I’ve noticed an odd double standard when it comes to politics and the Boy and Girl Scouts. Since the Scouts are generally well liked by the electorate, this seems like a distinction that deserves some attention.
The Boy Scouts, for example, probably found it reassuring to learn last week they have a lot of allies on Capitol Hill.
The House on Saturday commended the Boy Scouts and condemned legal efforts to limit government ties to the group because of its requirement that members believe in God.
A nonbinding resolution, passed by a 391-3 vote, recognized the 3.2 million-member Boy Scouts for its public service efforts. But the main thrust of the debate was what the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said were the “strident legal attacks” on the group.
The Pentagon agreed last week to tell U.S. military bases around the world not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops. The warning resulted from legal challenges to government relations with a group that bans openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.
The Boy Scouts embrace obviously discriminatory policies when it comes to religion and sexual orientation. When the Defense Department decides to distance itself from those policies, Congress is outraged and rushes to the Boy Scouts’ defense. The House, as the AP put it, found it necessary to “condemn criticism” of the group.
However, it’s odd that Congress finds it necessary to “condemn criticism” of Boy Scouts while politicians are completely disinterested in more serious criticism of the Girl Scouts.
It rarely generates headlines, but far-right Republicans have targeted the Girl Scouts with pointed attacks for several years.
Leading the way has been Focus on the Family leader James Dobson. In a now-infamous 1994 article (which is no longer online), a Dobson magazine delivered a scathing attack on the Girl Scouts, insisting the group had “lost their way” after the Scouts made a religious oath optional for membership. (In Dobson’s world, faith shouldn’t be voluntary; it should be mandated on children by authority figures demanding vows of allegiance.)
Dobson added that the Girl Scouts are “pushing a philosophy — a philosophy that includes humanism and radical feminism.” In response, there was no congressional resolution honoring the Girl Scouts for its public service efforts.
Nor did Congress come to the girls’ defense when right-wing families in Crawford, Texas (yes, that Crawford) organized a boycott of the group and its Thin Mints earlier this year.
The furor was started [in February 2004] by the leader of the anti-abortion group Pro-Life Waco, who sent out e-mails and ran ads on a Christian radio station urging people to boycott Girl Scout cookies because of the “cozy relationship” between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood.
Parents were upset to learn that the local Girl Scout organization had given a “woman of distinction award” last year to a Planned Parenthood executive.
Moreover, in January 2001, Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote another hatchet job on the Girl Scouts for National Review, which claimed, among other things, that that the Girl Scouts are under the sway of radical feminists and lesbians. “There are currently 2.7 million Girl Scouts in the U.S.,” asserts the article. “That’s a lot of liberal feminists to look forward to.” Congress, once again, had no interest in defending the kids.
So, what’s the moral of the story? If the ACLU challenges Boy Scouts’ discriminatory policies, politicians can be counted to “condemn the criticism.” If right-wing activists attack the Girl Scouts, that’s not Congress’ problem.