Here’s a Press release from our friends at Scouting For All that says it all.
Press ReleaseFor Immediate Release and DistributionFebruary 10, 2006Scouting for All Contact: Scott Cozza, Presinfo@scoutingforall.orgTel: 707-778-0564 Eric Marx, Northeastern Regional Directornortheastern@scoutingforall.orgTel: 301-656-1163 Congress Sneaks Unique Protections for Boy Scouts of America’s Discrimination into Defense Authorization Bill Last month, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (H.R.1815), which was passed by Congress in the final hours before its Christmas recess. Before the final passage of this bill, however, supporters of the policies of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) that discriminate against gay and atheist youth and adults slipped into the bill the so-called “Support Our Scouts Act of 2005″ (Section 1073). This eleventh-hour amendment, entirely beyond the ordinary scope of a Defense Authorization bill, is intended to give special treatment to BSA in three ways. First, subject to the availability of appropriations, it purports to immunize BSA from any law that might limit the Federal Government’s support of it, thus undercutting our Nation’s anti-discrimination laws (as well as its fiscal responsibility in government expenditures). Second, this amendment requires the U.S. Department of Defense to provide at least the same level of support for BSA’s national or world Jamborees as in past years. This is a direct affront to the Federal Court injunction currently in place enjoining such support as an unconstitutional establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. Finally, this amendment requires any state or local government entity that receives Community Development Block Grant money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to allow BSA to have meetings in their facilities or on their property, regardless of these entities’ own laudable anti-discrimination laws or regulations that forbid such access to discriminatory groups. While some of these provisions purport to apply to a number of youth organizations, their special focus on BSA is clear, not only from the amendment’s title, but also as the protections are only needed to immunize BSA’s exceptional discrimination. Scouting for All,* an anti-discrimination organization inspired by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza, asks why Congress would go to such extraordinary lengths to shield an organization that: -Discriminates against gay and atheist youth and adults.-Is under investigation by the FBI for fraud, inflating membership numbers to increase funding.-Who has a national executive arrested for receiving and distributing child pornography.-Who may be using its Learning for Life program to secure funding legitimately denied to its traditional scouting program. -Who allows its Scout Councils to mislead funding sources such as the United Way by telling them they don’t discriminate, yet continue to adhere to the BSA’s national mandated policy of discrimination against gay and atheist youth and adults.-Gives the youth under its charge the message that discrimination is ok, and that gay and atheist people are morally inferior and not good citizens.-Gives the youth under its charge who have gay and/or atheist parents the message that their parents don’t have family values and are morally inferior to heterosexual parents who profess religious faith. As recognized in the statements of Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA): “The Boy Scouts of America policy of discriminating against homosexuals and atheists is contradictory to the Federal Government’s support for diversity and tolerance and should not be condoned as patriotic, charitable, or educational. An organization that claims that its mission is to “instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character,” and to “train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership” does a disservice to our nation when it teaches young people that it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation or their religious convictions.” and Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA): “I stand with Scouting for All in calling for the Boy Scouts of America return to their roots of instilling the values of good citizenship and teaching life skills to all Americans who wish to join. If, instead, the organization continues to sanction discrimination on behalf of its right-wing financial backers, then the federal government has a moral and Constitutional duty to sever all financial and symbolic ties to the organization. That would be a shame, because there are plenty of exclusive organizations in this country dedicated to intolerance, but far too few that bring kids of all backgrounds together to share in meaningful life experiences,” the Federal Government has no place putting itself out as the protector of invidious discrimination. While these sentiments have been echoed by other elected officials — most especially Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), who has repeatedly expressed his deep disappointment that BSA “betrays its own professed mission of bringing out the best in young people by perpetuating this unfair and unjustified discrimination based on sexual orientation and religious belief” — all too few of our Representatives and Senators stood up to the backroom dealings that led to the last-minute insertion of this amendment in the “must-pass” Defense Authorization bill. Scouting for All calls for the prompt repeal of this pernicious legislative sneak attack on the civil rights of all Americans, and for an end to the special protections given to BSA’s discrimination. We hope to soon see the day when all Americans are equally treated with the respect and dignity they so rightly deserve. As the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
HZ:
Outstanding.
