young males of today receive no manly education apart from sports. When the British boys who later defeated Napoleon were not competing in the sporting contests conducted in elite public schools, they were learning how to become gentlemen. They spoke the King's English, carried themselves with an air of dignity, treated women with respect, and studied assiduously. Today's barbarians act as though they never leave the playing field or the gym. They wear the same clothes, speak the same language (just as loudly), spit and scratch themselves just as much, whether on the field or off. More properly, nothing off the field matters to them, except perhaps sex, which they also treat as a game, and alcohol. As a result, they live almost a divided life. On the field, they can be serious, competitive, eager, and disciplined. Off the field, they are lazy, careless, disorganized, and disaffected. Such a divided life is the hallmark of barbarism. In his classic account of the ancient Germanic tribes, the Roman historian Tacitus contrasted the energy and purpose of the German men on the field of battle with their listlessness in the camp. Whenever they are not fighting, they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and to feasting, the bravest and the most warlike doing nothing, and surrendering the management of the household, of the home, and of the land, to the women, the old men, and all the weakest members of the family. They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination in their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace. The ancient barbarians did little except fight and hunt. The modern barbarians do little besides play sports and pursue women. To be sure, they have other amusements. But these activities do not as a rule require sensibility or thought. Indeed, typical barbarian pastimes, like drinking mightily and watching WWF wrestling, seem expressly contrived to stupefy the senses and nullify the intellect. Barbarians, not surprisingly, listen to barbaric music. Allan Bloom famously identified rock-and-roll as the music of sexual intercourse. It was no accident that the progenitor of the rock-and-roll revolution was nicknamed "the Pelvis." Equally basic, but fundamentally different, are the passions enlisted by modern rock without the roll, that is, heavy metal. It is certainly not the music of intercourse, at least not of the consensual variety, since girls and women generally hate it. And with good reason: It is impossible to dance to. You can, of course, thrust your fist over and over into the air. Heavy metal lacks all rhythmic quality, sounding more like jet engines taking off while a growling male voice shouts repeated threats, epithets, and obscenities. Heavy metal lacks all subtlety, reflection, harmony, refinementin a word, civilization. For good reason did Plato combine music with gymnastic instruction in the education of the guardian class of his Republic. A certain kind of music would soften the souls of young men. Heavy metal softens nothing. It is the music of pure rage. Barbarians, strictly speaking, have no manners. They shout out to each other in public as though the world were a playing field or a rock concert. To complement the shouting, there is a recognizable barbarian posture, carriage, and comportment. They slouch in their seats. They belch and proudly pass loud gas in public places. They spit practically everywhere they go. A particularly annoying barbarian habit is not looking you in the eye. He will look this way and that, shrug his shoulders, move his body in different directions, but rarely just stand in one place, look you in the eye, and say something intelligible. Speaking to adults used to be one of the first lessons a child learned. Proper speech and posture and other signs of respect helped to bring him into the community of civilized human beings. No longer. Young males, of course, have always been rough around the edges. But in the past, their edges were smoothed, in part, by being introduced into female company. Boys learned to behave properly first from their mothers and later around other women and girls. They held open doors, pulled out chairs, stood up when a woman entered a room, stood up in public places to offer their seats, took off their hats in the presence of women, and carefully guarded their language so as not to offend the fair sex. All that is gone. In no other aspect of their conduct is barbarism more apparent among a large number of young men these days than in their treatment of women. Not only do they not show women any special regard. They go out of their way to bother them. A woman does not like to be yelled at by men in passing cars or from dormitory rooms. She does not like to walk by a group of imposing, leering young men only to hear them cutting up after she passes. She does not like to be the subject of jests and sexual innuendo. But this sort of thing goes on all the time. Young women who appear in public, whether in a dance club, at a pub, or in a shopping mall, are constantly accosted by packs of young males on the prowl who consider it their inalienable right to make crude, suggestive advances. These days young males curse with abandon in front of women, often in reference to sex. Nighttime finds barbarians reveling in the pick-up, hook-up culture of the bar scene. In short, the company of women no longer brings out the best in young men. Around