NJCubScouter

This may surprise some people, but I do not see a big problem with the private school taking advantage of the option of having a closed pack under these circumstances. All the boys in the pack attend the school in question, so nobody currently involved would be excluded. While the school has racial segregation in its past (which if you go back far enough, would also be true of many PUBLIC schools, including in the North), currently it is fully integrated and has a diverse student body, which presumably is reflected in the membership of the pack as well. The school officials are uncomfortable with the idea of people from outside the school using the school facilities, because they do not have the same vested interest in taking care of the school's property and equipment. I don't think that is an unreasonable concern or that having a closed pack is an unreasonable response. There is a public school down the road and presumably there is either another pack down the road, or an opportunity for another pack down the road if there is enough "demand" for one. So nobody would be denied the opportunity to be a Cub Scout by this policy (and again, all the current members of the pack would still be eligible.) So I personally would not try to convince the school to "open" the pack at the present time. What I would do is, start (or "move" depending on your preference in terminology) the pack at (or "to") the new CO, and then maybe a year or two down the road, when the CO sees things are running smoothly, the school property is being respected, the parents are happy, the school officials are comfortable that you (the pack leaders) are responsible people and doing a good job, THEN I might ask the school if they would consider opening up the pack to some boys from outside the school -- if indeed any want to join. That sounds reasonable to me, anyway. I do not think it is "un-Scoutlike" under the facts as they have been presented.

See what I mean?

What a silly, pointless resolution. Congress can't change the Constitution, or the courts' interpretation of it, by passing a resolution. Much less a resolution asking the Pentagon to reconsider its decision to abide by the Constitution, which according to several posts in other threads, the Pentagon says it was doing all along anyway. From the vote total, it looks like 41 members of the House thought it was so silly (or more likely, politically toxic) that they didn't even show up to vote one way or the other.

Great post SR540Beaver.

Good article, thanks Acco. There may be a few nuances here and there that may be overstated, but on the whole I agree with it.

TP aks me: Why the concern, are you a living breathing card carrying member? No concern, just curious. As for being an ACLU member, I have said before that I was a member for a couple of years in college. I don't remember why I stopped paying the dues, maybe when I stopped being eligible for the student membership rate and was no longer eating at a student dining hall, I found that I needed to devote my resources to food and not to organization dues. I have thought about rejoining a couple times since, but have never gotten around to it. Despite my long-lapsed membership status, I'd say I agree with the ACLU about 80 to 90 percent of the time. At the moment I can't pick out specific positions I disagree with, but if they believe porn filters in public libraries are unconstitutional, that would probably be one of them. As a matter of public policy (in other words assuming it is constitutional), if a local librarian wants to install such filtering, it's ok with me. Maybe the ACLU is concerned that it is more than just porn that is being filtered out, which is always an issue when government tries to limit access to things. Some of the "good" often being ends up banned along with the "bad." I think a lot of people would be surprised at the number of cases the ACLU does NOT get involved in, because they conclude the governmental entity is probably correct under the law. There was just a story in my local paper a few days ago about the ACLU declining to take a case that a local resident wanted to bring against the city he lives in, with the state ACLU director quoted as saying that whatever action or practice was involved appeared to be legal. I know that many people here have a picture of the ACLU as being a bunch of far-left Commie pinkos out to destroy the American way of life, but obviously I do not think that picture is correct.

So, TP, how many of those letters are you personally going to write? And when are you going to your first million-person anti-ACLU march? (And more to the point, does anybody think the ACLU would really care if they get a bunch of letters or some people march outside their offices?)

Hmmm, I said "that" U.S. Supreme Court. I meant "the" U.S. Supreme Court. There's only one. (Or sometimes I'd have to say, fortunately there's only one.)

SA writes: The same Constitution that prevents the Government from providing direct sponsorship of private groups that lawfully discriminate, also assures the right of the BSA to set it's own membership standards. Absent that protection, there are State, County and local governments that could conceivably enact legislation requiring BSA units to admit Gays and Atheists or outlaw their existence, and some probably would. Well, one actually did, or to be more legally precise, one state's (New Jersey's) anti-discrimination statute was interpreted by its courts to prohibit the BSA from excluding gay people (the case did not involve an atheist.) That was the BSA v. Dale case, the one that was eventually decided by that U.S. Supreme Court, which decided (by a 5-4 vote) that the state law was unconstitutional as applied to the BSA's exclusion of gay people. So, SA, you are correct, the same Constitution (and actually the same amendment, though a different part of the same amendment) that prohibits the federal government from being the CO of a BSA unit, prohibits a state from requiring the BSA to accept openly gay people as leaders. The reason we know the Constitution prohibits that is that one state (mine) actually did do it, and was told by the U.S. Supreme Court that it could not.