Looks like this thread is over & done with, bar the shouting.
Oh, we already did that.
Does anyone have any last words, before we bury this thread?
YAY!
That’s truly amazing. The Scouts hatred of gays and athiests is so strong that they have decided that rather than stop the discrimination, they will give up all government funding. That’s some pretty deep running hatred.
I liked this quote:
Rather the “Children”, what Kevin actually means is “Hetrosexual, Christian Children”
I feel so frickin vindicated! Well, that about sums it up. Where did you go Timmy?
I feel that this decision is a win-win situation on the part of the American taxpayers who abhor discrimination and also on the part of the Boy Scout leadership who can now discriminate as much as they like. I also feel that it is a loss to all of the boys and young men who now will lose government support for their organization as well as learning that discrimination and bigotry are Boy Scout values.
Alex.
Zac:
I think Timmy picked up his toys & went home.
Sweet.
Whassa matter, Timmy? Gave up?
RA,
Who died and appointed you the blog moderator? Go ahead and quit commenting if you want.
FYI – I was ready to get it on earlier, but alas no takers. I had other things to do until now!
Anyway, I do have one final thought process to work through here. It goes back to something Zac said earlier which got me to thinking.
Here’s the issue in a nutshell. It is wrong to discriminate against people based upon any one of their IMMUTABLE characteristics, ie. age, sex, race, or ethnic origin. Now let’s be clear, when I say “discriminate” I am speaking in the context of illegal discrimination against people otherwise qualified to be admitted to an organization. For example, it is NOT discrimination to have a private club for men only or for the Boy Scouts to admit only boys. What I’m talking about is that you can’t bar a young Black boy from joining the Boy Scouts!
Now things like sexual orientation, religious preference and such do not fall into the category of immutable characteristics. I realize there is ongoing research in the area of Homosexuality, but it is by no means a scientific fact that sexual preference is something you are born with.
So what does this mean. What it means is that you may disagree with me about what is right or wrong with respect to inclusion of say, Atheists in the case of the Boy Scouts, but it is a simple fact this DOES NOT constitute discrimination in the way you folks have used it here.
I’m sorry you can’t accept this simple fact, which has been established by the Supreme Court of the land so we will remain at loggerheads on this issue.
It’s been a good discussion, though!
Tim:
No one. Sorry. Did I irritate you?
When do I ever shut up? Probably never.
We share that much in common.
That seems like a very good point.
Let’s look at the definitions, then.
answers.com – discrimination -
“1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: “
We’re going w/defintion #3, BTW.
Let’s look at the definition of prejudice, same source:
“1.
A. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
B. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.”
So thus far, as far as I can see it, you’re incorrect on the discrimination thing.
Nice try, though. Almost pulled it off.
RA,
Ah, I see now. Whenever people make ANY sort of judgement or discrimination as to who shares their values and is worthy of their company it is just good old PREJUDICE and BIGOTRY! Yeah, right. What a crock.
This is the biggest red herring of them all, my friend. First and most egregious of all, people who think this are guilty of PRESUPPOSING the beliefs, thoughts and motives of another WITHOUT even bothering to ask!
Second, I take the position that is GOOD to be discriminating when it comes to who you associate with. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that it is somehow wrong to restrict membership in the first place. Look, if there’s an organization of which faith in God is an integral part are you suggesting they are somehow less than morally upright to keep people out who would actively work AGAINST the organization from within? Come on! It would go against their very principles to let them in!
Further, they have every legal and moral right to restrict their membership. You go ahead and call it whatever you want, just realize that doesn’t make it so, my friend.
