NJCubScouter

fgoodwin says: According to the Supreme Court, BSA policies do not violate the Constitution. Really? Which Supreme Court decision says that BSA policies do not violate the Constitution? To save you the trouble of finding one that says that, I'll tell you: There isn't one. In fact it is highly unlikely that there would ever be a case about whether the policies of the BSA or any other non-governmental organization violate the Constitution, because with one exception, the Constitution only prohibits conduct by government (federal and state) and not "private" conduct, that is, conduct by individuals or non-governmental organizations. (The one type of conduct prohibited directly by the Constitution regardless of who is doing it is slavery, by the 13th Amendment.) The relevant Supreme Court case (BSA v. Dale) dealt with whether the BSA's anti-gay policy violated a New Jersey state statute. The Supreme Court (by a 5-4 vote) decided that the statute could not be constitutionally applied against the BSA. So how can the ACLU claim that school or military sponsorship of a group that does not violate the Constitution, then violate the Constitution? Since the middle part of your question is based on a false premise (as explained above), the question is meaningless. In the case of the Department of Defense, the constitutional issue is obvious: The government cannot discriminate against atheists, and therefore it cannot own a unit of an organization that discriminates against atheists.

This looks like political grandstanding to me. Senator Frist is doing some fear-mongering about the Boy Scouts needing to be "saved" and against the evil ACLU -- when all that has happened so far is that the government has decided to "reaffirm" its prior directive to military units, to abide by the clear requirements of the Constitution on one particular issue in the pending lawsuit. But just out of curiosity, I'd like to read the bill itself, does anyone have a link? There doesn't seem to be one in Senator Frist's self-serving press release. I read a few of his other press releases, and the guy is a real master at political spin, I have to give him that.

As someone else asked under a different thread: if ACLU is so darned concerned about Constitutional rights, why aren't they defending ours? Why do they continue to harass us? Who is "us"? Do you mean the Boy Scouts? Or "us" as Scouters? How about "us" as citizens? Because I have to tell you that as a citizen, I know that the ACLU is protecting my constitutional rights all the time, and I feel better knowing they are there.

fgoodwin says: We (Scouts & Scouters) didn't choose to make a fight out of this -- the ACLU can stop this anytime they want to. Here we go again with "who started it" -- an issue worthy of debate by 6-year-olds. But if we have to get into it, I hope you can at least acknowledge that it is a matter of perspective. Clearly it was not the ACLU that created the policies that are in dispute, nor was it "Scouts and Scouters" at the local level. But it was the BSA that created the issue and it is the BSA that can make at least part of it go away. The BSA can adopt "local option" on accepting openly gay leaders anytime it wants to, and it would not affect the BSA's program or values in the slightest. Atheists are a different story, because the Scout Oath and Law say what they say, though the Girl Scouts appear to have survived even while interpreting their pledge ("to serve God") to allow atheists to be members.

Ed says: OK Merlyn then by your own explanation, the "military" can't violate the Constitution since it isn't a person! It is a government agency! Ed, please tell me that statement is some sort of joke that I don't get, and that you are not serious in saying that a government agency cannot violate the constitution. I could find you the citations for several thousand cases in which the governments (state and federal) and their agencies were successfully sued for violating peoples' constitutional rights. I won't, but I could. On the issue of whether governments and their agencies have "constitutional rights," Merlyn is correct. Governments have certain "rights" as against each other, for example there are certain things the federal government can't do because it would infringe on the "powers" of the states, and vice versa, and certain things the states can't do to each other. But when we are talking about First Amendment rights -- free speech, free press, free exercise of religion, no governmental establishments of religion, freedom of assembly as well as the rights that have been "found" in the First Amendment by the courts (like "expressive association") -- the government itself does not have these rights. "The people" have them, as against the government, and "the people" includes not only individuals, but also corporations and organizations depending on the particular situation involved.