wyomingi, i understand if you feel you should deal just with the boy and not his parents, BUT the discussion in this thread since my last post confirms my previous suggestion: Before you tell this boy what he may or may not wear on his uniform, I think you should speak with someone at the council/district level, and probably a professional such as your District Executive. While people in this forum know a lot about a lot of things, here is an example of where they don't all "know" the same thing about the same subject. Some have said the boy may wear the purple knot on his uniform even though the award itself (the medal) may not be worn, while others say the boy may not wear EITHER the medal or the knot. Some suggest that the boy might earn another religious award (such as the "generic" Protestant award, from the "God and Country" series), while others say you should encourage him to pursue the program for HIS denomination, UUA, even though he can't wear it on the Boy Scout uniform. I think it's entirely possible that if you check with someone "in authority" at the council/district level, you may hear of options and/or suggestions that none of us (including you) know about. Even if you don't, you will have official confirmation of what you thought the policy was, and then you can tell us about it, so WE'LL know. I do not think that talking to the boy's minister is a substitute for what I am suggesting. The minister presumably knows about his denomination's religious awards program, but he presumably is NOT an expert on what can and cannot be worn on a Boy Scout uniform.

I realize this isn't exactly on-topic, but our troop did attend a sporting event yesterday -- the Navy-Rutgers football game on Scout Day at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. We also had a tour of the academy. It was a great event, but then again it was not a pro sporting event. To the contrary, it was the first time I have been to a sporting event where the entire student body of one of the teams was not only in full attendance, but identically dressed, cheering in unison, and I'd have to say as a devotee of the other team in the game, very respectful of everybody in attendance.

Fgoodwin asks: And pray, where might I ask does the Constitution prohibit DoD sponsorship of Boy Scout Troops? I have answered questions like that numerous times before. I have retired from that activity. You can ask the DoD, obviously they understand the law the same way I do, on that specific issue.

The end of that post got cut off. Here is what the entire last paragraph was supposed to be: Now, whether you regard that as "better" or "worse" is sort of a matter of perspective. If you think the things I have listed above are good ideas, as I am sure many in this forum do, it would be "better." I would not be one of those people. I think that by and large, the restrictions on government involvement with religion not only are dictated by the Establishment Clause, but should be, as well.

ItsTrailDay asks: This is what I am asking. If the 'a' is added how does the law change. Will it be better or worse. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 'a' religion. I think the addition of the word "a" would change the law significantly. The courts might very well interpret that change to mean that the Establishment Clause now only prohibits the actual "establishment" of a particular state relgion, and that many of the restrictions on government involvement with religion, or government actions that have a religious purpose, no longer apply. Prayer in public schools, nativity scenes on the courthouse square, government entities such as military bases being CO's for youth groups that exclude atheists, all of these things might be construed as being perfectly constitutional if the word "a" was in there. Now, whether you regard that as "better" or "worse" is sort of a matter of perspective. If you think the things I have listed above, as I am sure many in this forum do, it would be "better.2

Uncleguineau, there were several proposed marches starting in 1976, and the final decision that the Nazis could march was issued in 1978 (at which time the march was cancelled.) See http://www.skokiehistory.info/chrono/nazis.html So the "target audience" had not moved away yet.

Maybe it's just me, but I think this situation is "touchy" enough that before I gave this young man (and his parents, I agree with johndaigler) what I believed was the correct information, I think I'd want to check with my District Executive to verify the information, and see if he/she had any suggestions. It occurs to me that the vast majority of us (at least) "know" that the UUA religious emblem is not authorized for wear on the uniform solely because of what we have read on the Internet, either in this forum or elsewhere. I am not sure where you'd go to find a complete, official list of BSA-approved emblems. The handbooks have lists, but I recall seeing on those pages statements like, these are SOME of the emblems, or the emblems INCLUDE these. I'm not suggesting that what we all "know" about this subject is incorrect, but I am saying that I'd be checking with someone in official authority before "enforcing" it. And as I said, there may be a "recommended" way of dealing with it that would produce an outcome that works for everybody. (Or in plain English, a way that doesn't get the parents upset enough that you may lose a good Scout over this.)

Good grief. When I read some of the things in this thread, I can only shake my head in wonder. If I said some corresponding things on the "other side" I'd be hearing talk of "black helicopters." Don't some of the things listed in TP's post (quoted from an article by someone else) seem at all suspicious to anyone here? Does anyone really believe the ACLU favors "government control of church institutions"? Look at their web site, as I just did, look up their positions on freedom of religion, and you will find they favor the exact opposite. As for "promotion of homosexuality," they don't think gays should be discriminated against, it's hardly an extremist position, it has been adopted as public policy by a number of states. Some of the other things I personally agree with the ACLU, some I don't (like child pornography, I know what their position is (or was 20 years ago, anyway) and understand their reasoning, but I don't agree with it. None of it makes them "Satan." Frankly I doubt the founder of the ACLU was really a Communist, and I did a search on that quotation and found that it is repeated on so many sites on the Internet, I have to wonder whether he said it at all. But let's say he was, it doesn't change the fact that the ACLU today stands up for freedom. And the bottom line is, whatever the ACLU believes, it is THEIR OPINION. Are they "Satan" for having an opinion?