SOAPBOX ALERT:
I am simply FED UP with all this crap about alleged hatred and bigotry as it relates to organizations like the Boy Scouts. Those accusing ANYONE in that organization of hating Athiests, etc. are simply engaging in the worst kind of DEMAGOGERY. It is the most vile and pernicious form of intolerance to accuse others in such a manner.
My rule of thumb applies perfectly here and has yet to be disproven. It is this: “Whenever you hear someone preaching “tolerance”, you are probably listening to one of the most IN-tolerant individuals you will ever meet”
I’ll tell you this. I’m ready to live and let live, but one thing I will NOT tolerate are people infringing on my right of association. Further, if a majority of my fellow citizens continue to agree that organizations like the Boy Scouts are worthy of support, WE WILL CONTINUE to grant them government benefits afforded to ALL GROUPS.
I’ve stepped down now… regular programming will resume. I meant what I said, though.
Who;s doing that, Tim? Last I checked this was about the Boy Scouts receiving public funding when they’re a private organisation. What does that have to do with you?
Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.
No you don’t.
You’re right. That is a crock. That’s not what’s been said.
Let’s see, you tried to change the goalposts (gee, what a surprise!) w/this 1:
Thereby implying (by your alleged epiphany) that it was all right to discriminate against these ‘mutable’ characteristics, as they were not ‘locked in stasis’.
So, if your new pet theory holds, it WOULD be okay to discriminate against these folks, because, hey, they can change that, so they wouldn’t be discriminated against!
I smell the scent of a specific fish here. Can you name it?
And then:
So their IMMUTABLE characteristics can’t disqualify them, but their MUTABLE characteristics can?
If they make CHOICES, it’s allowable to discriminate against them, as opposed to their IMMUTABLE characteristics?
All they have to do is choose otherwise?
I know you’re saying this in the context of joining a specific ‘boys’ club, association, etc.
But you’re twisting it way out of true. You’ve also provided me w/a frame of reference, a window into the way you think.
No you’re not. You’ve proven that countless times.
Hey, you want a treehouse w/the sign “No girls allowed”, w/the ‘girls’ crossed out, & ‘homosexuals & atheists’ scrawled in, be my guest. I’d never presume to dictate to ANYONE who they can associate with.
You may want to get a new ‘rule of thumb’.
Here:
Yes, it is good to be particular about whom you associate with. The whole discussion was about a group practicing the discrimination getting GOVT funds. Which of course you tried to change the goalposts.
So you’re effectively saying here, that allowing atheists & gays into the BSA would undermine the organization?
Did you miss HZ’s post? No, of course you didn’t.
It’s called sour gr_apes.
Really, your sophistic rhetorical gymnastics are quite unseemly.
You do them ever so poorly.
Tim:
P.S the word is ‘demagoguery’ BTW.
If you’re going to accuse people of something, you might want to spell it correctly.
hehehehehe.
atheiststatic:
I plead guilty. By way of locking the definitions into place.
No matter who told him it WASN’T about the discrimination, it was about the tax $, he blathered on incessantly about the right to discriminate.
Honestly, I got sick of his parrot talk about the ‘majority’, & the ‘boys only’ club.
The only people I can’t tolerate are the intolerant.
Of course, that’s not an ‘immutable’ characteristic.
RA,
Of course it’s about discrimination as you and others here have defined it! You said it yourself a few comments ago and I responded forcefully.
First you folks had to drive an intellectual stake in the ground (actually an immovable 10,000 Lb. concrete column) and refuse to move it. Then it’s very easy for you to sit in your comfortable ivory tower and declare in pious terms “It’s about the government support!”
I’ll say it again. WHAT A CROCK of (you know the word that goes here…) Nice try, but no dice.
Without your specious definition and total disregard for the principles of free association, not to mention Supreme Court precedents, you have no case with respect to government support in the first place!!!
‘Nuff said.