the opposite sex, the adolescent and post-adolescent males of today are at their worst. The problem of the modern barbarian is no academic or fastidious concern. Plato was right to regard the education and civilization of spirited males as the sine qua non of a decent political order. They are the natural watchdogs of society. When they are not properly trained, they become at best nuisances and at worst something much more dangerous. Men Without Chests At the other extreme from true manliness is the wimp. Wimps are in many ways the opposite of barbarians. We would be mistaken, however, to classify wimps as simply young men without muscle. Often enough they are the stereotypical 98-pound weaklings who get sand kicked in their faces at the beach. But slightness of build and want of talent in sports do not make one a wimp. The diminutive and sickly James Madison was a man, just as was the towering and vigorous George Washington. If barbarians suffer from a misdirected manliness, wimps suffer from a want of manly spirit altogether. They lack what the ancient Greeks called thumos, the part of the soul that contains the assertive passions: pugnacity, enterprise, ambition, anger. Thumos compels a man to defend proximate goods: himself, his honor, his lady, his country; as well as universal goods: truth, beauty, goodness, justice. Without thumotic men to combat the cruel, the malevolent, and the unjust, goodness and honor hardly have a chance in our precarious world. But two conditions must be present for thumos to fulfill its mission. First, the soul must be properly ordered. Besides thumos, symbolized by the chest, the soul is composed of reason and appetites, symbolized by the head on the one hand and the stomach and loins on the other. Reason has the capacity to discern right from wrong, but it lacks the strength to act. Appetites, while necessary to keep the body healthy, pull the individual toward pleasures of a lower order. In the well-ordered soul, as C.S. Lewis put it, "the head rules the belly through the chest." In the souls of today's barbarians, clearly thumos has allied itself with the unbridled appetites, and reason has been thrown out the window. The second condition that must be present is a sufficient level of thumos to enable the man to rise to the defense of honor or goodness when required. Modern education and culture, however, have conspired to turn modern males into what C. S. Lewis called "men without chests," that is, wimps. The chest of the wimp has atrophied from want of early training. The wimp is therefore unable to live up to his duties as a man: We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. Wimps make worthless watchdogs. But their failure as watchdogs or guardians has nothing to do with size or physique. My father used to tell me when I was growing up, "It is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog" that matters. Many of today's young men seem to have no fight in them at all. Not for them to rescue damsels in distress from the barbarians. Furthermore, wimps vote. As Aristotle pointed out, to the cowardly, bravery will seem more like rashness and foolhardiness than what it really is. Hence political and social issues that require bravery for their solution elicit only hand-wringing and half-measures from the wimps. Wimps are always looking for the easy way out. Like the barbarian, the wimp is easily recognized by his personality and preoccupations. His main passion is music. Music does not serve him as it does the Platonic guardian, to balance his soul. Nor is he usually a performer or student of music. He has no affinity for classical symphony or opera. Rather, he finds that certain types of music evoke a mood of listless self-infatuation. He may at times listen to music with friends. And he will probably try to express his interest in a girl by quoting a song lyric. Nonetheless, his absorption with music is essentially a private refuge from the challenges of the world. In addition to music, the wimp may take an interest in the opposite sex. But his approach to dating and relationships is different from the barbarian. The barbarian has simple appetites. His ideal is the Playboy playmate or the winner of a hot legs contest at Daytona Beach, and his ultimate aim in any relationship or encounter, whatever he may say, is sex. As an athlete, the barbarian is a hero of sorts. He walks with an unmistakable air of confidence. The wimp, on the other hand, has more complex reasons for wanting women. Although sex is certainly one of his desires, more than sex he needs affirmation. He desperately needs a girlfriend to boost his self-confidence. Having someone else notice him will somehow show the world that he is not a total loser. The wimp also needs someone to hear his laments, to commiserate with him when he is feeling down, to discover his secret self. Since he has few qualities or achievements to recommend him, he seeks to appear "interesting" or mysterious. Initially, the wimp might seem amusing to an unsuspecting young lady and very different from the insensitive jocks and rowdies she has known. Ultimately, however, the wimp seeks to draw her into his web of melancholy and self-pity. The story always ends unhappily since romance cannot be based upon pity or the thin facade of personality. He might mope and whine his way into a woman's bed but will find excuses to avoid "commitment." The wimp will begin