Private Policies with Public Benefits

In honor of San Francisco's 40th Gay Pride celebration that took place this past weekend, we've been awarded a fabulous gift: extra-curricular college club equality and a reality check for Christian organizations throughout the US. Happy Pride!

It all started when University of California Hastings Law School refused to provide state funding for a Christian college club, the Christian Legal Society, who openly discriminated against gays by disallowing homosexuals to hold officer positions. Though they claimed homosexuals were allowed to attend their meetings, they maintained that their lifestyle is misaligned with Christian beliefs and sinful, and required members of the organization to sign a Statement of Faith, acknowledging and upholding that belief. Hastings argued that it was against university policy to recognize and support organizations that discriminated against any group of minorities and they were not legally obligated to fund the religious club. The CLS fought the decision, taking it to the Supreme Court and arguing that their First Amendment Rights had been trampled. Now, many chapters of the group have fought similar battles with colleges and won, however, the US Supreme Court was about to throw a curve ball. In a narrow 5-4 ruling revealed today, they decided that the University was not required to financially support the group or acknowledge its existence on campus.

Many have lashed out at the decision, even one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito, who wrote that the finding was a "serious setback for the freedom of expression in this country". However, as the ruling ripples through the US, no doubt the details will blur and fade, and this will become a misunderstood decision of religion on campus. So let's set the record straight here. No one is arguing that Christians cannot convene on campus. No one is banning the formation of Christian organizations at college universities, and no one is telling these organizations that they cannot be anti-gay. This decision, at it's base, simply states that an anti-gay Christian organization cannot receive financing from a state-funded educational institution. As another Justice wrote, "while the Constitution protects CLS's discriminatory practices off-campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them".

It's not only policy on a state level, but a federal level, that any organization that engages in discrimination or exclusion of members cannot receive tax-payer money for funding. However, despite this landmark court decision, it is not glitter and rainbows for equal rights advocates all over the country. Just last week a federal jury determined that a chapter of the Boy Scouts of America in Philadelphia could remain rent-free in a city owned building after the city demanded payment on the basis of their anti-gay practices. The city of Philadelphia had allowed the Boy Scouts to use this building without charge based on a 1928 city agreement that declared nonprofit organizations can use public property for free. However, they recently argued that due to the discriminatory policies of BSA, they felt it inappropriate for the group to remain in the building for nothing. They argued the organization should have to pay an annual rent or be evicted. The jury sided with the BSA, claiming the city cannot infringe upon their First Amendment Rights as a private organization to disallow any group of people they choose and the city can neither charge nor evict them for the reason given.

For you regular readers (the few and far in between), you know my policies on First Amendment Rights. While I do not agree with these ignorant, idiotic, hate-filled religious nut-jobs and their un-American principles, private organizations have the right to single out whomever they choose, to hate whomever they want, and exclude people they don't like from their special clubs (and I don't mean special as in "unique"). However, when the private sector crosses over into publicly funded buildings and institutions or when they receive public financing, they cannot operate as a private organization. In some places, the BSA pays only $1 a month (yes that's one dollar, un dolar, one hundred pennies) for public buildings to hold their meetings. And, much to the disdain of the Christian Legal Society, the BSA also holds many meetings at public elementary and high school buildings as well. Perhaps they should have aimed for the local high school instead. In addition, the BSA receives close to 30% of their funding from the US government, and holds their Boy Scout Jamborees every four years on the federal property of a Virginia military base, at the expense of tax-payers. How much do they pay to rent a military base for a week and a half? Yep, one dollar. Four whole shiny quarters. How much does it cost the government? Five million. Over the nearly 30 years they've been holding these events, that's a total of $37.5 million. And guess what kids? They have another jamboree coming up in July. Feel Uncle Sam sifting around in your wallet? That's you supporting anti-gay organizations without any say in the matter whatsoever.

While few significant lawsuits have popped up over the matters of discrimination, one involving a gay Boy Scouts Leader being banned, another because an Atheist child was not allowed to join (yeah, they don't like those people either), no one has won because the US courts refuse to acknowledge that the Boy Scouts of America are a publicly funded organization. They are registered as a private club, so whatever other funds they receive are irrelevant to court justices. However, based on recent exposes, they are steadily losing funding and support from private donors and public advocates of the group.

I could go on, god knows I would love to tear the BSA up for their ridiculous policies of traditional families, extreme interjected religious beliefs, and attempts to avoid those rampant pedo-gays (which obviously didn't work since they just lost a massive suit for child sex abuse in the organization, perpetuated by non-gay Scout Masters). I would love to check these God Fearing, Hate Mongering Bible Thumpers who are slowly losing ground in the Human Rights Movement across the nation, but I'll refrain, since this blog is purely about private organizations that need to remain such in every sense of the word. You want to exclude, you want to hate, you want to be narrow-minded bastardly cowards hiding behind "morals and values", you go right ahead. This is America. But, you pay for it, you support it, you keep it away from the rest of us. We're sure as hell not going to shell out any more money in the name of hate and have no desire to join your shady clubs.

Side Note: As a former Girl Scout and an advocate for youth activity programs, I would like to say the Girl Scouts are in no way tied to the Boy Scout organization and do not maintain any discriminatory policies against gays, atheists, or any other group. For the boys, send 'em to Indian Guides! They teach the same values of team work, respect, and self-reliance along with father-son bonding and a deep-seated respect for the Native Americans of this country. Plus, they're funded by the YMCA, so you know it's gay-safe...all together now! "Y-M-C-A! It's fun to stay at the...."