Timmy,
Sorry, but what exactly is your definition of discrimination? As far as I have seen it seems you are defining it as illegal discrimination. If so then we are talking at cross purposes. For the umpteenth time “discrimination is legal (but IMO immoral”. However discriminatory organizations should not receive money from the tax payer.
I fail to see what you are getting so excited about (three exclaimation marks). The issue seems pretty simple and clear cut to me – and apparantly to the BSA.
HeatheNZ,
Well, the BSA is simply taking steps to protect itself as any organization would. They are under attack from people who would like nothing more than to force them to bend to the gods of political correctness!
I see your point and all I’m saying is that it is improper to link the so-called discrimination with the government support. You just can’t do it!
It’s just an opinion, not a fact. We’ll just have to wait and see if the Explorer Post in Berkely prevails on this issue. I think it will.
Tim”Now things like sexual orientation, religious preference and such do not fall into the category of immutable characteristics”
ARE YOU FUCKING JOKING? Religious belief or non belief does entail some amount of choice but being gay does not. What possible reason would I or any other gay person have for “choosing” to be gay? Do you have any fucking functional brain cells? Don’t you see how gay people are treated by their families and society? do you think that if I honestly had any choice I would coose my orientation as gay? I have known I was gay since I was a little kid and when I was younger I tried my absolute hardest to make these very distressing and uncomfortable thoughts go away but no amount of wishing it away works. Finally in my early twenties after many years of suicidal thoughts and hopelessness I learned slowly to accept it as unchangeable and permanent. Tim, you are honestly the most misinformed, ignorant, backwards looking, stubborn asshole that I have ever come across on the internet. I think that you really know that a lot of the crap that you spout here is wrong information but you get off on provoking a reaction and, stupid me, I’m taking the bait. The fact is that the USA and the rest of the Western world is past the point of no return and there is a critical mass of people now who accept gay people as we are and are supportive of full and total equality. Already the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Germany, the UK, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Vermont, and Massachustes offer either domestic partner benefits or marriage and soon Conneticut and New Jersey will as well. In a few more years the rest of the country will follow when the federal government gets involved and then gay people will have full citizenship just like everyone else enjoys in this country. No amount of crying, shouting, or mean spirited bullshit from stupid fucks like you can stop it now. Tim I suggest that you grow up, drop the hatred of those different from you, and get used to the idea that gay people have always been here and always will be and soon we will have equality in all things.
Alex.
Tim,
I applaud the BSA for taking steps to sever it’s tax payer funding. The BSA does not need to defend itself (I think) as it is the funding agencies that will be sued and will need to defend themselves.
Of course I would applaud louder had the BSA decided to open its membership to all.
Political correctness? Perhaps. Personally I find this particular case of discrimination repugnant, but I also recognize that they have a legal right to practice it. I also consider it immoral.
But the linkage is a valid point. If the govt requires non-discrimination as a prerequisite to receiving tax-payer funding, then the BSA has declared itself as falling short of that test. (Do you agree that the govt requires non-discrimination as a prerequisite to receiving tax-payer funding? Perhaps that is the root of the difference of opinion. Perhaps I am wrong and there is no such requirement).
As a non-legal, moralistic argument, it seems unjust to me that the tax-payer base financially support an organization that arbitrarily denies membership to a subset of the same tax-payer base. There might be exceptions to this, but I am struggling to come up with a good one. The best I can do is a battered women’s shelter – but this could easily be extended to battered persons.
I’m not sure what the Explorer Post in Berkely has to do with this topic. Perhaps I missed a relevant post.
HeatheNZ,
No, as the government does not require this in the manner we have been discussing it here. Remember, we are talking mainly of benefits and perks granted by government, not funding of the organizations themselves.
You make a good point from a non-legal, noralistic view. I realize it seems unjust or wrong, but what a lot of folks here just can’t seem to understand is that this happens all the time in our country! The taxpayers fund a myriad of things that a lot of people strongly object to on moral or religious grounds.