OGE, I agree on all points. It may not surprise too many here to learn that I was one of those annoying kids in high school and college who learned more about Robert's Rules than anybody else, though of course I think I always used it only to promote truth and justice and never to obstruct anything. (But I do recall a few people who might have felt differently at the time.) I also agree that the ACLU plays sort of a similar role on a larger scale, holding everyone to the rules even when the results may be unpleasant, even to the people within the ACLU. I also agree that the Skokie case is the best example of how the ACLU stands on principle even when they individually may not like the people they are representing. There was a thread about this before. Not only was the lawyer Jewish, but there were a number of major contributors to the ACLU who withdrew their support over the ACLU's position in that case. I have really mixed feelings about the case but in the end I have to conclude the ACLU did the right thing, pushing protections for free speech as far as they could possibly go. My main reservation from a legal point of view was that I thought an argument could be made that uniformed Nazis marching past the homes of elderly Holocaust survivors could represent not just "speech," but an implied threat of violence, which is not protected by the First Amendment. (That was my legal reservation, I had many strong emotional reservations about it, but I suspect the attorney representing the Nazis did too.)

There seems to be an assumption in this thread that the ACLU has not challenged the ban on gays in the U.S. military. This sounded kind of odd to me in light of the ACLU's traditional support of equal rights for gay people, and in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of a couple years ago striking down the "Texas sodomy law" as unconstitutional. So I checked the ACLU's web site and my suspicion is correct: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16285&c=41 I don't think that link is going to work. But the article confirms that the ACLU (in association with other organizations) is indeed involved in challenging the anti-sodomy provisions of military law, and by extension the ban on gays in the military. It says that at least eight pending cases challenge the military's anti-sodomy law, and although it appears the ACLU is not necessarily involved in all of them, I think it is safe to say that if and when the issue goes to the Supreme Court, the ACLU will be involved. There was a thread awhile back discussing the future of the gays in the military issue in detail, so I don't need to repeat what was said about the legal issues. The legal issues involved in that subject are significantly different from the issue of atheists or governmental ownership of organizations that discriminate on religious grounds. So discussing it here as some have tried to do, really just confuses things.

TP, I don't see how the BSA could be "correct" about a statement it has never made. Can you show me one statement from an official BSA source saying that the exclusion of gays is based on a connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse of children? I doubt it.

Great post, Scoutingagain.

Anarchist, without repeating everything that was said the last time we had a thread on "laser tag," I'll say this in response to your post: Not every activity that teenagers (or their parents or leaders) find interesting or exciting is part of the BSA program. The reasons vary from activity to activity -- in some cases it is based on safety/liability, in some cases on "values," and maybe there are other reasons and combinations of reasons. Although the G2SS does not state a specific reason for banning paintball, laser tag, etc., I think this was pretty well discussed the last time. My interpretation is that the BSA has decided that pointing and discharging a weapon at another human being, even if the weapon only emits a paintball or a laser light, is not something to be trivialized by making it a "sport," at least not within the BSA program." It is a serious business that is part of law enforcement and military training, and at least as far as an organized activity goes, that is where it should remain. (I think this interpretation is supported by the exception to the no-pointing-weapons rule.) Whether the BSA itself would put it the way I put it, I don't know.

So this is a campaign to try to get the government to reverse its decision to follow the Constitution? I always thought it was a good thing when the government follows the Constitution. But I guess some people think the Constitution is only a good thing when it favors them, or the things they like.

Lynda, almost. For the boy who qualifies by completing the fifth grade, you need to add that he must be at least 10 years old (which almost all who complete fifth grade would be anyway.) And probably more importantly, for the boy who qualifies by earning the Arrow of Light, the minimum age is 10, not 10.5. There was no minimum age before, that is why the "clarification" was made. I think the 10.5 figure comes from two places, one is that it used to be in the joining requirements, and the other is confusion with the fact that turning 10.5 is one of the two options for qualifying to earn Arrow of Light. The other option is completion of fourth grade plus six months, which in theory could permit any-age boy to earn Arrow of Light (and therefore, until the BSA set the floor at 10, to join a Boy Scout troop.) Among the Arrow of Light group, the difference between 10 and 10.5 is important because, assuming an October 1 school cutoff and a February or March crossover to Boy Scouts, there are some boys who will cross over when they are 10 and 4 or 5 months, even if they have started school at a "normal" age. The youngest possible boy in this group, born on October 1, will not be 10.5 (10 and 6 months) until April 1. With a later school cutoff, the boy will be even younger when crossing over.

Scouter1910 (great user-name by the way!) I almost never comment on peoples' spelling or typing errors because it is usually impolite, and I make my own errors now and then, but in an effort to assist a fellow New Jerseyan, for your own sake, if you do end up submitting a resume or application to the BSA, and you do not abbreviate your college degree, PLEASE spell "bachelor" correctly. (And also avoid run-on sentences. That's directed at me, not you.) Seriously, best of luck! Although you live in the other "half" of New Jersey from me, if you do get a job with the BSA, maybe I will see you around somewhere, sometime.