the relationship by saying, "You're the only one who understands me" and end it by saying, "You don't understand me at all." The truth is that there is not much to understand. The wimp is unmanly in other ways, especially when compared to young men in the past. Throughout history men have come of age by preparing for war, going to sea, felling forests, or even mastering Latin and Greek. Besides listening to music, however, how does the average wimp spend the most formative years of his life? Shopping. Andy Warhol was, in this respect, a paragon of wimpiness. Whenever he felt down and was tired of painting soup cans, he would go shopping to cheer himself up. After his death, bags upon bags of unused products were found in his New York apartment. The wimp is a perfect consumer. In the largest sense, he consumes the liberties and public treasures his forefathers have passed on to him through their "blood, toil, tears, and sweat," without himself adding anything back to the common stock. Needless to say, these sketches are not exhaustive. Barbarians and wimps come in many forms in a society that celebrates Diversity as we do. But all of them remind us that Plato's quandary was a timeless one and is our quandary no less than his. Our civilization cannot be sustained by barbarians or wimps; it needs true men. Brave New World The world has always had its share of wimps and barbarians. Throughout history and literature they have appeared under the names of rogues, scoundrels, boors, ne'er-do-wells, namby-pambies, fops, and macaroni men, to name a few. What needs explaining is why these two obviously defective character types have become so common, at times seeming like the norm. A close look at the culture in which boys are raised reveals not only that they are no longer encouraged to become vigorous and responsible men, but also that practically every factor affecting their development is profoundly hostile to the ideals and practices of traditional manhood and the painstaking steps necessary to attain it. The demanding regime of physical and moral instruction that used to turn boys into men and the larger cultural forces that supported that instruction have been systematically dismantled by a culture that ostensibly enables all individuals but in reality disables men. "It's too easy!" complained John the Savage of the overly efficient, overly sexual, overly youthful, overly fun Brave New World. That dehumanizing tyranny of pleasure, described by Aldous Huxley, resembles the world of easy effort and easy virtue that entices adolescent males today to indulge in their appetites at the expense of their nobler longings and passions. Above all, there is easy sex. The sexual revolution released the sexual urge from its domestic harness. A male need no longer be a man, in character or physique, to have sex. He may be a boy of 14. Unchaperoned girls are not hard to find. They can be lured over to one's house under the pretense of listening to some new CDs. Avoiding dual-career parents' supervision is as easy as walking home from school. Indeed, the school will provide the illusion of safe sex in its required sex education classes, and chances are the school nurse will supply the condoms. What more could a boy want? Not only is sex no longer subordinated to marriage, which was predicated on male responsibility, but the most sly and unsavory characters are now the most rewarded with sex. "Boys will be boys," but they have little incentive to be responsible men. Coupled with easy sex, easy divorce has also had devastating moral and psychological effects on boys. Half of American boys growing up do not live with their natural fathers. The sons of single mothers lack strong men to usher them into the world of responsible, adult manhood. Divorce, whether in reality or in the acrimonious rhetoric of the mother, impresses upon the boy an image of the father, and therefore of all men, as being irresponsible, deceitful, immature, and often hateful or abusive towards women. For sons, the divided loyalties occasioned by divorce actually create profound doubts about their own masculinity. As the boy approaches manhood, he is plagued by subconscious questions which have no immediate resolution: "Will I be like Dad?" "Do I want to be like Dad?" "What is a man supposed to do?" Even when boys live with fathers, or when divorced mothers remarry, the erstwhile "man of the house" has diminished considerably in stature. The traditional father was the sole breadwinner, the chief disciplinarian, and the figure who sat at the head of the table and spoke with authority on matters of politics, economics, and religion. Loving his children, he did not spare the rod. A new breed of parent (fathers are hardly to be distinguished from mothers) has arrived on the scene. The new parent has invented a new way of disciplining sons, adhering firmly to the principles of "self-esteem." The boy is never wrong, is never spanked, and is never made to feel ashamed. Postmodern parents believe, at least until it is too late, that raising children must be easy since the nature of children is basically good. I had no idea how entrenched these post-Spockian ideas were until I became a school principal and began hearing how parents talk about correcting their children. The word "punishment" no longer exists in the parental lexicon; it has been replaced by "consequences." Boys are not made to feel ashamed for