I gave one example earlier in the case of the National Endowmwnt for the Arts. My taxes are used by tis governmental entity to fund the most vile, obnoxious and insulting “art” imaginable! I take strong objection to the way Jesus Christ and His mother have been portrayed in public exhibits! In my opinion it is wrong to fund these types of projects. But you see, that is just my opinion. They are within their legal rights to accept the largess of government to do this kind of thing.
The Berkely issue can be found at http://www.scoutingforall.org/articles/2006020102.shtml
Alex,
There are a LOT more people that think like me than you either realize or are willing to admit.
You can spew all the insults you want, but it changes not one opinion. Certainly you must realize that this is a battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. It doesn’t have to be a war.
Yes, I will readily admit that I do not know why people end up gay, but that doesn’t change the moral and spiritual aspects of the debate.
If you were just a little more open and listened a little better, perhaps you could come to accept that my views on marriage, adoption, etc., are valid and that I have nothing personal against any person, gay or straight. I’ve said it many times and I don’t think I’ve ever given you cause to make the case that I am guilty of what you accuse me of.
Alex,
I’d like to think you are correct. But I think it’s going to take a long time before non-hetrosexual people are granted the same rights and privilages and those of hetrosexual persuasion.
Tim, I’m not sure how you claim the moral high ground on this issue. Do you claim it by invoking biblical moral authority? If so, do you realize that the folks here recognize neither the validity of the source nor concur that the source consistently supports your position?
I do however concur that there are many, many, many people whose thoughts parrot those of the xian holy men. These people will continue to advocate discrimination based on biblically sanctioned sexual orientation for the forseeable future.
Thou makest Jesus vomit.
Good morning everyone.
Reluctant, I must say I like your phrase “Changing Goal Posts”. That is exactly what Timothy has been doing throughout the entire conversation. To equate providing funding to an organization to which he morally objects to providing funding to an organization which will deny him membership is just ludicrous and is obviously changing goal posts.
Tim, do you really believe being denied membership is the same as objecting to the philosophy?
-Jeremy
Tim,
Your rants bring back a lot of really negative and vile shit from my past and that’s why I am so infuriated and angry. People like you can make the life of someone like me a living hell and attitudes such as yours helped steal my childhood and adolescence from me. I could have been much happier and maybe even found love in my earlier years if not for religious fucks like you. Luckily, I have reclaimed my life from the likes of the religious intolerance that once surrounded me and I am making up for lost time. You and your ilk no longer have power over me like you once did and I was able to survive the hate that so many others just couldn’t cope with.
I realize that many people hold the same bigoted, ignorant, and wrong opinions about gay people that you do but the fact is that gay equality is coming even though it might not be this year or next but it will come to pass. I believe that Americans are fair minded people and as more gay people leave the closet behind and are open and honest with their families, friends, and co workers about their sexual orientation then it is inevitable that my side will prevail. After all we have justice on our side and in America justice is a value shared by most.
I can only hope that you will one day understand and be embarrassed by how much negativity you bring into the world.
Alex.
HeatheNZ,
No, I do not.
Tim,
You’re right, it doesn’t, but it is the Religious Right in this country that has caused this “war” by trying to force their version of morality upon everyone. They have declared their own jihad to “protect the sanctity” of marriage. Why does it need protecting? That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. You act as if supporters of homosexual rights are the ones causing this because we refuse to have Biblical laws shoved down our throats.
What are we supposed to do, just sit down, shut up, and let the RR run the country as they see fit? Be “assimilated” calmly?
It’s fine if you use the Bible to validate your personal opinions on abortion, gay marriage, etc. It is your right to do so. Just don’t try to force anyone else to live by the same rules.
Besides, if you have “nothing personal” against gay people, what possible difference can it make to you if they want to marry and have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple? I would think this would fall into the category of “none of your business.”
