Hunt

Ed, I think where you go wrong here is with the idea that a government action violates the Establishment Clause only if it endorses a specific religion. That's not what the First Amendment says ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), and that's not how the federal courts have interepreted it. It's well-established that if a government action endorses religion over non-religion, that violates the Establishment Clause. You may not like that interpretation, but that's the law--the Supreme Court has said so. (I would also note that if the scout leaders were appointed by a government agency, it might also violate the "no religious test" requirement in Article VI--but I haven't seen that one raised.) To try to make this a little clearer, imagine if I started a group called "Christian Adventure Boys," and a requirement for membership and leadership was membership in an evangelical Christian Church. Do you really think it would be OK for a government entity to actually sponsor a unit of my group? Not just let them meet--SPONSOR. Or do you think it would be "persecution" if the government entity refused to do so?

I don't think that much tax money goes to support BSA units, even if they are sponsored by government entities. Indeed, I suspect that if you looked at the big picture, the balance might go the other way if you factor in service projects done by Scouts for their sponsors. But all that aside, I think the Supreme Court would rule, if it ever got the case, that government entities can't sponsor BSA units--because they clearly couldn't sponsor Baptist, Buddhist, or atheist groups. (Please note: the key is SPONSOR--government entities can allow all these groups to meet on their property, and indeed they must do so if the facility is open to other groups. There might be ways to wiggle out of it, though, along the lines of "ceremonial deism." I can imagine a pretty good argument for allowing overseas military bases to sponsor units, i.e.: "The sponsorship of a Boy Scout Troop by an overseas military base is not primarily an endorsement of religion, but is a permissible morale-building measure for troops far from the typical American institutions that would otherwise be available to provide such sponsorships." Ed, one thing the Founding Fathers (especially Jefferson) wanted to do was prevent the possibility of a "state religion." They certainly didn't want to promote Christianity--Jefferson (like other Enlightenment thinkers)assumed Christianity would fade away fairly rapidly, anyway. George Washington used to go to church with his wife, but he would always leave when they were taking communion. Most of these guys were not very religious.

NJ--I think you're right in pointing out that the Supreme Court has (apparently) made this distinction between "ceremonial deism" that doesn't endorse religion, and actions that clearly do endorse religion (like sponsoring school prayer). But don't you think the distinction is, well, baloney? I'm not surprised that somebody who isn't a lawyer finds it difficult to accept an argument that printing "In God We Trust" on the money isn't an endorsement of religion. I think the distinction that's really being made is between cranky malcontents that most people would prefer just go away (like Newdow), and people who are really being discriminated against because of their religious views. In other words, "ceremonial deism" is just the Supreme Court's technical way of saying, "We just don't consider this a big deal, so leave us alone." It also seems to me that the question of military units sponsoring scout units is fairly close to this line (because of the small impact whichever way the decision goes), although I would agree that it is, at least technically, unconstitutional. Let me add this--Ed, I suggest that this is an area in which you really don't want consistency from the Supreme Court, because they would likely be pushed to find a lot of things unconstitutional if they really were honest about it.

I don't know if it's true elsewhere, but the Galyan's near where I live has some very good discounts on some camping gear, perhaps because it's been purchased by Dick's. Maybe they're phasing out those models. Anyway, I bought a Eureka Timberline 2XT for about $50 yesterday. If they have a store near you, you might want to check it out. (I'm not a shill for Galyan's or Dick's--in fact, I have never been very impressed by their service.)

I think it's a mistake to generalize about Buddhists and what they believe and worship. Some of them apparently believe in and worship gods and god-like beings and others don't. Indeed, there are people who would describe themselves as Christians who honor Jesus as a great moral teacher, but who don't believe in his divinity. But I think the point here is that BSA is not going to question a person who is an adherent of a recognized major world religion, unless he or she makes a point of saying that he doesn't believe in any supreme being. Certainly, Buddhists refer to their belief system as a "religion," something which atheists would not do.

NJCubScouter, I think we're on the same page on this one--but perhaps the following hypothetical would make it even easier: University X refuses to allow military recruiters on campus solely because the university has a policy against promoting "militarism." Presumably the Third Circuit would rule the same way in that case, because the university would be "forced" into "speech" with which it does not agree. But I just don't buy it--it isn't being forced to speak; it's simply being given the unpalatable choice of giving in or foregoing funds.