Hunt, I just wanted you to know I am not ignoring you, you have raised several good issues (both in response to me and Ed) that I wanted to address, but they are complicated and I probably will not have time until the weekend, if ever. I think a whole book could be written on your comment that "ceremonial deism" is "baloney" and your related comments. The book, after presenting both sides of the argument, would probably eventually conclude that it's sort of a grey-area situation. For right now, I will say that in my opinion the theory of "ceremonial deism" is based about half on law and half on politics. The Supreme Court (or at least a majority of it) does NOT want to eradicate all references to God, Providence, In God We Trust, "under God," etc. from the "official record," but at the same time the majority recognizes that such things as organized prayers in public schools or a nativity scene (or menorah) standing alone on the courthouse square (not as part of a group of symbols) are unconstitutional. (I can see Ed's keyboard revving up all the way from here.) A prayer delivered by a Congressional chaplain in the Senate chamber falls somewhere, uncomfortably, in the middle. I think it also needs to be understood that when we talk about the "Supreme Court" or the "majority," the Court really has been "all over the place" on Establishment Clause issues. I have read several of these cases that don't even have a majority opinion, with 4 justices saying one thing, 3 saying something else and 2 saying still something else, with the 2 in the middle deciding the result but not the reasoning. I don't think a majority of the Court has ever accepted "ceremonial deism" as the reasoning that decided the case, in fact to my knowledge a majority has never accepted the theory at all. What has happened is that Justice O'Connor, among very few others, has adopted it and has run with it and developed it in a series of concurring opinions (some of which are cited in the opinion I linked-to earlier.) Because she has quite often been the deciding vote in these cases, when she has found a practice constitutional, "ceremonial deism" in effect becomes the reason why the practice was found constitutional, even though only one or two justices cited it as their justification. There is a reason why I try not to get into extensive legal discussions in this forum, and the above paragraph is an example. I don't hold out much hope that many people will understand it, and that is not a knock on anybody, I'm not sure anybody fully understands it. With the possible exception of Justice O'Connor, but even some of her opinions on the subject don't always make complete sense to me. I'd have to say this is the one area of the law where the Supreme Court has been the most fragmented, and confusing, and probably confused themselves.

RE: Take Your Settlement and Stuff It Where The Sun Doesn't Shine Eisely, you surprise me. Previously I thought that unlike some others around here, you were capable of discussing these issues in a rational, intelligent, non-abusive manner. Apparently not. Do you talk to your Boy Scouts that way too? And by the way, this is proof that the the settlement is working. These units are no longer branches of the United States government. Except for a relatively small number of people who might want to see the units disappear (which would not include me, nor do I think it includes any of the Scouters who post in this forum), that's the whole point. The boys in question should continue to have Scouting available, but not with the federal government as CO.

Ed says: I read the text in the link. Doesn't explain it any better. With all due respect, Ed, I don't think the problem here lies in the quality of Justice O'Connor's explanation. Having said that, there are probably more thorough and/or more basic explanations of the concept of "ceremonial deism" in earlier opinions by her and other justices, and at least some of them are probably linked in that opinion, but I do not have time to do any extra legal research right now. It's futile anyway, because you will not accept it regardless of how well it is explained. If "In God We Trust" on our currency which is printed by the government isn't endorsing religion then the military chartering a BSA unit isn't promoting discrimination. Again, Ed, no amount of evidence that that statement is incorrect will ever move you from your unshakeable belief that it is correct, so I am not going to bother. Nevertheless, it is not a correct statement of the law.

Locust Fork Leader, a few questions: What grade in school are the boys in now? When (month and year) are you looking for them to become Boy Scouts? When you say they have "earned about 1/2 of the Webelos requirements," do you mean requirements for the Webelos badge? (Which IF they are in fourth grade, would be pretty much on track at this point.) Or do you mean the requirements for the Arrow of Light? (Which include earning the Webelos badge.) Or do you mean something else? While you are answering those, a boy can join a Boy Scout troop when he satisfies one of the following three options: Age 11, OR Earn the Arrow of Light and be at least age 10, OR Complete the fifth grade and be at least age 10. Also please note that a Webelos cannot earn the Arrow of Light until he is EITHER 10-and-a-half, OR he has been active in the den for at least six months SINCE completing fourth grade.

