Our old pal Hans Zeiger, aka Hannity-in-Training, is back with yet another column at the Worldnutdaily that completely distorts the reality of the court cases going on and, predictably, distorts the position of the ACLU. The issue involves the question of whether the government can continue to spend money and resources to support the Boy Scouts (by hosting jamborees and the like) on military bases and similar government facilities. A Federal judge ruled that they cannot and the case is now being appealed. Let's take a look at Zeiger's amazing ability to shift the premise of the other side's argument to beat up a straw man:
The Boy Scouts are not the only group that partners with the nation's Armed Forces, though it would seem they ought to be at the top of the list of partners. As the Boy Scouts of America Legal Issues website explains, "Military bases routinely hold circuses, carnivals and rock concerts which are open to the public; the military provides safety, security and logistical support for sporting events and political conventions; the military sends bands to perform at churches, community centers, and nursing homes across the country; and the Navy's Blue Angels perform flyovers for NASCAR racing, truck and tractor pulls, and local parades across the country."
Talk about missing the point. If circuses, carnivals and rock concerts bluntly engaged in discrimination, this analogy might actually work. Let's flip this around: if a circus wanted to perform on a military base but refused to allow Christians to attend, would Zeiger think that's okay? I highly doubt it. If a military base booked a concert but the deal was that no black people could go to it, would he be on board for that? I highly doubt it. Yet he screams bloody murder when others aren't okay with hosting a group that discriminates, and quite loudly and vehemently, against non-believers and gays.
It's just a question of whose ox is being gored. Zeiger is all for discrimination against gays and atheists, and therefore he thinks the government should provide support for his group that engages in such discrimination. But he's against discrimination against Christians and straight people, so he would cry foul if the government provided support for any group that engaged in those forms of discrimination.
And then there's this classic bit of paranoia as he accuses the ACLU of trying to "destroy" the Boy Scouts. He's actually trying to explain the ACLU's position but missing the point completely and beating up a straw man in the process:
What kind of thing is it, this attempt by the ACLU to rid the public square of boys in uniforms who swear to serve God and country?
There are three possible answers. First, it might be justified by the nature of our government. Perhaps our government requires the purgation of private character-building groups from the public setting. But this is not the case. In fact, our form of government requires virtue that has its source in the private sphere. The public welfare cannot be divorced from private morality.
I fail to see how discriminating against gays and atheists builds "private character". If the Boy Scouts allowed gays and atheists to join, would they suddenly have to stop teaching kids to be honest or show courage? That would only be true if gays and atheists were incapable of honesty or courage and not even a bigot like Zeiger would probably make that claim. I would argue that the Scouts' insistence on discrimination only undermines their ability to teach true character.
See, Zeiger's idea of character is highly skewed. He thinks that having morality and character means being a fundamentalist Christian. He thinks that it means that one has to follow the rules laid down by the bronze age nomads who wrote the Old Testament. But if that were true, then no one in the world other than fundamentalist Christians would have morality and character - and who in their right mind would ever suggest that? I doubt even Zeiger would.
I would argue that character has nothing to do with whether one is gay or straight, atheist or theist. Character has to do how you treat other people. Do you view them as you view yourself, as a human being possessing the same inherent right to self-ownership and self-determination as you? Or do you view them as people that you can bend to your will if you can just get enough people to agree with you and vote in laws that force everyone to live the way you want them to? That's the real test of character.
Someone with character actually lives the golden rule, both personally and politically. Someone with character recognizes that because they want the freedom to live their life as they see fit, they must be vigilant in making sure that others are allowed to do the same. Someone with character understands that by protecting the rights of others, they protect their own rights and they build a better society.
And yes, the rights of others includes the right of the Boy Scouts to exercise their right of free association and therefore practice discrimination. But doing so also means you can't demand government support for such discrimination. I'm all for the Boy Scouts having an absolute right, as a private organization, to decide who can and can't be a member. But I don't want my tax dollars paid to support them, any more than Zeiger would want his tax dollars paid to support discrimination against Christians.
- Log in to post comments
As someone who's been out of scouts for less time, my impression was that the influence of religion seems to vary a lot between areas, though there do seem to be a lot of Mormon troops.
Though I don't have any evidence to support this, I'd imagine that the Christian fundamentalist interpretation of the phrase "morally straight" and the word reverent has more to do with the fact that the national office is in Texas, and probably has a large number of religious conservatives associated with it.
Ed, clearly the circus does discriminate. They only hire BEARDED ladies.
But Ed, that's exactly what he would claim. That's the core of the fundies problem in this area. If gays and atheists were capable of honesty or courage (or any positive moral attribute) then they would accept the Xian bible and not be gay and/or atheist. Since they are gay and/or athiest, they haven't accepted the bible and are therefore incapable of being moral. QED.
Yes, they are really that obtuse and bigoted.
It's a crying shame that the Scouts, who otherwise can be a fine organization and a positive influence in young men's lives, has taken the position that they have.
I really have to wonder about the empathy of these people. There is something fundemental about human beings in being able to place yourself in another persons shoes and think about how you would feel in their situation... and they seem to either lack that ability or they don't listen to that part of themselves because they honestly think that there is something lesser about the groups they are willing to discriminate against.
Of course there are also the folks that claim that white, christian males get discriminated against all the time... so they might think that their disciminating against someone isn't that harmful, because they deal with the vast liberal conspiracy just fine.
You can write this guy with your criticisms, he'll write back.