You certainly have the right to not associate with them if you wish. But you do not have the right to tell them or anyone else how to live.
Jeremy:
Thanks, but I learned it here, mos. ago, from whom I could not say.
Quite possibly from me. It’s a very common English expression, but usually stated as moving the goalposts rather than changing the goalposts.
Tim:
Ah, fer cryin’ out loud.
I respectfully request you re-read ALL the posts since you began weighing in on this manner. Count HOW MANY TIMES people told you, “They don’t want to allow select groups in, that’s fine, they just don’t get funding.”
Hell I said it more than once.
But, as always, you select 1 PARTICULAR point & hammer away at it, like beating a dead horse, so I decided to piss you off (truthfully, I am more than a little sick of your self-involved rantings).
Oh, that’s just rich.
Go look in a mirror, & say that.
When we discuss, say, the SOCAS, you are the 1st 1 to declare it’s not spelled out.
But when I point out there’s no ‘right to discriminate’ in the COTUS, you dissemble in a most unseemly manner.
I think everyone here is fully aware of that point. But when we cry ‘Foul!’, efforts are made to quell the dissent. ‘Tough stuff, the majority rules!’ is usually your response.
Then write your fucking congressman.
See, now I KNEW there was a spark of reason in you somewhere.
You can bite my ass. I’ve said it several times already. Associate w/anyone you damn well please.
Do it on your own dime, your own time.
You never answered this query, BTW:
& you’ve inferred that those w/’mutable’ characteristics (howsoever you want to define them) are open to discriminatory practices.
All they have to do, is change their minds. ‘Go with the majority’, is what I’m hearing.
Will take corrections on this, if I’m off.
However:
So it’s not on religious grounds that you take the higher moral ground?
Ah, let me guess:
“It’s what everyone else says/does/believes that makes it right!”
Polly wanna cracker?
HZ:
Thnx for the correction. English as in British, I presume?
I love some of those expressions. You may have noted that I’ve adopted a few of them.
Thanks to the English then!
I do like the phrase. If I use it improperly in the future, please let me know. I wanna be usin’ it proper an’ all.
Peach:
Wow, you sure are a peach, indeed.
Interesting, as I just received an email from the Human Rights Campaign.
It has this to say about that:
“I recently read about two real-life cowboys who did realize their dream. They met, fell in love, and settled down for a quarter century on a ranch in Bristow, Oklahoma. Together, they raised three sons and tended 50 head of cattle. But when one of the men passed away, his will, which left everything to his life partner, was challenged in court by a distant cousin and declared invalid. Everything was taken away – the land, the cattle, and all the personal belongings that made up their life together. Their dream was broken.
I don’t have to tell you the obvious: if they had been a man and a woman, this never could have happened. Only seven states currently give gay couples inheritance rights through marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships. Oklahoma isn’t one of those states – in fact, Oklahoma recently amended its state constitution to ensure that neither marriage nor any similar arrangement is extended to same-sex couples.”
Can anyone tell me how that ISN’T wrong?
I mean besides Tim. All he’ll do is bleat “Majority! Majority!”
RA,
That indeed is a sickening story.
I like to try to play devil’s advocate (if I am permitted to invoke fantasy figures) but I really have paultry ammunition for this one.
1. It is against theistic teachings.
2. The majority want this to be law, and they have the greatest influence on elected officials. The officials acceed to the will of the majority of their constiuents and make the rules.
3. Blood is thicker than water?
It’s really indefensible. I wonder what the OK legislature’s rationale was for the legislation.
Hey, completely off topic. But There is a great article in today’s LA Times about Science actually PROVING factual errors in one religion’s Holy Book. book of Mormon in this case. Check it out if interested:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,1135048.story?track=hpmostemailedlink
-Jeremy
BTW, agreed reluctant. It’s unbeleivable that could happen. Sometimes Americans make me sick.
reluctant,
That story is so sad. If there was a will, though, I’ve always heard it’s pretty difficult to get it overturned – unless you could prove the person wasn’t in their right mind or something. (”Activist” judge, maybe?) Don’t know. And I wonder why the sons didn’t inherit then, instead of the cousin? Or maybe they were adopted and the cousin was claiming as a “blood” relative. That is bizarre.