We have been told not to give the boys tons of awards at one time or they might expect it each time. This may be true, but that is one of the reasons you give out the awards at the next meeting after they are earned. But in this case, the "damage" is done, and the only way it can be corrected is to give out all the awards, no matter what they are, at the next meeting or other opportunity. Then start giving out future awards when earned, and what the boys learn to "expect" will be what they are supposed to get.

Oh, and if it wasn't clear from my first post, "lack of strong parental support" was definitely NOT a problem in my case. My father was Scoutmaster for all but a couple months after I made Life, and was very interested in me making Eagle. (He made Star, back in the day.) On the other hand, he did not "push" me, either. He did what a parent should do, no more, no less, and left the choice up to me, and I made it. (That isn't to say he didn't ask me about it several times when I was 16 and going into 17, but it didn't get to what I would call "pushing." Maybe if he did "push" I would have done it, but then in a way it would have been his Eagle, not mine.) Fortunately for me, my younger brother is an Eagle. That probably eased some of the disappointment. I am hopeful that in about 3 or 4 years my father will be able to attend an Eagle COH for my son, but... well, let me leave it at that. I'm hopeful.

I can't, it's too painful. I am one of those Lifes-for-life. Basically I made at least a semi-conscious decision, sometime after I made Life (at about 15 and a half) that I was going to devote my time to other pursuits both inside Scouting and outside Scouting, and not put in the work necessary to get the remaining merit badges or do the project. It was a real disappointment to my father, and from time to time I STILL hear about it (and I am 46 years old!) I never really regretted it until I had a son in Scouting, especially after he crossed over to a troop. I have realized it would have been a better example for him if I had that Eagle knot on my uniform. However, this was not something I was thinking about when I was 16 or 17. I wish it had been.

Ed says: And, NJ, if you mean those facts presented are the interpretation that by the military chartering BSA units promotes discrimination then yes you are correct, I don't see the connection. Ed, obviously that isn't what I mean, nor is it what I said. What I do mean is that when the military charters a BSA unit that is required by the national BSA to exclude atheists (and avowed gays), the federal government is not only promoting discrimination, the federal government itself is discriminating. Where religion (though not sexual orientation) is concerned, that is unconstitutional. I also think it's just plain wrong. The BSA as a "private organization" can exclude who it wishes, but the federal government belongs to all of us and should not be discriminating against any of us on the basis of religion (or sexual orientation, but federal law doesn't say that, at least not yet.) This is nothing more than persecution of the BSA. No it isn't, it is the federal government obeying the Constitution, and one of the results is that the BSA is being made to live with some of the consequences of its decisions. As has been pointed out, however, it isn't likely that many (if any) BSA units will disappear as a result of this. So it really comes down to what the federal government can and cannot do; the impact on the BSA is minimal. If it wasn't the ACLU would be working just as hard to get "In God We Trust" off our currency, removing chaplains and banning the swearing of any public office on the bible. You have said this a few times in this thread, and although I have addressed it in the past, I have not in this thread. So I will now: You're wrong. What it says on the money, or voluntary swearing on the Bible, or many of these other things, are different from the government discriminating on the basis of religion, or sponsoring a school prayer, or displaying religious objects, or many of the other things that have been found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court as a whole has never specified exactly why there is a difference, but the leading theory is that the things that are "ok" represent "ceremonial deism," meaning that while they mention God, they actually have no religious significance and therefore do not constitute an establishment of religion. Ed, I know you will not agree with this, but I just ask one thing of you. Before you respond, read this: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC1.html It is the opinion of Justice O'Connor in the "Pledge of Allegiance" case (Newdow v. Elk Grove.) It explains what "ceremonial deism" is, some examples of it (which she believes include the Pledge of Allegiance) and how they are different from the things that have been found unconstitutional. Please read it and tell me what you think of it.