As an Eagle Scout myself, one of the most frustration aspects of Scouts now is that it still claims to be non-denominational. But, of course, it really is not: there are plenty of denominations that accept homosexuals and would even welcome atheists into their midsts. The BSA is basically controlled by Mormons, and they enforce a particular doctrine that ignores this denominational diversity.
"I really have to wonder about the empathy of these people. There is something fundemental about human beings in being able to place yourself in another persons shoes and think about how you would feel in their situation... and they seem to either lack that ability..."
The idea of empathy is behind morals and ethics so when people lack empathy they have no true moral sense but instead (sometimes) substitute the false morality of xianity or other superstition. Without a deep seated personal sense of right and wrong they easily fall victim to those that use the religion for their own gains and personal power.
I fail to see how discriminating against gays and atheists builds "private character".
I think he meant "character-building" groups that are "private" (as opposed to funded by the public sector through grants). However, I agree that I don't see encouraging discrimination as being "character-building", but rather the building of bunch of "characters".
And I rather think the stage is full...
The BSA is basically controlled by Mormons, and they enforce a particular doctrine that ignores this denominational diversity.
I admit I've been out of the Boy Scout organization for nearly a decade, but I have to call you out on this one. On what evidence do you base this conjecture? There are Boy Scout troops in local temples and one at a local Hebrew school. While there is a perception that the BSA only comprises WASP kids, it's actually pretty diverse ethnically and religiously. I don't recall the Book of Mormon being on the required reading list for a merit badge.
My problem with the BSA has been its paramilitary flavor, but then as a Quaker I'm probably over-sensitive in that regard. Frankly, I'm overjoyed that the BSA cannot have events on military bases. The further scouting can get from being a training ground for future soldiers, the better, in my book.
While not all Boy Scouts are Mormons, most every Mormon boy is a boy scout, and the organizations leaders dominate the national BSA. I wasn't saying that this meant that they forced anyone to read the BoM: but they do weild their influence in defining what things Scouting officially allows and what it doesn't. The anti-gay, anti-atheist insistence is a case in point. Neither of these is truly a non-denomonational stance.
I'm not sure it's fair to say the Mormons dominate national Scouting. There has been a bit of a takeover by extremely conservative types, but I don't think the Latter-day Saints are grossly over-represented.
LDS groups are the largest bunch of sponsors, and Scouting has been a part of the youth group, for boys and young men, for a long time. When I was Scout age in Utah, eventually I had no choice but to join an LDS unit, but with a few exceptions, it was just Scouting, and it was a great experience. In Scouting I made some great friends -- my first African American friends, first Jewish friends, first atheist friends. Scouting's program builds good character. The strong emphasis on conservation of natural resources produced a generation of environmentalists and industrialists with strong environmental protection biases. Scouting also produced some powerful political leaders -- Bill Bradley, Lamar Alexander, Dick Gephardt, Dick Lugar, Gerald Ford and Mike Dukakis are all Eagles, for example.
Scouting's bias against gays and non-Christians is painful to many of us still involved with the program. I might also add that it creates some interesting difficulties that should have been more carefully considered. It is true that the LDS groups are wary of a rule that would require them to allow gay leaders, which is against their faith. On the other hand, disallowing gay leaders is against the faith of several mainline Christian groups, such as the Methodists, who are the second largest group of sponsors of Scouting. It would be better if the national group simply got out of the business of trying to tell any religious group what it should believe. While it would pain me some to allow the Mormons to exclude gay leaders (in Europe, it turns out, gay leaders recruitment has both improved Scouting dramatically and reduced molestation of Scouts by sexual predators), it pains me more to have the national group dictating to other groups. Scouting was more successful and more popular when it stressed the "Scouting is outing" creed of its American founders (and they were speaking of making outings in the out-of-doors, of course). We could stand a return to such traditional values.
And, it also pains me that Scouting is, now, a group that could not welcome Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, or Lord Robert Baden-Powell as members -- and George Washington might have difficulty, too. I appreciate irony, but this needs to be reconciled.
So I invite you to volunteer as a leader if you're reading this. If you can find your way to sign on despite the beliefs pledge, Scouting needs you. It will take some years, but we need to build the ranks of Scouters with people who will vote in the policy meetings for more rational policies. It's silly that Boy Scouts should be tossed out of traditional parks in California; it's a national tragedy that Scouting faces closed doors in public schools in our nation's larger cities and suburban areas, where Scouting can work wonders with a kid who wants adventure. Scouting has traditionally been an organization that was an attraction to boys because of the possibilities for good adventures, and which managed to build character during those adventures, because of those adventures. There was no litmus test -- what 8-year-old or 11-year-old boy truly knows his faith or sexual orientation? -- and millions of American men benefited from the training and adventures they had as Scouts. There is more value in building good kids than there is in making some odd, political/religious stand. I hope we can get back to building character, in a much bigger way, soon.
Regarding the Mormon church and the bigoted boy scouts of america, it was reported around the time of the USSC's Dale decision that the Mormon church had on the order of 1/4 to 1/3 (I forget the actual number) of BBSA membership, that they contributed a corresponding amount to the national BBSA's budget, and that, if Dale went the other way, they threatened to withdraw from the BBSA and start their own operation.
It isn't necessary for a segment to have >50% "participation" to effectively control the whole.
Regarding Mr. Darrells post immediately above, there are other organizations that the BBSA. Girls&Boys Clubs, for example, do very good work. And, as far as I can tell, they aren't bigoted.