I have a gay friend, and while he and his partner are by no means rich, they do have a house that’s paid for, etc. They both have made wills, but I would hate to see someone come along and do that to one of them.
It’s like that here in Ohio too. My mother was once in the hospital and had a bed next to a gay male who was dying of cancer. The man’s family refused his partner visitation, and while the man was in a coma, had his partner kicked out of their home, and had all of their shared possesions taken away. It is the blatant hypocrisy of xians that I cannot stand. Where was the Cristian compassion I here so much about? Seems ti me they were kicking a guy when he’s down, and that’s pretty low in my book.
HZ:
Had to go review some old email. Atheist I met over at the Raving Atheist & I had a bit of a correspondence.
I mean this guy would REALLY give it to the theists there. To the point where I finally wanted to chat w/him a bit away from the forum.
He lives in enemy territory – literally.
OK is about as ass backwards a state as 1 can live in, apparently.
& I quote:
“In Tulsa, they have arrested store clerks for selling Penthouse
magazine: not the store owner mind you, some minimum wage clerk.
Adult videos and sexual aids are illegal. There is even a law that
says ANY depiction of sexual intercourse, simulated or otherwise, is illegal. Of course, this would make HBO illegal, and you can bet these hypocrites aren’t going after any big companies that can defend themselves.
Oh, and you might like this one, in a state full of “Christians” who
are supposed to be big on “family” values, there is actually a law that if both parents die, and are residents of Oklahoma, only family members who are residents of Oklahoma can have custody of the children. If your will gives custody to your wife’s parents who live in California, forget it. If you don’t have relatives in Oklahoma the state takes custody.
Oh yeah. Indiana. A republican rep recently introduced a bill, now
withdrawn, to make it illegal for single women, les_bians, or
non-Christian couples to get medical assistance for the purpose of becoming pregnant.
And of course, don’t forget the nationwide strategy to prevent women
from obtaining emergency birth control prescriptions with this ridiculous notion that a pharmacist doesn’t have to fill prescriptions that violate his primitive superstitions. All these big corporations like Wal-Mart and Target and sucking up to this crap. On the other hand, what do you think would happen if some clerk refused to sell guns or ammunition because it violated his principles?
I recently heard the nutters complaining about Wal-Mart and Target selling lubricants like K-Y as being anti-family, since they were afraid to bring their children into a store selling such products.”
In an earlier email, he told me this:
“You get lectured about religion in the dental chair, assualted by
strangers in the mall, and have your conversations interuppted for
Bible lessons at work. I began to really fear for this country for the first time after spending a few years in Oklahoma. The biggest nuts in the US congress come from Oklahoma. In fact, every republican in Congress from Oklahoma is probably certifiable. This is the state where the police go to Blockbuster and check the rental records for who has checked out “The Tin Drum,” and then go to their home to confiscate the video. Oklahoma has the senator who found the nudity in Schindler’s list tittilating, and who wants to execute abortion doctors.”
& Tim wonders why I have absolutely no regard for his beloved majority.
People’s Republic of Berkeley, my ass.
The Divine Theocracy of Oaklahoma takes ANY cake.
I wish they’d secede from the union. Seriously. Them, & Indiana.
Because they don’t sound none too American to me.
RA,
Hmmmm. Looks like I’m not the only one with a favorite soap box to climb up on!
Not that I owe an explanation here, but the reason I hammer away on a particular point is that it always seems like a lot of folks here can’t or won’t admit the obvious. For example, some of you here relentlessly harp on the issue of so-called “government funding” of the Boy Scouts. I have taken pains to show where this is a fallacious argument. The BSA doesn’t accept government funds. BUT NO, everyone just clings desperately to their position.
