![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It MUST be Called Situational Ethics
Mar. 8th, 2004 03:05 pmIt must be called "situational ethics", because the other word for it is "hypocrisy." Let's take a peek:
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal by the Boy Scouts of America in a case in Connecticut where the state had removed them from a list of chartities receiving donations via a state employee plan. (Aside: I am embarassed to share initials with the Boy Scouts of America. And if they want to take my music off their playlist for that statement, a la the Dixie Chicks, I say que sera sera. Or maybe I'll sing it for them ;-)
It seems that Connecticut has a law forbidding the state to enter into an arrangement etc. which "has the effect of sanctioning discrimination." (Yes, the inevitable marriage thoughts arise. But let's save them for later.) And the Boy Scouts have a policy against openly homosexual Scout leaders. That was found to be discriminatory, the Scouts were pulled off the list, and the courts acknowledged that it was lawfully done.
From the CNN article:
"Permitting this decision to stand would open the door for other governmental action that seeks to advance a political agenda by forcing those who oppose it to relinquish their constitutionally protected views, beliefs and practices in exchange for a government benefit that was otherwise available," lawyers for a Catholic public interest law firm, the Thomas More Law Center, argued.
Fine. Well and good. But I wonder what that same law firm has to say about the global gag rule enforced by the Bush administration. The rule says that the U.S. will not fund nongovernmental organizations worldwide which in any way fund counseling that includes information about abortions, or lobbying to make abortion legal (and safe) locally, even if that funding is NOT from the U.S. government but its own sources.
If that's not a "political agenda" forced on those whose views, beliefs and practices oppose said agenda "for a government benefit that [is] otherwise available", I don't know how to describe it.
Wait. Yes, I do.
Hypocrisy.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal by the Boy Scouts of America in a case in Connecticut where the state had removed them from a list of chartities receiving donations via a state employee plan. (Aside: I am embarassed to share initials with the Boy Scouts of America. And if they want to take my music off their playlist for that statement, a la the Dixie Chicks, I say que sera sera. Or maybe I'll sing it for them ;-)
It seems that Connecticut has a law forbidding the state to enter into an arrangement etc. which "has the effect of sanctioning discrimination." (Yes, the inevitable marriage thoughts arise. But let's save them for later.) And the Boy Scouts have a policy against openly homosexual Scout leaders. That was found to be discriminatory, the Scouts were pulled off the list, and the courts acknowledged that it was lawfully done.
From the CNN article:
"Permitting this decision to stand would open the door for other governmental action that seeks to advance a political agenda by forcing those who oppose it to relinquish their constitutionally protected views, beliefs and practices in exchange for a government benefit that was otherwise available," lawyers for a Catholic public interest law firm, the Thomas More Law Center, argued.
Fine. Well and good. But I wonder what that same law firm has to say about the global gag rule enforced by the Bush administration. The rule says that the U.S. will not fund nongovernmental organizations worldwide which in any way fund counseling that includes information about abortions, or lobbying to make abortion legal (and safe) locally, even if that funding is NOT from the U.S. government but its own sources.
If that's not a "political agenda" forced on those whose views, beliefs and practices oppose said agenda "for a government benefit that [is] otherwise available", I don't know how to describe it.
Wait. Yes, I do.
Hypocrisy.