So a Prophet, a Bear, and a Dog Walk Into a Free Speech Lecture...

While browsing through my usual internet hot spots today, I came across a video on Huffingtonpost.com showing a violent display of a public protest in Sweden. Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist, was giving a lecture on free speech at a local university after being widely attacked for composing a drawing of Islam's Prophet Muhammad head on the body of a dog. Many Muslim protesters attended the lecture and things quickly turned sour when an unidentified individual jumped up and possibly head-butted Vilks (it was unknown if the attacker actually made contact or if Vilks collided with a security officer during the scuffle). He was rushed from the room as protesters, many wearing keffiyahs were chanting and becoming more disgruntled in the seminar room. It took several minutes for the police to settle the crowd. Watch below.

The battle of cartoons and Muhammad began years ago when a British cartoonist drew a picture of the prophet with a bomb sitting atop his turban. Death threats ensued, violence commenced, and there was scandal rocking the Middle East and Muslims everywhere. More recently, the shock-thriving cartoonists at South Park were censored for attempting to create a cartoon teddy bear named Muhammad, poking fun at a situation in the Middle East where a teacher lost her job for allowing children to nickname a classroom stuffed animal after the prophet. They too received death threats for the fiasco.

As an individual who is torn between multicultural and religious respect and the rights to freedom of speech and expression, it is difficult for me to pick sides here. I do not agree with the blatant disrespect shown to Muslim belief and what you might call one of their "commandments" to never compose drawings or images of Allah or the Prophet. However, a fan of the first amendment, it is very difficult to draw the line in terms of what should be allowed and what should be restricted, without falling into the clutches of a slippery slope. If we can't draw a religious cartoon now, tomorrow we can't write a sign protesting a detrimental religious cult.

I do, however, hold a strong position on violence. Especially when it comes to sucker-punching (or rather, sucker-head butting) a random person during a peaceful seminar expressing not only his opinion, but his legally protected right, no matter how offensive his action. Likewise, I am not particularly thrilled at getting what I consider to be a spit in the face by individuals in the Muslim community.

Many of you know, some may not, that I was an active advocate on Queen Rania of Jordan's Youtube channel. The channel was created to bridge the gap between the east and west and shatter falsely held stereotypes of Muslims and Islam. I created videos in support of Islam, carried on discussions and debates in the chat section of the channel, got into heated arguments with family members, and even sounded off angry emails to anti-Muslim friends and acquaintances who sent propaganda to my inbox. It's safe to say it wasn't always welcomed, I took a lot of flack for my efforts, being called names, verbally abused and hassled on the net, and souring a few relationships. Unfortunately it's also safe to say that a good chunk of the west is still utterly convinced that Muslims are angry, violent individuals fueled by a hostile religion. Now imagine the slap in the face I feel when I click on the net and find Muslims, groups of individuals I consider mutually exclusive from hate-mongering terrorists, acting out in anger and violence, attacking people, affirming stereotypes, and reinforcing the walls we've been working so hard to break down for nearly two years.

The reaction to the cartoonist was not only detrimental to the individuals who were consequently arrested for the attack, or the man the attack was aimed at, but detrimental to the cause as a whole. Now I am not defending this man's cartoon or his disregard for other people's religious values, however, as Viktor Frankl once stated, we cannot avoid the actions of others, but only we can control our reaction, and that's what defines us as swine or saints. It's hard to find any successful social movement that thrived from violence and anger. The Civil Rights Movement, albeit slow, came to succession after decades of discrimination upon the advice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to avoid violent displays. The Nazi Party fell to ruins when using violence and anger to further their hateful agenda. As frustrating at this situation can be, and I do understand the emotions it's eliciting from Muslims, I hardly think it's beneficial to anyone to start assaulting people.

What needs to occur here, as QR would suggest, is open discussion, starting a conversation. Perhaps using calm, collected letters, emails, phone calls to individuals who create offensive pieces of artwork explaining why they are viewed as such, describing the importance of the religious practice to leave images of revered individuals undrawn, rather than death threats, cries for violence, and foul language. Hostility is the antidote for constructive communication, it spreads the animosity from the outraged victim to the haughty suspect, and fuels the disdain that drives their destructive behaviors. Now, granted letters and gentle requests for respect don't always work. One requires a psychological predisposition for reason, understanding, and just plain common courtesy in order for rational discussions to penetrate that encapsulating bone about their brains, which, sadly, is a dying quality in people. However, if you don't get the response you're hoping for, reverting to violence is still not allowed. Peaceful demonstrations, legal action, calls for boycotts are all viable means of fighting.

It seems important to point out that many people supporting the various aforementioned cartoonists are not anti-Muslim in nature. The majority of people I've spoken to are more concerned with their freedom of speech rights than insulting any particular religion or mocking holy figures. To see the point, one only has to review the offensive material we westerners have churned out on our own Jesus Christ: cartoons of Jesus smoking and drinking, making light of his crucifixion, even comic suggestions that Jesus was gay. And no one's made a death threat yet. Muslims, don't shoot yourselves in the foot, we're working hard to get where you need to be, and some of you are just pulling everyone down with you.