Anyway, I do appreciate the debate here. Don’t get me wrong!
Tim,
If the BSA does not accept tax-payer funding then there is nothing to argue about. I was under the impression that they did. Oddly enough, it seems that the BSA is too. But if you are correct then all is cool.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/244285.htm
I have a friend from OK and the stories she has told me about growing up there were so unbelievable that I thought she was making them up but apparently not. The rampant racism, homophobia, and good ole’ boy bullshit there sounds like something from the Wild West. She was kicked out of her home for being a les_bian and she is still estranged from her xian fundamentalist family. I think the shit really hit the fan when she told them she was an atheist too. She now is very finacially secure and lives in Philadelphia with her girlfriend and hasn’t been back to OK in a decade.
I have never been to OK but I have been to TX and everyone that I have ever known from there is certifiably insane. The animated show “King of the Hill” is so on the mark with it’s portrayal of Texans!
Alex.
Tim ” The BSA doesn’t accept government funds.”
No they don’t accept tax dollars outright but they do gladly accept government meeting space which is the same as accepting government funding. Those government buildings are paid for with tax dollars after all.
Alex.
Alex,
Now I’ve heard good things about Texas. I know people in Austin, for example and by all accounts it is a very tolerant and progressive city. Don’t be too quick to pass judgement!
Alex,
Thank you for stating this in this way because I think we may be close to coming to an understanding here.
Yes, the buildings used for meetings in your example are paid for with tax dollars. All types of private organizations use them. Here’s the key point: government can’t arbitrarily deny the use of these facilities simply because the government doesn’t approve of what the organizations stands for!
Think about this concept carefully. It is well established by court precedent. I think the Berkely example from the 60’s is perfectly relevant here. The city of Berkely wanted to deny access to the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a radical organization whose very principles called for the demise of the U.S. government at that time. The city was not allowed to do this based upon freedom of speech, association, etc..
The same is true today with the Boy Scouts. I’m sorry if a lot of folks don’t like their membership policies, but that’s not a basis upon which to deny them access to government benefits afforded any other group!
Tim:
Tomato, To-mah-toe.
Everything costs money.
If the govt. pays for it, in any way shape or form, it’s still taxpayer $.
Substitute ANY sort of financial terminology you like.
I object to paying out of pocket for any group that discriminates. Whatever way it’s funneled into that group.
Yeah, hoping to get a new 1 for my b-day. The 1 I have now is getting a little worn out.
Tim:
Even if the group is associated w/the Al-Qaeda?
What the group stands for is not the issue. The issue is restricting membership based on arbitrary discriminatory criteria.
If other groups arbitrarily discriminate then then should not be entitled to tax-payer funded incentives too. I care not one hoot whether I or the govt agrees with what they stand for or not.
Equal treatment for all.
Tim:
Let me sling a few concepts your way, before I shoot down to the park for my work-out.
A. The BSA has a policy of not accepting Jews & Muslims. Now some folks regard the circumstances of their birth to be somewhat ‘immutatable’ in their characteristics. Before you say ‘Jewishness is a religion!”, go to answers.com, look up the definition of race.
B. In the case of a child being born intersexual, well, h/she (for lack of a better pronoun) is of both sexes. Does the child get to join both the GSA & the BSA?
C. Let’s hypothesize: say there’ a Muslim verion of the BSA, they’ve been receiving funds from the govt. for lo these past 2 decades. Recent evidence uncovered shows the ’scoutmasters’ are all Hamas/Al-Qaeda operatives, & have been indoctrinating the ‘troops’ w/anti-US sentiments, anti-semitic sentiments, etc.
Please let me know which of these instances counts as discrimination, & which ones don’t, please.
Oh, & answer this, please:
& this one:
If you would be so kind as to humor an old man.
molson triple x beer
molson triple x beer