The author brought this to our attention:
On May 15, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5872, an act “To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of the Boy Scouts of America, and for other purposes.” The other purposes? The sale of the coins by the Secretary of the Treasury, with a surcharge on each coin sold to “be paid to the National Boy Scouts of America Foundation.” In other words, this is a congressionally mandated fundraiser for the Boy Scouts. With the act allowing for up to 350,000 of this coin to be issued and fixing the surcharge at $10 per coin, the Boy Scouts could receive as much as $3.5 million from their sale. Never before, in the long history of U.S. government issued commemorative coins, has this benefit been granted to an organization that promotes religion or discriminates based on religion.
http://tinyurl.com/5yqgeaNow is the time to contact your senator! http://www.senate.gov/
DeepDiver
Not necessarily. You just belonged to an organization that incorporates bigotry as official policy.
The Secular Coalition for America sent out the following action alert yesterday. Any of you who want to send a letter to your senators will find an easy way to do so at the end.
Last week the House of Representatives passed legislation (H.R. 5872) creating a commemorative coin for the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that explicitly discriminates against nontheists (as well as gays) in admission, employment, and even volunteer opportunities. By directing the U.S. Mint to produce commemorative coins as a fundraiser for the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the House is sending an estimated $3.5 million dollars directly to their organization. Now the Senate is beginning to organize efforts to pass the Boy Scouts legislation this summer. You can take action to stop this bill from moving forward by pasting the following address into your browser:
http://action.secular.org/t/5367/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=24662
I know I came in late on this, but I defend the Boy Scouts whenever the opportunity presents itself. Especially when there are so many folks who deliberately distort what the Boy Scouts stand for!
First, it is intellectually dishonest to hijack the term “bigot” and apply it to anyone or any organization that is simply exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed right of free association! This is the heart of the matter as you can’t force people to accomodate those that do not share their beliefs.
The Boy Scouts is a PRIVATE organization and has every right to restrict membership to those that believe in God and share the same moral values. This is an example of justifiable discrimination. To discriminate isn’t always a bad thing, folks!
I’ve had many a heated discussion here in the past on this subject and I’m willing to stand up for what is right.
-Tim
It’s about values, folks. The arguments used here against the Boy Scouts have a lot in common with those arguing for so-called “Gay Marriage.”
Marriage is a social institution and there is no inherent “right” to have it apply to just any type of union between individuals. Like it or not marriage, like the Boy Scouts, receives public support in various forms. Are the majority of Americans bigots because they do not support changing the definition of marriage? We are not and it’s absurd to cling to such an argument.
In much the same way as the majority support the traditional definition of marriage, they support the Boy Scouts right to define their organization’s tenets. The U.S. Supreme Court has done so as well.
Get over it.
Intolerant:
Not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one’s own.
Intolerant refers to an active refusal to allow others to have or put into practice beliefs different from one’s own. Bigoted is to be so emotionally or subjectively attached to one’s own belief as to be hostile to all others.
from: http://www.dictionary.com
When I read the above definition again, I realized it applies more readily to folks whose comments I see here.
-Tim
I will explain why I do not believe I am a bigot or intolerant as defined by a lot of folks here.
First, I am not “hostile” to those who do not share my beliefs. I’m willing to live and let live, but where I draw the line is when people actively attempt to deny anyone else their right to practice their beliefs.
For example, the Boy Scouts have a certain set of beliefs. Some of you here may not share them. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there as witnessed by people and organizations like the ACLU actively trying to deny the scouts the ability to run their organization according to their beliefs. If the shoe was on the other foot, you can be sure there would be loud protests and wailing about rights!
Second, I respect the right of others to believe what they want WITHOUT calling them bigots for doing so! There’s plenty of intolerance coming at Christians today, but do you ever hear the practitioners being called bigots? No.
Finally, I think the majority of conservatives and Christians are a lot more tolerant than they are given credit for. In fact, I think we tolerate a lot of things that are demonstrably unhealthy for our culture, our children, and our country.
-Tim
Tim
Who doesnt like helping grandma across the street….
the boy scouts cannot call themselves the boy scouts of american when they do not support the 1st amendment….no law respecting an establishment of religion…..
the boy scout management are trashing the club with dumb ideas…
suck it dumb ideas
Tim,
You seem to be trying to convince yourself that you are not a bigot. How is that going? You might consider contacting the Boy Scouts of America, they are a bigot friendly organization. Now keep in mind, don’t go with the Girl Scouts, you won’t find your bigotry there.
Most christian organizations will also be supportive of various bigoted ideas. There are so many different christian god-ideas I am sure you will find one with just the right blend of bigotry to suit you.
Tim, as you know, the government of the United States by order of the Constitution of the United States must make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The Boy Scouts of America requires its members to be religious therefore, the Boy Scouts of America is an establishment of religion. Legally, the United States government can NOT pass a law that requires the funding of the Boy Scouts of American BECAUSE to do so would require respecting an establishment of religion.