bad behavior; they must reconsider their "poor choices." Least of all will parents spank their sons; if you suggest that they should, they look at you in horror, for after all, "violence only breeds violence." Of course, this softer form of discipline does not really work. When "time-outs" and restricted use of the internet prove unavailing, then it is time for counseling and Ritalin. The old form of discipline was quick, direct, clear-cut, and effective. The new non-punitive discipline is time-consuming, indirect, muddled, and ineffective. Every breaking of the rules requires a long discussion in which the boy gets to express his "feelings" and therefore make his case. This new form of easy discipline actually compromises the boy's moral growth in several ways. First, he receives no real punishment for wrongdoing and is not made to feel shame. The absence of these traditional external and internal sanctions inhibits his development of self-control. Second, rather than truly learning to be responsible and to accept the real consequences of his actions, he learns to be litigious and whiny. Worst of all, to the extent his father is involved in all this nonsense, he sees the man who should be his master and mentor not as an authoritative figure who imposes order and dispenses justice but as a craven coddler who shudders to injure an errant boy's self-esteem. On the surface, the boy is glad to skim by without getting into too much trouble. Deep down, he knows that his father is no man and so looks abroad for more energetic examples of thumotic manhood. Schools for Sissies No less than at home, at school the boy encounters a world that thwarts any natural drive to become a true man. As Christina Hoff Sommers has shown, some schools are actively trying to remove any vestiges of traditional culture that work to the benefit and inspiration of boys: older forms of academic competition such as math and spelling bees, the preponderance of male heroes who can no longer outnumber female heroines, even school playgrounds and games like dodge ball. Even when schools are not deliberately trying to emasculate young boys, the world of education can appear feminized and overly pampering to young males. In elementary school, over 90 percent of the teachers are women. Having no decent curriculum to guide them, as is the case in most schools, these female teachers will quite innocently and unimaginatively choose books and assignments that do not appeal to boys in the least. The boy student will have to suffer through Charlotte's Web three or four times but never hear of Captains Courageous or Treasure Island or Sherlock Holmes. When he gets into middle and high school he may begin to have male teachers. But these are the tired, ineffective, jaded clock-watchers and pension-seekers of Theodore Sizer's Horace's Compromise. Horace lets the half of the class he cannot control talk for the whole period while he passes out worksheets to the half of the class who still care about grades. Horace is a wimp. If the boy sees any energy on the part of men at the school it is among the coaching staff. Coaches know how to appeal to the thumotic element in boys in order to train them to win, and they actually work hard on the field. They appear far less energetic and in command, however, when they must teach a history class, for there are only so many health and P.E. courses a school can offer. Beyond these decayed institutions, the broader cultural landscape inhibits the transformation of boys into good men. Radical feminism, to name one feature of this landscape, has in some ways undermined the relations between the sexes. Radical feminists have not directly changed the character of traditional men. There are still a number of gentlemen who will open doors for ladies at the risk of being told off by the occasional woman out to prove her equality and independence. What feminism has done, in conjunction with political correctness, is deprive overly non-offensive, modern parents of the language traditionally used to bring up young boys: "Be a man." "Stick up for your sister." "Quit throwing the ball like a sissy." "Quit crying like a girl." Instead, we have a lot of lukewarm, androgynous talk about "being a good person" and "showing respect to people." A naturally rambunctious and irascible boy, though, is not too interested in being a good person. For if he achieves that status, what will distinguish him from his prim and proper sister? The parents have no language to answer their son's deepest and most natural needs. Rites of Passage Finally, today's boys mill about their adolescent and post-adolescent years lacking any formal, approved rite of passage that would turn them into men. The American frontier disappeared in 1890. The call of the sea did not survive much longer. All-male colleges, where young men used to compete against each other in the lecture halls and on the playing field, can now be counted on the fingers of one hand. President Eliot of Harvard told his student body on taking office in 1869, "The best way to put boyishness to shame is to foster scholarship and manliness." Could a college president say that today to a student body in which males are the distinct minority? While the opening up of commerce and industry to women has increased their economic freedom and equality, men have lost one more arena in which to prove themselves, as George Gilder has elegantly