Seems to me a Buddhist doesn't fit this definition nor would any religion that worships another being. Then tell me, Ed, who (or what) is the "being" that Buddhists "worship"? Because I have read several articles about the nature of Buddhism, including the ones I posted the links to earlier, and I have never once seen any mention of a "being" they "worship." Unless you consider the "being" to be "truth" or "mankind as a whole," but not a deity or some other supernatural being(s) like most other religions have. So if you know who (or what) is, I'd like to know so I can learn something. Now, as for whether Buddhists are "atheists" or Buddhism is "atheistic" in nature, that may be a different story. Note that I never said they are, or it was. One of the articles I have read said that some consider Buddhism to be "agnostic" rather than "atheistic" in nature, because Buddhism does not deny the existence of a deity, and it is possible to believe in a deity and still be a Buddhist. (It probably would be a deity that is fairly "limited" in its nature.) The point is that Buddhism itself does not involve belief in a deity. I do have to admit that at this point I have lost whatever connection this discussion of Buddhism may have with the rest of the thread. I just saw something I thought was incorrect and figured I'd mention it, and then as usual Ed, you didn't accept the facts I presented, so now I'm mired in yet another seemingly endless, mostly-pointless discussion with you. But Ed, for reasons I cannot figure out, I somewhat enjoy these seemingly endless, mostly-pointless discussions I have with you.

The Daisy program has been successful for a long time. I want to say at least 40 years or more. The BSA has been struggling with Tigers for almost 25. For whatever it is worth, the "timing" of the Daisy program in particular sounded "off" to me, so I looked up both: Daisies was introduced in 1983, Tigers in 1982. Originally Tigers was for 7-year-olds, then in 1986 (as part of the overall shift from age to grade as the usual "divider" within the Cub Scout program) it was opened to boys in the first grade OR who had turned 7. As we have discussed in this forum on many occasions, most children are 6 when they start first grade, and some are 5, depending on the local "cutoff date." Depending both on the "cutoff date" and on when the school year ends, one-third to one-half of children are still 6 at the END of first grade. So as someone else pointed out, it is usually just a one-year difference between Daisies (kindergarten) and Tigers (first grade.) This age range for Tigers is probably true in well over 90 percent of cases, because as I understand it, while LDS-chartered packs go by age and not grade, they also do not use the Tiger program. (If that is incorrect, someone please correct it.) I have said before, I don't think the BSA should feel compelled to have a kindergarten program just because GSUSA does. Others have mentioned the differences between the programs, and the differences between boys and girls. It's nothing too scientific, but from my own observations, 5-year-old boys are pretty much incapable of paying attention, while 5-year-old girls at least have a shot at it. (Of course after the troop meeting I witnessed last night, you can add a "1" in front of the "5" and unfortunately it doesn't seem to get much better, just different.)

OK, here for whatever it's worth is a link to the actual opinion: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034433p.pdf As I said, it is 102 pages long -- and those are PDF pages, meaning it really is 102 pages long, so have fun reading it. Whether I actually do so or not, we shall see. (There are actually 2 opinions in there, the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion in the 2-1 vote.) Here is a weblog ("blog") of one of the attorneys in the case (he was representing a "friend of the court" supporting the government's position, I am not sure who exactly, but in other words he was taking the position that the government can cut off funding to the law schools for banning the military recruiters.) It has a lot of commentary about this case, with other cases mixed in. http://www.legalaffairs.org/howappealing/2004_11_01_appellateblog_archive.html Here is one thing the attorney has to say, which is what I was summarizing earlier. You will notice the first-person reference to a notice he received from the Court, so just keep in mind, "me" below means him, not me: The U.S. Supreme Court is the likely next stop for the Solomon Amendment case decided yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: Normally, once a three-judge panel of a U.S. Court of Appeals decides a case, the losing party has the option to seek rehearing en banc before all non-recused active judges (or, in the Ninth Circuit, before a panel of eleven judges). In the Third Circuit, however, rehearing en banc is not available if a majority of the judges in regular active service is recused from hearing a case. A notice enclosed with the copy of yesterday's Third Circuit ruling that the court sent to me by mail indicates that a majority of the Third Circuit's active judges is recused from the case. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court is the one and only place where the federal government will have any realistic possibility of getting yesterday's ruling by a divided three-judge Third Circuit panel overturned. Often the U.S. Supreme Court will refrain from hearing cases that involve the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction, because that relief will be superseded once the trial court issues its final adjudication. In this instance, however, that usual reluctance may not exist, because yesterday's Third Circuit ruling leaves little doubt how the case must be resolved on the merits in the district court.

