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.”








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