shown. Moreover, most of the jobs offered in the new economy hardly appeal to the spiritedness in man. Certainly, the military still beckons many spirited boys coming out of high school, but the entire armed services constitute less than one percent of the American population and must make room for a fair number of women in their ranks. In short, modern America lacks what virtually every society in the past has established and governed with great effort and concern: a proving ground for male youth seeking some legitimate expression of their erratic and as yet undisciplined spiritedness. The sum effect is an environment that demands virtually nothing special of boys as they grow into men. Many aspects of modern culture are debilitating for girls as well as boys, but the lack of dramatic challenge is not one of them. The recent statistics comparing girls' to boys' academic achievements worldwide demonstrate what any teacher in the country knows: that girls are achieving as never before and are outdistancing boys. Perhaps the kinder, gentler, nurturing, egalitarian, consultative, non-competitive approach to education and family has been a boon for girls. Yet what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. As Father Walter Ong expressed it, the male nature, in order to prove itself, in order to distinguish itself from the potentially emasculating feminine world into which the boy is born, longs for some "againstness" in the natural or moral world which the boy can overcome. But in our culture everything is too easy. Boys are not compelled, indeed not allowed, to fight anymore. They cannot fight on the playground. Nor can they fight for grades, for a girl, for God, or for country (though September 11 has altered this last). Even the saints of old would find the 21st century an inhospitable place, for how could they "fight the good fight" against their own fallen nature in a world supposedly without sin? Little Avery So how is Murphy Brown's little Avery doing? He is 11 now. He has grown up under an overbearing mother who has occasionally brought men home, though none has stayed. While Murphy has pursued her successful career, Avery has been showered with material possessions to give him something to do during the long stretches of the day when he finds himself at home alone or left to an indifferent nanny, finished with his half hour of easy homework, which his mother will check over and often redo for him after they have eaten the pizza or take-out Chinese she picked up on the way home from work. Every time Avery has a problem at school or in the neighborhood, Murphy solves it for him with the same decisiveness she demonstrates at the network, thus proving to her son and to herself that she is a good mother. Avery has posters on his wall of Eminem, Kobe Bryant, and Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit. He is becoming interested in girls but is still too shy to say much to them. Still, he has learned a lot about women on the internet, and his favorite rap songs tell him precisely how to relate to women and what women want. His mother, for her part, has told him a lot about the value of "respecting people." Avery has never been hunting or fishing. True, Avery and his mother used to have fun times at the park and on trips when she could get away from work, but now he is beginning to pull away from her when she rubs his head in an affectionate way. They are not as close as they used to be. The next few, crucial years of Avery's life will determine what kind of man he will be. Will he rest in wretched contentment with the ease and luxury provided by his oft-absent, deep-voiced mother, or will he rebel with other boys his own age, raised much like him, by finding his own rites of passage in drugs and sex and acts of petty delinquency, or worse? Will he become a wimp or a barbarian? Terrence O. Moore served as a lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps and taught history at Ashland University in Ohio. He is now principal of Ridgeview Classical Schools in Fort Collins, Colorado. (This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"Attend in uniform. No real change is needed from the church service in question. The focus of the service should NOT be on the Scouts themselves." Acco gives good advice. Also, keep in mind that any participation beyond this may depend upon the religious affiliation of both the scouts and the "host" community. In some religious communities, liturgical participation is restricted to initiated members. Furthermore, scouts' participation may be dependent upon their own religion as well. To my knowledge, most Protestant churches have open communion for Christians. Catholics and Orthodox do not. In my experience, synagogues have allowed veneration of the Torah by fellow "people of the book" but you may want to check. As far as "high church" protestants like Episcopals and some Lutherans go, it may vary. In general, would suggest that if a scout cannot receive communion, he should not be involved in the offertory or similar liturgical function. Scouts should participate as far as their faith and the church in question allows. Remember that liturgical actions often symbolize a specific faith and communion with a specific tradition or authority. It can be disrespectful to both parties when a scout is forced to participate in manner not appropriate to his religious understanding or affiliation.