I think this is a pretty interesting case. My prediction is that the Supreme Court will overturn it if it's appealed. Here's a quote from the Third Circuit's decision: "The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this freedom." How is this case different from the denial of government money to colleges that practice racial discrimination? It's no different, except for the evaluation of whether there is a "compelling governmental interest." A court that wants to (like maybe the current U.S. Supreme Court) will simply find that there is a compelling governmental interest in the ability of the U.S. armed forces to recruit on college campuses. I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I have to say I don't have a lot of problems the Solomon Amendment. If an institution doesn't like the government's policies, it doesn't have to take the government's money. That's what Bob Jones University did when it chose not to change its rules against interracial dating.

I would just note that in most places, to get a speeding ticket you have to be going pretty fast. While I agree that this individual has to be taken to the woodshed (at least), perhaps an additional step would be to admonish all drivers to avoid speeding, without naming names.

OGE, "killfile" is UseNet slang for "ignore" or "squelch." I guess it does sound kind of violent. I regret that I now must "ignore" Merlyn. I don't find his behavior acceptable, and so I won't listen to him any more. In fact, since he has admitted that he isn't really trying to convince anybody here of anything, he's really just trolling the forum, and should be banned, but I'll leave that up to others. Merlyn isn't a Scouter, and refuses to even try to act like one. He's basically an enemy of scouting, and I, for one, am tired of his attempts to use a Scouting forum to bash Scouting and insult Scouters. Of course, he insulted me personally, so maybe I'm being a little petty. So be it. I urge others to "ignore" him as well. There are plenty of people inside the Scouting movement who are able to make the case for more inclusiveness, or who can explain why government entities probably can't be charter organizations.

I don't know why I bother, but here goes: the reason this particular crusade against discrimination is sad and useless is because even if you "win," the result is minimal. Most of these government entities that sponsor units spend little or no money on them, and the units will continue to meet in the same locations with a new, private charter organization. Maybe, all told, a few million bucks of government money will have to be replaced by private money. That won't be a problem. At the end of the day, virtually all of the units will be there, meeting in the same place, and there will be no atheists in any of them, just like now. So as I've said in another thread, even though you may be technically "right" about this, the results are so minimal and so few people really care about it that you're wasting your time. You're also wasting my time. P.S. Unless you apologize for accusing me of lying, I plan to killfile you. You have 24 hours.

Merlyn says: "And I already know all the arguing here doesn't accomplish anything, that's why I also contact various state ACLUs." What a sad thing, to spend your time needling people when even you don't think there's any point to it. And what a sad crusade to spend your time on, when there are so many real problems in the world. I really feel pity for you, Merlyn. Although I suspect that you may underestimate the effect your participation here may have had in changing people's views--although perhaps not in the direction you'd like.

But Merlyn, you said that a Catholic chaplain would have to find somebody to give communion to an atheist soldier. I don't think that's the truth, and thus it's a ... well, you know. (fgoodwin: I found the link by Googling, but I didn't note what it was.) Let me make my point clear to you, Merlyn. It's a lousy argumentative technique to accuse somebody of "lying," even if you think they have misrepresented your viewpoint. In addition to lousy technique, it's downright stupid to do it to somebody who has generally agreed with your main points. That kind of tactic, and your general approach, confirms that you have no interest in convincing anybody here of your points, but you just like to gloat when some court decision goes the way you like. In fact, your meanspirited and insulting tactics make it harder for those of us who are willing to seriously discuss these issues--so I would suggest that if you really care about inclusiveness in the BSA, you should bail out of this and any other similar newsgroup and leave the discussion to thoughtful, well-meaning, and courteous people on the inside. What you're doing now is hurting your own cause--it sure has with me. I've been trying to think up arguments for the proposition that military units can sponsor scouting units, especially when they are overseas.

Please note: the following is not a current or proposed Eagle project, although it could be. Question: what is your reaction to the following project? Would you approve it as an Eagle project? Project: A county park maintains a one-mile orienteering course, with ten wooden pylons and a map. Over the years, the pylons have deteriorated, and the map has some major inaccuracies. Scout proposes to repair and upgrade the course, fixing the pylons, using a GPS to make the map accurate, and adding plaques to the pylons with codewords so the course can be used for competitions. Some have objected to this as an Eagle project, because nearly all of the people who will use this course are Boy Scouts. Note that it is not on BSA property. Thoughts?

