When I learned of last week's California Supreme Court ruling on whether the city of Berkeley had to subsidize the Boy Scouts despite their discriminatory policies, my first thought was, "I can't wait to see what Hans Zeiger says about this." Zeiger is a budding Sean Hannity wannabe who writes for the Worldnutdaily, a student at Hillsdale College, an Eagle Scout, and an amusingly irrational thinker. Thankfully I didn't have to wait long for his predictably ridiculous response to the ruling.
He begins, as one might expect, with a highly dishonest statement of the ruling in the case:
Second, the California Supreme Court ruled there is no right of the Boy Scouts of America to enjoy access to Berkeley's public marina.
No Hans, they did not rule that. They ruled that the Boy Scouts of America don't have a Constitutional right to have the government subsidize their usage of the public marina. They are still entirely free to use the marina, they just have to pay $500 a month like everyone else does. And the dishonest framing of the issue doesn't stop there.
Of course, the Boy Scouts of America are one of the great assets to life and property in our nation. The nation's premier youth organization contributes millions of volunteer hours and Eagle Scout projects to our nation's communities, teaches valuable life skills, promotes lifesaving and patriotism and environmental stewardship, provides experiences for the cultivation of manhood, encourages academic excellence, promotes "duty to God" and moral straightness. For the latter items, the California Supreme Court upheld the choice of the city of Berkeley to discriminate against the Boy Scouts.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, but wrong again. It is the Boy Scouts who choose to discriminate. It is the Boy Scouts who refuse to accept gay or atheist scouts and scoutmasters. They have defended their right to discriminate all the way to the Supreme Court and they won. And I agree with that ruling. As a private organization, they do have the right to define their membership.
But the moment they won that argument, they also forfeited any claim to government subsidies because many states and localities have laws which forbid any government funding for any group that discriminates in that manner. This is no more discrimination than it is for a city not to subsidize a country club that refuses to admit blacks or Jews or women. And the scouts can't have it both ways. They can't claim to be a private group with the right to discriminate on the one hand and claim to be due public subsidy on the other.
It remains an issue of equal access. Two other nonprofit organizations continue to have free berthing at the Berkeley Marina: the Cal Sailing Club and the Berkeley Yacht Club. For holding by character, the Boy Scouts are excluded.
Because those groups are eligible for the local subsidy by virtue of the fact that they agree not to discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. The Scouts refuse to make themselves eligible for that subsidy and then complain that they don't get the subsidy. Do they give out a merit badge for thickheadedness? If so, Zeiger must surely have earned one.
More than an issue of equal access, it is an issue of liberty.
Nonsense. The Scouts are still entirely free to discriminate as they see fit, they just can't do it with taxpayer money. It really is that simple. Back when they had wars over indecent art and the NEA, I bet Zeiger was the first one to say that the issue had nothing to do with censorship because the artists could draw or paint whatever they wanted, they just shouldn't get taxpayer money to do it. But turn the tables on him and suddenly he throws that reasoning right out the window. Convenient, but absurd.
But wait, here's the best part:
Berkeley, in many respects, is a greater threat to liberty than bin Laden. Bin Laden languishes in a foreign hole. Berkeley thrives before the high court of our largest state. And they have cut off the Boy Scouts.
Terrorists have not cut off the Boy Scouts, but if the terrorists are to be destroyed, it will require Boy Scouts. That is the sort of character that will fight for liberty, and the sort that will maintain it.
Wow. There's no point in even pointing out the ridiculous illogic contained in those two paragraphs. How does someone write something that breathtakingly idiotic with a straight face?
- Log in to post comments
Does writing for WND pay anything? I could churn out pointless drivel like this if I wanted.
I believe they pay in sin passes. One pointless drivel article gets you one free dalliance with a prostitute without the threat of eternal damnation, for example.
Shorter Hans Zeiger: If we don't cheerfully use our taxes to subsidize discrimination against godless homos, the terrorists win.
But, since the wingnuts tell us bin Ladin wants to turn the whole world into an authoritarian theocracy, couldn't we argue that godless homos are out most valued resource in the war against Islamofascism?
Matthew - Are those sin passes retro-active? I could use about 30-40 of those. ;-)
It would be a great thing IMHO, if students were required to take logic and debate courses (along with Personal Finance)in high school. It is a set of skills everyone really needs and it would keep people from (unintentionally) looking like an idiot like this guy does.
This makes me very sad. Somewhere in my dim, dark past, I was an Eagle Scout. Now people ask why my sons aren't in Scouting and I have to cite both the descrimination and the fact that you run into idiots like Zeiger all too frequently. Junior uber-patriots who are loyal to a flag but not what that flag stands for.
For some reason, I hear echos of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" (Kander/Ebb) whenever I meet one of these.
Are you sure this guy is an Eagle? I think of Eagles I know of in public life -- Sen. Bill Bradley, Sen. Lamar Alexander, Sen. Dick Lugar -- and overall, I'd say they do well by doing good.
Art Kaufmann! Dust off that badge! Find a Unitarian troop that needs a leader, and volunteer. Find a Buddhist troop that needs a leader -- don't concede the field too easily! Please.
I prefer to look at the situation like this: California law requires non-profits who get subsidies to demonstrate good character. The state has laws that say some things demonstrate against good character, including discriminating against kids on the basis of sexual orientation or religion, and discriminating against volunteers on the same bases.
In court, the Scouts could not demonstrate the character the state requires for the subsidy. The state is discriminating in favor of character. Let's be careful not to forget that.
Are there any Christian organizations left who realize that entangling church and state is not necessarily beneficial for the church, or do they all assume that getting involved with the government means more power and therefore is good?
I think it would be great if we could just get the Christian groups that have these problems to admit that what they are really after to maintaining their privledged status in American society. If they would be willing to do that then we could have a good discussion about whether that is a good idea or a bad one. The problem that I see is the issue is framed as 'discriminating againt Christians' which leads to the rat hole of arguiong about who is discriminating agains who. No one can win that argument, but many can get mad about it. Which, now that I think about it may be the goal in the first place.
mess
Ed: You wrote There's no point in even pointing out the ridiculous illogic contained in those two paragraphs.
Oh yes there is. Every time. Again and again. The number of people, even university students, who all but mindlessly read and accept what is printed anywhere on the assumption that if it wasn't true, "they" could not/ would not have printed it is frighteningly large. Pass up no chance, ever, to "point out... ridiculous illogic." Please.
As an Eagle Scout myself, I am incredibly disappointed by the rampant homophobia and bigotry shown by the national BSA leadership. I recall my Scouting days fondly; I think they've made me a better, more capable person.
Matters such as religion and homosexuality simply weren't discussed in my troop; they just weren't relevant what Scouting is about. That's why the BSA's turn towards intolerance mystifies me. I just can't see how any of this relates to the lessons I learned or the activities I participated in as a Boy Scout.
That said, the California Supreme Court's decision strikes me as exactly correct, as does your analysis, Ed. If the national BSA leadership insists on continuing down this track of intolerance, they can't expect to receive public support. Which is a shame, ultimately; the BSA leadership will end up doing a great deal of damage to a program that has the potential to be extremely valuable in shaping good citizens.
It's all about the Mormons. BSA National has talked about doing away with the ban since the 1980s. But everytime it comes up, the Mormons threaten to pull out - and take all their Scouts and money with them. The Mormons send a lot of money to Irving so National always caves in.
United Way has started to pull in the opposite direction. They've yanked funding from Scout Councils in the northeast that continue to discriminate...thekeez