Hunt says: 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. I would not presume that. This is a situation where the recruiter is on campus, actually enforcing a discriminatory policy, because they say up front that they cannot accept someone who is openly gay (or maybe just gay, the military's version of "don't ask don't tell" is a bit murky.) As I said before, this was an issue when I was in law school, and I recall someone going into an interview with a military recruiter, saying they were gay, and being told they would not be accepted into the JAG Corps for that reason. There was a whole big protest after that with gay and straight students wearing pink-triangle armbands. Now I am sure some here will think the person was wrong to waste the recruiter's time just to "make a point," but that isn't really the issue. The issue is that the recruiter's presence and the subject of the "speech" are directly related, whereas in the case of a school being against against "militarism," the issue is not directly related to the recruiting. But I say this without having read the case, which I want to try to do over the weekend, and see what actual conclusion I draw from it. 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. The law under the constitutional "spending clause" gets pretty complicated. Generally the government can do whatever it wants as far as spending goes, and can tie whatever strings it wants. That is where we get such things as the national speed limit (for awhile), nationwide seat-belt laws, nationwide drinking age of 21, etc. These are all STATE laws, but the federal government said to the states, if your state law does not say what we want on this subject, you do not get any more federal highway funds. Similarly if a college is giving financial aid derived from federal sources to a male student over the age of 18, the school must require the student to show that he has registered for selective service, or the student (and the school) does not get the money. The military recruitment case, however, falls into an area of conflict with another constitutional provision, the Free Speech Clause. The plaintiffs in this case were probably arguing something like, what the federal government is doing is paying for "speech" it likes but not for "speech" it doesn't like, and that is a "burden" on the FIrst Amendment rights of the disfavored schools. I don't know if I agree with that, like I said, I have to read it first to see what the full reasoning is. I also saw something on a legal web site that says that the future route of appeal for this case is somewhat uncertain. Normally the government would ask the entire Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which probably has between 10 and 15 active "voting" judges) to review the decision of the 3-member panel that decided this case. However, it appears that a majority of the full court has recused itself. I don't know why, but my wild guess would be that a majority of the judges may have attended law schools that are involved in the case. That would mean the Supreme Court is the next stop, but there is also an issue about whether Supreme Court review is available at this stage of the case, for technical reasons that I think would be pretty boring for a non-lawyer.

Ed, while the beliefs of Buddhists are complicated and not entirely clear to me, everything I have read supports the idea that a belief in a "higher power" is not part of Buddhism, though some Buddhists may believe in one. See: http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/b/bu/buddhism_1.html I have seen you (Ed) say in the past that Buddhists believe in "Buddha" as God. That is clearly incorrect, as the linked article explains. A "Buddha" may be any "enlightened" person, and the person we think of as "the" Buddha was many things, mainly a teacher, but clearly was not any sort of deity and never claimed to be one. See: http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/ga/gautama_buddha.html