'Saddle, I understand your point. While I certainly don't mind if the BSA gets governmental support, it doesn't bother me if it is considered a private organization and is treated as fairly (and impartially) as that requires. I don't think that the BSA should be considered a government program or expect to be treated as such. It should be able to stand on it's own two feet.

"One, put her in a treatment facility where 100% of the doctors are throughly educated in the areas of Bible scholarship, the power of prayer, and creationism. The standard treatment is to petition the Lord with prayer." While I am not familiar with the specifics of creationism, I do know that creationists do not distain medical science, technology, or any other application thereof. I had mentioned distorted and simple views of religions and you are a perfect case of this. I have personally met creationist biologists and medical doctors. Yes, some very rare religious sects distain all or some medical procedures. The "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Christian Scientists" come to mind. They do not represent the vast majority of those involved in creationist study or the denominations which support it. Your statements about Christians and Christianity demonstrate either a gross ignorance of the teaching and practice or a malicious distortion and use of mocking hyperbole. There are civil means to debate issues or even the merits of a particular ideology, but I believe that "bigotry" is the term that one might use to describe your demeanor. I'm sure that you wouldn't stand for such techiques being used to describe another religious or ethnic group. If it is merely a case of gross ignorance, I suggest that you either start some serious study of the topics that you wish to discuss or preface your descriptions with a notice that you have no little idea what you are talking about.

I agree that creationism shouldn't be a primary focus of science teachers (not that all science teachers will spend a significant amount of time on evolutionary theory anyhow). I just meant that in so far as an economics teacher will touch on government, a philosophy teacher will touch on psychology, an English teacher will touch on religion, and about any teacher will touch on science, a science teacher may present some creationist views. I don't think that this is important, however, and I wouldn't vote to spend money on creationist training for such teachers. On the other hand, I don't think it would be innappropriate to touch on the subject prior to or during discourse in evolutionary theory. I also think that it would be helpful for students to be exposed to the philosophical basis for our scientific method some time during their scientific education. Whether this should be delivered within science courses, I am not sure. I would like to see philosophy offered in secondary schools so that students can see the rise of empiricism and the scientific method "from the other side" so to speak. It would work well for this to be explored within the philosophy or other humanities classes. Much more time could be devoted to the subject than the average science teacher would be willing and/or able to devote. Regarding the philosophical bases for the scientific method, I think we need to keep some things in mind. Those who accept the scientific method and wish to keep it "pure" (as I do) needn't be strict empiricists regarding all knowledge. Using science as a specific tool within specific realms of study, one may also accept other forms or methods of knowledge. Creationists, for instance, use empirical science as one of at least two methods of knowledge, another being Divine Revelation, usually in the form of Scripture. Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with most creationist specifics, but I assume that most would hold this true. Another subject is that of materialism. While materialism is certainly compatable with the scientific method and many scientists have been materialists, we must remember that materialism is not a necessary base for the method or empiricism as a whole. In fact, it was historically dualists who can be credited with the rise of modern science and later the scientific method. Spiritualists rarely consider the physical world worthy of study, but they don't usually enter into the debate. They would consider the Laws of Thermodynamics as absurd and mythological as a materialist considers the spiritual realm...

I don't think that creationism should be taught in science class. But I do think that various theologies of creation should be taught in humanities classes. Perhaps this is due to my relative unfamiliarity with the various forms of "creationism." I'm not really certain what the term refers to specifically. I suppose if the science teacher was familiar enough with the specifics of creationism, he or she could integrate them into the curriculum. That wouldn't bother me. It seems that a lot of people without formal post-secondary scientific training feel qualified to expound upon the necessary truths of evolution. Why couldn't science teachers (who may or may not have creationist training) teach the subject? This makes me think of the larger issue of teaching religious material in public schools. I support a more comprehensive and detailed teaching of religious matters. I'm not saying that the students should be taught any particular religion, of course, but that they should acquire a familiarity with the doctrines and practices of many common religous groups. Too many people leave our education system with a relatively simple and ignorant perception of the religious beliefs of others. To them, it seems that the religions themselves are as simple and distorted as their own understanding of them. I think that this type of religious understanding is as essential to living as a member of our society as understanding our form of government. In fact, I think it much more important than an intricate understanding of the theory and forms of evolution.