From the Army's field manual for chaplains: "Chaplains perform religious support when their actions are in accordance with the tenets or beliefs of their faith group." In other words, a chaplain will not perform a rite or say a prayer if it is inconsistent with the tenets of his faith group, i.e., a Catholic chaplain will not offer Communion to a non-Catholic. Since the situation raised was an atheist who asked for Catholic communition, it the chaplain would also not have the obligation to provide somebody who would provide this service. Thus, when Merlyn suggests that the contrary is true, he is "lying" (by his definition of lying, anyway), and thus Merlyn is a "liar" (by his definition of liar, anyway). (Can you tell I don't like being called a liar?) On DOD's statement--if it really has been established policy that military units are not supposed to sponsor Scouting units, it's not a "lie" to say DOD doesn't sponsor units, even if some military bases have violated the DOD policy. But Merlyn likes to label people who disagree with him as "liars." But as I've revealed above, he too is a a "liar." Also, his pants are on fire.

A few points on this: 1. The ACLU has in fact taken on cases, on principle, that many of their own members found personally repugnant--the Skokie case is a prime example. I think that shows that the ACLU really believes in its principles, and I respect them for that. 2. That being said, I think a look at the ACLU's website reveals a pretty liberal outlook, in its selection of issues to pursue. That's not too surprising. 3. But so what? If you don't like what the ACLU is doing, form, join, or support a group that is doing things with which you agree. There are plenty of them, including groups working against religious discrimination. 4. Some of us get annoyed by the ACLU, or Merlyn, etc., not because we think they're wrong, but because we know that technically they are right, but that their actions will mess up something that benefits many and harms few. This is how I feel, for example, about the guy who wants to get "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that technically he's right, but the vast majority of people, including me, just want him to go away (and note that he lost his case on a technicality--so I suspect the judiciary feels the same way). On a more mundane level, this is how some of us react when it is pointed out that Scouts can't do laser tag or paintball. It's how I feel when my kid points out that I'm going 5 miles over the speed limit.

I'm not familiar with the part of the advancement requirements that would prevent a 12-year-old from crying when he's hurt. Although I'm not a FCFY zealot, when I look at the requirements for Tenderfoot, 2nd Class, and 1st Class, I see little to prevent a boy in an active troop from doing them all in a year. It takes some attention by the troop leadership (such as making some opportunities available, like a place to swim and an orienteering course), but it shouldn't be all that hard, especially if the year includes a week of summer camp. As for Star, after two trips to summer camp, most boys should be there or pretty close, if they have any gumption. I would agree that the younger boys should have a POR they can manage--but that's why there's a choice of PORs.

As I understand it, the MBC is the last word on what he will or will not approve, and there's really no recourse other than to go get another MBC--I suppose the council would remove a MBC if it got enough reports of actions violating procedures. What we're really talking about here is what the MBC should do.

I still don't think you can make too much of the Cabinet departures. Many of them have been rumored for a long time. What really counts is what the replacements are like. The two so far, Gonzales and Rice, are loyal members of Bush's inner circle. Neither is a particular darling of the neocons and religious right. We'll have to see what the rest of the appointments are like, but I predict they will be Bush loyalists and Republican insiders. Bush will pursue his main agenda items--things like tax cuts, eliminating the inheritance tax, privatizing Social Security, etc., while largely ignoring the social issues. The result may be less division in the country, because people are less aware of the implications of the financial issues.

When I asked Merlyn if he thought military bases should provide access to groups that discriminate, his answer was: "Not on US military bases, no. They aren't public accommodations, and the military has a legitimate government interest in preventing religious discrimination on their bases." Now he'd like to backtrack from that statement and suggest that he doesn't care who gets access, as long as it's equal. Which version is the truth? I know Merlyn wouldn't lie, because Merlyn would never let anybody--himself included--misrepresent his views. I should add that his vitriolic approach and readiness to label those who disagree with him as "liars" makes it pretty easy to believe that his agenda goes beyond equal access. If he was just trying to promote equal access, he would (presumably) make respectful, persuasive arguments--as some Scouters do. But that's not what he does--he comes to gloat, and to insult. I have to agree that Ed doesn't seem to understand the Constitution very well, but I think Ed understands Merlyn perfectly well.