Quoting The Constitution of the United States:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Bigots hate it when you point out that they are bigots.
rna2dna,
As always, my friend, you can really get things convoluted!
Did you even read my post carefully? I won’t try to convince you what the definition of bigotry is because you are obviously not interested in knowing.
On the subject of the constitution and the Boy Scouts, you have really tied yourself into a pretzel! First of all, the Boy Scouts is a PRIVATE organization, NOT a governmental entity! Hello!
Like most people who use your argument, you either don’t understand or deliberately misrepresent the intent of this passage in the Constitution! What the framers clearly meant was a STATE religion like the Church of England. Of course it would be unconstitutional to establish a state religion!
Secondly, folks like you ALWAYS leave out the next sentence, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Sorry to inform you that there is no “wall of separation” in the U.S. Constitution! There is no freedom FROM religion in this country.
Tim,
Get with reality little one.
In no way did I suggest that the bigoted organization known as the Boy Scouts of American is a governmental entity. Grow up little one.
Tim, you’re so young. Let me make it more simple for you wee one. You would like the Constitution to say THE establishment of religion, that isn’t what the Constitution says. The Boy Scouts of America requires its members to believe in a god-idea, that is discrimination based on religion.
Clearly, young Tim, the second phrase is not at issue under this topic.
Tim when you grow up consider being a comedian, you are quite funny.
Tim:
By that logic, the Aryan Brotherhood & the John Birch society should receive perhaps a round of cheers for their exercise of their constitutional rights?
& NOT be called bigots?
Smokin’ some more of that ideological crack, I see.
Hey, we’ve danced THIS dance before, too.
The Scouts can discriminate, as is their right.
Problem is, they’re minor bigots, & as the post points out, MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING TO A BUNCH OF NECKERCHIEFED ASSHOLES whom I do NOT support.
Pretty much a congressional rubber stamp on discrimination.
They want to ostracize gays & atheists? I can’t stop ‘em.
They sure as hell can’t rifle thru my fucking wallet, either.
rna2dna,
I’m quite sure you are younger than I, both in physical age and maturity. Be that as it may, I will look past the condescending tone and try again.
Read the Federalist papers and come back when you can make a cogent point about the Constitution.
KA,
Join the club. My tax dollars go to organizations that don’t share my beliefs as well. As citizens, we don’t have the line-item veto.
If the Aryan Brotherhood, the KKK or any other organization has members that are bigoted, then call them bigots if you want. My point still stands in that all I seem to see are people calling anyone who doesn’t agree with them “bigots!” Say it ain’t so!
Tim,
Ha Ha
Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt that you are chronologically older than me. After all you have had the time to erect a monument to yourself within your own mind.
If you have anything of value to present, do it. Or not, it doesn’t matter to me. However, don’t expect respect based on what you have presented.
Keep in mind though, I can’t help you if you are not willing to help yourself. Tim, you are a bigot because you choose to be not because your bigotry is required.
Tim-MAY!
England’s not a state, dufus.
So, what applies to the parts doesn’t apply to the sum?
Ummm…hello? Establishment clause? Amendments? They get amended?
Jefferson said it was a wall. Madison said it was a line. Rush wrote a letter protesting the for/against clause.
Playing your little word games. Again.
It’s so. It is.
When you exclude people based on ideology, sexuality, race, or gender, that makes you what?
Don’t say ‘a private citizen’. That dog don’t hunt.
As a bisexual, and atheist I am ok with the boy scouts not allowing people who share my sexual orientation, and beliefs in, as long as they stay a private organization that is either self funding or gets private donations. This coin that they are putting out is in plain terms the government directly funding them intern funding bigotry. I am not ok with that. As a human being, and as a bisexual atheist I will not stand for it.
rna2dna,
Thank you for the affirmation! I feel so … Liberated!
You are a moron, but at least you have a sense of humor!
KA,
WTF, man? Can you not discern a simple historical example?
England WAS a country, arguably the most powerful on earth, at the time our forefathers framed the Constitution. THEY knew (unlink you apparently) that a state religion was anathema to freedom! Hence the wording in the Constitution.
Sometimes things really ARE as “plain as the nose on your face.” Where have you been looking?
Finally, I’m done with the bigotry definitions – get a dictionary you moron!
Ok everyone needs to chill out. This should be a place for the friendly exchange of ideas. So please calm down, and lets talk like mature individuals.
Thanks,
Brutelord
brutelord,
Well said. “Moron” is about the strongest word I use, but at least it’s accurate.
I try very hard not to make things personal here, but I do have my limits!
Coulda fooled me.
KnowledgeIsPower,
O.K., I will sincerely try to do better!
Its mostly the tone, I think. Lots of exclamation marks, lots of capitalized words. I’m rather sensitive to writing that seems ‘busy’. Its why I don’t read many of phreedm’s posts anymore. The ellipses drive me nuts.
Of course, no reason to change your style on my behalf.