Hops, that is what the case is about (see the first paragraph of the article that was posted.) Of course, it is a little more complicated than that. I went to read the opinion itself but it is 102 pages long, so I don't know when that is going to happen. I do have it saved to my computer and will try to find it again so I can post a link directly to it. I read a summary of the opinion and it does seem ironic that the BSA v. Dale case was used to the benefit of the law schools and the other plaintiffs. Someone mentioned public v. private, well I am pretty sure that at least one of the law schools involved is part of a state university (that would be the one I went to), so it will be interesting to see what happens. As for why the law schools would bar military recruiters, this is an issue that has been going on for at least 20 years. The schools in question would bar any recruiter that discriminates on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or any of the other standard list of factors. The military falls into that category because they exclude gays. As for my own opinion, I think that if push comes to shove, the military has to be permitted to recruit, but I also don't think they should exclude gay people, so that would be my solution.

OGE, that's interesting, I knew that both Hoover and Nixon were Quakers (and therefore taught not to "swear oaths") but I had read that Nixon did "solemnly swear" and say "so help me God" when he took the oath, anyway. Hoover did say "affirm." I did not know about Pierce or T. Roosevelt.

Ed says: Now a public park funded with government money must allow baptisms in their park because they were stomping on religious freedom! And that differs from letting the military charter BSA units how??????? Ed, it's completely different. In one case you have a unit "owned" by an arm of the government, discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs. This amounts to the government itself doing the discriminating. In the case of the park with a river running along it, what was apparently happening was that the government was saying it's ok to come into the park and go down to the river to fish, or swim (maybe), or canoe, or just stand knee deep in the water and talk to someone else, or whatever, as long as you are not engaging in a religious ritual. There is nothing in the story to indicate that the baptisms were interfering with anyone else's use of the park, any more than the person fishing or paddling down the river or whatever. If the pastor were trying to "reserve" the park or a portion of it so that only his baptisms could take place there within a given time frame, that might be a different story -- though it might not, it would still depend on the circumstances. In other words, the government can't single out religious expression and behavior from all the other kinds of expression and behavior, and disallow it for no other reason than its religious nature. That violates the Free Exercise Clause. But the the government also cannot (generally) be the ones DOING the religious expression or behavior, either directly or indirectly, such as owning a group that excludes atheists. (I say "generally" because I am well aware there are some things that fall on or near the "line" of the broad statement I have made, such as the military having chaplains, the money saying "In God We Trust" or Congress starting its session with a prayer, but I think these things can be distinguished, and in any event as I have said before, the fact that something on or even over the line is allowed, does not mean that some other thing that is over the line can be permitted.)

Fgoodwin, I think you missed the real point of my post. Let's boil it down to logic. If "Thing A" is unconstitutional, and "Thing B" is also unconstitutional, and Group X challenges "Thing A" in court but does not challenge "Thing B", that does not suddenly make "Thing A" constitutional. Even if "Thing A" and "Thing B" are "no different" (in your words), it still does not make "Thing A" constitutional. Regardless of what anyone says about "Thing B," "Thing A" still has to be evaluated on its own merits. And I'll put the same idea a different way, since you seem to be relying on Merlyn's argument. If Person M, a member of Group X, happens to think that "Thing B" is constitutional while "Thing A" is unconstitutional, even if he is wrong about one of them, that does not make him wrong about the other. In other words, if we assume that the two Things are indeed "no different," it could be "Thing B" that he is wrong about, and still be right on "Thing A." In even simpler terms, as my mother told me many years ago, "Two wrongs don't make a right." If anybody is confused (and I momentarily mixed up my A's and B's myself), "Thing A" is the issue regarding the chartering of BSA units to military units, "Thing B" is the issue of military chaplains, "Group X" is the ACLU and "Person M" is, of course, Merlyn.