No, Ed was talking about being excluded from the entire public sector. The groups that you refer to are being excluded from one private organization. The difference is quite significant. As to arbitrary distinctions, perhaps I should widen the net of participants. To those who believe that atheists and homosexuals should be accepted members of the BSA: What other "groups" do you feel should be granted membership? Are there any other actions or dispositions toward actions currently deemed unacceptable by the BSA that you consider acceptable? Where do you draw the lines and how do you draw them? If you can't answer, then you have no basis on which to criticize the current policy.

"Of course, if this were a story by a Boy Scout slamming gays instead of atheists, it's de rigeur to have them tied to a fence first. Glad you bigots are finally showing your true colors." You are talking about "bad" behavior. I want to know where you draw the lines. Are all physical actions beyond criticism? Would you allow those who engage in all physical actions or who have dispositions toward them to becoming members of the BSA? Where do YOU draw the lines, and what principles do you use to draw them? Your mentioning of the US policy towards religious groups is only because of your personal beliefs regarding atheism and "homosexuality." That is what I refer to. I strongly believe that the lines that you draw are just as arbitrary, "bigoted," and "narrow" as those to whom you refer. Attempt to prove me wrong.

Yes yes, We all know that public schools are supposed to teach only those subjects which can't be learned anywhere else. Since churches teach religious truths, our students should be completely unaware of any and all perspectives relating to them. I think that we need to stick with the basics of education. As long as history is seen as black-and-white and logic seen as shades of grey, our students will be just fine. Remember that ignorance is bliss and ignorance of religion is requisite for a perfect society. Who's to determine what is religious and what is objective fact? Why the state departments of curriculum, of course. That is a distinction much too important to be left to the students themselves.

That's an important distinction, FOG. I think that both situations need to be handled differently (each with courtesy and kindness of course), but the difficulty comes in determining which situation we have in any particular case.

I still wonder what actions or dispositions to actions that Merlyn feels would justify exempting an individual from the BSA. How does he draw such lines without the charge of "bigotry" that he labels others with. I can make up a name for any group in question and I am wondering what principles Merlyn would use to determine which have "protected" status. We know that criticizing and exluding atheists and/or "homosexuals" falls into the realm of "bad" behavior, so he must not hold ALL actions acceptable. Where are the lines? How does Merlyn draw them? I would give specific examples of actions that Merlyn has no reason to exclude apart from the "bigoted" superstitions that he supposedly rejects, but it shouldn't be necessary and I don't want to scandalize those for whom such things are obvious.

NJ, A apologize if I have mischaracterized your position on the issues of hate speech legislation, the role of government in economic distribution, religion in the public sector, or abortion. I don't see you as a malevolent figure at all. In fact, I admire your resolve in refuting what you believe to be mistaken views when it would be much easier to ignore them. Left? Right? I don't like the bipolar labeling system either, but there are definate trends in the holding of ideas. I rather enjoy finding the exceptions, however.

No no, I am not talking about some cognitive conception causing the reaction. Jewishness is not a physical phenomenon and thus cannot provoke a GUT reaction. One can spur themselves to violence for such beliefs, of course, but that is not what I am referring to. There are plenty of physical actions and dispositions to actions that you would deem as making an individual unfit for membership in the BSA. You would have no problem deeming them "morally unclean." Where do you get these ideas? Nietzche and Bernard Shaw and Herbert Spencer tell me that these are just silly superstitions. Why are the actions that you disapprove of so different from the ones that the BSA disapproves of? To my philosopher friends over there, you are as much a superstitious bigot as the BSA. Prove them wrong.