I fully agree that the counselor should not exclude an option he doesn't like. But there may be options he can't counsel. Examples: 1. A Citizenship in the Community MBC says: "I want you to go to the city council meeting, not the school board meeting, because the council meetings are more educational." Wrong. 2. A Snow Sports MBC says, "I'm happy to counsel you, but I can only sign off downhill or crosscountry skiing, not snowboarding. I don't know enough about snowboarding to approve those." This is different--I suppose we could question whether that person has the proper qualifications to be a Snow Sports MBC, but I don't think he's doing anything wrong as long as he's up front about it. Would anybody disagree with that?

Yes, Merlyn, I feel I must insist on an apology from you, since my summary of your position was, in fact, the truth: you do advocate the removal of scouting from all military bases.

Merlyn, you didn't answer my question, which was: "So spell it our Merlyn--do you think that military bases should provide access to groups that discriminate?" If you won't clearly state your position, please don't accuse me of "lying" when I try to interpret what you've said.

Gee, Merlyn, I thought I was helping you out by agreeing with you, at least to a point. It's a pretty brilliant move to antagonize people who are at least somewhat receptive to what you have to say. As to my supposed "lie," here's what you said in this very thread: "And as far as the "equal access", depending on what military policy you read, all outside organizations on military bases are prohibited from practicing various sorts of discrimination, including religious and racial discrimination. If the military allows the Scouts in, they'll also have to allow e.g. the KKK in. We'll see what happens." I hardly think it's a "lie" to interpret that statement as reflecting your view that the Scouts shouldn't be allowed on military bases. So spell it our Merlyn--do you think that military bases should provide access to groups that discriminate?

A few points: 1. I don't think the Cabinet departures, in general, mean all that much. Powell has been the odd man out for a long time, and it was obvious he would go. Ashcroft's replacement by the more "squishy" Gonzales, however, I think is the first sign of the inevitable betrayal of all the "values" voters who expect Bush to do something about abortion, gay rights, etc. He won't--he'll concentrate on taxes and corporate goodies (just like Reagan did). 2. People who lambaste "whining liberals" for failing to show proper respect for "YOUR President" have pretty short memories, considering how they talked about Clinton while he was still president. Hey, I'll tell you what, liberals should stop insulting Bush when he takes an action that shows he really wants to unite the country. Don't hold your breath. 3. Finally, I'll try to answer OGE's question. First, the idea that Kerry consistently voted against all the weapon systems is something of a canard. Whenever he voted against a large bill that had anything related to a weapons system in it, the Republicans accused him of voting to kill the weapons system, as if it was a separate vote. He also voted for many of the same systems, when they were parts of other bills that didn't have the same issues. I'll agree he didn't go a good job of defending himself on this point (as well as many others). As for Iraq, I don't know why Kerry didn't just say, "Look, I supported the invasion of Iraq because I believed what my president and the intelligence community were telling me. Now I know what they were telling me wasn't true--and they probably knew it wasn't true--so it's obvious the Iraq invasion was carried out for the wrong reasons and was a distraction from the war on terror." Unfortunately, his long career as a legislator apparently made it impossible for his to state points clearly. I don't think he was a very good candidate, and I'm not sure the Dems had a better one this time around.

I agree with acco40 that this is not that complicated--the US Government can't discriminate on the basis of religious belief, so obviously it can't own and operate an organization that does so--which is what a charter partner does. The simple solution--which is what has been happening anyway--is to charter the units to a private entity, and then to obtain access to government property under the same criteria as other private groups. Merlyn and his friends will try to push the point further, to argue that government facilities can't offer access to groups that discriminate, but they'll lose that round in the courts, and in the court of public opinion, because it would sweep way too broadly. So eventually the battleground will be, on a case-by-case basis, whether the government is giving too much preference to BSA compared to other private groups. BSA will win most, but not all, of those cases, I predict. (Merlyn, if you'd like to give a big gift to the Republicans like the Mass. Supreme Court did with gay marriage, then go ahead and try to get scouting completely banned from overseas military bases, and see what the reaction is.)