Well, one of the things I do agree with BobWhite about is that we should save the Holocaust analogies for when we are talking about the Holocaust. I've said in the past why I have a strong reaction when people use terms such as "Nazi" or "Holocaust" where they don't belong, and I don't need to repeat it. But we are talking about a patch here, not someone getting killed. Having said that, I agree with WWBPD that the rules regarding sale of what should be "restricted" items by Scout Shops often are not enforced. I was surprised the first time I tried to buy a knot, several months after I became a leader and bought my uniform. I happened to be in the shop for something else and realized I had never picked up the adult Arrow of Light knot. I took one out of the bin and asked the person at the counter whether I needed to wait until I had my card with me, showing I had earned the AoL when I was 10. She said no, the only knot we require proof for is the Eagle knot. I have seen the religious award knots in the bins, so I am pretty sure I could purchase a religious award knot with no proof or report, not that I would since I never earned one. (What really surprised me was the stack of Scout Executive patches in a bin, I would hope that they actually do restrict that one.) And then on the other other hand, I have to say to WWBPD there are any number of things that cannot be worn on a Scout uniform. It could be something as innocuous as say an American Legion citizenship medal (non-BSA-related since I think there actually is one AL thing that is approved for the uniform) or a perfect attendance pin from school. It's great that the boy has earned it, but it is not supposed to be on the uniform. Having said that, I think my uniform shirt at home right now has my son's Second Class parents' pin on the lapel, and I suspect that it shouldn't. But that's just me not being perfect again. We do have an obligation to wear the uniform correctly and (after making sure we ourselves are setting the correct example) to ask that others do so as well.

This whole discussion of military chaplains seems irrelevant to the topic. Merlyn (who did not bring up the chaplain issue) responds that the chaplain service is constitutional because the military makes available the same services to all military personnel regardless of religious belief (including atheists, who presumably can speak to a chaplain as a "counselor" and who also will receive the non-religious services that chaplains provide.) That seems correct to me, regardless of whether any particular chaplain can provide any particular religious service to any particular person. (I am using "service" in the sense of "rendering a service," not in the sense of a "Sunday service" or other group religious observance.) But let's assume for sake of discussion that there IS an argument to be made that the chaplain service is unconstitutional. That does not make government chartering of BSA units constitutional. Nor does it make the ACLU obligated to "go after" the military for its chaplain service. Neither the ACLU nor any other group is required to address any particular issue just because they address some other issue. I gave an example in another thread of the ACLU turning down a case because it did not think it would win. Sometimes a case is right on the edge, you could win or lose, and you (in this case the ACLU) might decide it isn't worth the resources to pursue. But that does not prevent you from pursuing some other case with different issues. Of course, I have seen the same sort of attempt made many times before in this forum, to say the ACLU or some other person is wrong in pursuing a case, because they are not pursuing some different issue. I've seen it basically suggested that it must be ok for a city to put a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, because after all the ACLU has not challenged the fact that "In God We Trust" is on money, or the Congress opens with a prayer, or the Supreme Court crier says "God bless this honorable court," or the pledge of allegiance includes "under God" (which of course has now been pursued in at least one case), or any number of other ceremonial invocations of God. This thing about the chaplains is the same sort of argument. It didn't make any sense before, and it doesn't make any sense now. Each issue can be judged on its own merits. You can point to 50 other things that the government does or doesn't do, and it still doesn't change the fact that the government can't own an entity that excludes atheists.

Well, isn't that interesting. Thanks for posting the actual resolution NWScouter. It certainly is NOT what the first paragraph of the Fox News story suggests it is. (What a surprise that a Fox News story is slanted... "fair and balanced," what a joke.) Now when you read the first two paragraphs, it becomes clear that while they separated the actual resolution from the debate in the second paragraph, in the first paragraph they lump it all together to produce the "the House... condemned." The House did not condemn anything. Some members of the House did, in the debate. But the House itself did only what the resolution said, which was to praise the BSA in rather bland, plain-vanilla terms that I think all of us (at least those involved in Scouting) could agree with regardless of how we feel about any particular issue. There is nothing in the resolution about any controversial issue or relating to any court case, or government action, as NW said. Now I am less surprised at the overwhelming vote. From the original story I was concerned that so many members (obviously including a lot of Democrats) seemed to have been stampeded into calling on the Pentagon to ignore the Constitution. Now I see that is not what happened at all.