Thursday, December 6, 2007

(De)Merit badges

A recent news article announced that the Boy Scouts would no longer be able to lease a Philadelphia building for $1/year because they discriminate against gay scouts. The city has a non-discrimination clause that says taxpayer monies cannot subsidize groups that discriminate, and the building once used by the Scouts rents for considerably more than $1/year!

Some will complain that the Scouts, as a private organization, should be able to set their own membership policies, and I agree. However, if they want to discriminate, they shouldn’t complain at having to follow the same rules as any other organization when it comes to things like renting space, using public buildings, etc. Often what the Scouts do is say that their focus is so positive that everyone should give them a break; they are making opportunities available for young boys and thereby fulfilling a public good.

Here’s one big problem with the above argument; it’s like saying that if underprivileged young white boys are served by being giving educational/leadership opportunities, it’s OK that the organization discriminates against boys of other races. I can’t imagine that point of view being accepted by municipalities as a reason for allowing the group to use taxpayer facilities at no/reduced costs.

I have a young friend who was on his way to an Eagle Scout award until it became known that he was gay. In his subsequent research on the subject, he learned some very important points. First, the United States is the only western-world scouting organization that discriminates based on sexual orientation or religious affiliation (or lack thereof), having rather recently constructed membership policies based on "biblical values." Secondly, most countries around the world do not segregate scouts by sex. Finally, the Girl Scouts here in the US do not discriminate based on orientation. When one puts those facts together, a new picture emerges; the discriminatory policies are based on some misguided notion of what it means to be a proper male in our culture. Those who lead the BSA seem to be afraid of both gay boys in particular and girls in general. Their notion of masculinity must be protected.

Jesus showed by his actions that he did not follow his culture’s strictures on interactions between males and females. Women were prominent in his life as supporters and, following his death, as leaders among those who continued to carry his teachings into the world. So if the BSA wants to discriminate, let them find another rationale for their actions rather than misusing Christian scripture.

1 comment:

Mark Winters said...

Great post, and good job bringing light to this issue. I heard a rumor that BSA is basically becoming the Youth ministry wing of the LDS church. I don't know how true this is, but given their heterosexist and exclusivist stance, it seems plausible.

I had also not heard that the Girl Scouts have stopped discriminating against Lesbians. I'm glad to hear it.