Pentagon agrees to tell US bases not to sponsor Boy Scout units

[Its Me]

Why cant a 40 year old man be a bear cub?

 

Why cant a non veteran join the VFW?

 

Why cant men join the ladies red hat society?

 

Even the Rotarians are invitation only?

 

Why cant non political based groups be selective?

 

The issue is whether a group that wants to put certain requirements on its membership such as they must all be of the same age and sex, should be allowed access to government facilities. To compare group the BSA in the same category as the political KKK is ridicules. The KKK seeks power and influence hmmmff similar to the ACLU.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

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.

[berkshirescouter]

I have a question. If the 1st Amendment was amended to "...establish 'a' religion". What would the result be? Would it make things better or worse?

[SR540Beaver]

Its Trail Day: I have a question. If the 1st Amendment was amended to "...establish 'a' religion". What would the result be? Would it make things better or worse?

 

Do you get a choice on paying your taxes? How would you like the same principle applied to what religion you practiced? We recently liberated a country that dictated the religion to it's citizens didn't we?

 

[wyomingi]

Its Trail Day asks "If the 1st Amendment was amended to "...establish 'a' religion". What would the result be? Would it make things better or worse?"

 

At the risk of getting jumped all over I will play Devil's advocate. If the BSA changes the rules to allow atheists scouts. What would the result be? Would it make things better or worse?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The BSA changed the rules for Explorer Posts a few years ago to include gays and atheists, and I don't recall the roof caving in.

[berkshirescouter]

Lets try this again with the full quote. 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.

 

Comments?

[fgoodwin]

Merlyn, how exactly does DoD sponsorship of Scout units violate the Constitution?If a Catholic priest on a military base refused communion to an atheist soldier, would that be a violation of the First Amendment?If the ACLU's case were so good, why do you think they decided to settle this part of it?Fred Goodwin

Alamo Area Council

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Fred Goodwin writes:

* Merlyn, how exactly does DoD sponsorship of Scout units violate the Constitution?

 

Boy Scout units chartered by the DoD are the DoD's youth groups, the same as if a military base started, say, a youth baseball team. Since everything the DoD does is authorized through congressional legislation, they are subject to following the first amendment, including any youth groups they run for the benefit of soldiers and their dependents. Since at least Torcaso v. Watkins, government exclusion of atheists is considered to violate the first amendment. So, the DoD can't run youth groups that exclude atheists.

 

* If a Catholic priest on a military base refused communion to an atheist soldier, would that be a violation of the First Amendment?

 

Assuming he's an on-duty military chaplain, I'd say yes. Chaplains are required to serve the needs of all soldiers, and if they personally can't (for whatever reason), find someone who can.

 

* If the ACLU's case were so good, why do you think they decided to settle this part of it?

 

Because they got exactly what they were suing for; the DoD will no longer sponsor Boy Scout units. If this part of the lawsuit went to trial and the ACLU won, the results would be exactly the same - all DoD sponsorships dropped. Adam Schwartz mentioned to me that the ACLU would not agree to settle any other parts of the lawsuit, so they apparently want the other issues to go to trial.

[NJCubScouter]

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

[NJCubScouter]

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.

[fgoodwin]

Merlyn, I am not a Catholic, but it is my understanding that Catholic priests may not administer the Eucharist to non-Catholics; so if the priest were forced to provide communion to a non-Catholic atheist, wouldn't that be a violation of the priest's First Amendment rights?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No, it wouldn't be a violation of his religious rights, because he knowingly and purposely became a military chaplain, who is required to serve all soldiers. If he can't do that, he should resign.

 

Your question is the same if the chaplain is, say Eastern Orthodox and the soldier Lutheran, and wants communion. From the point of view of the EO chaplain, the soldier may not be considered acceptable to receive communion, because the Lutheran church doesn't perform baptisms that the EO church recognizes as valid, so the soldier is not validly baptized, which is a requirement for receiving communion. But the EO chaplain is REQUIRED to serve the Lutheran soldier's request for communion, or get someone who will, regardless of whether the chaplain thinks he's qualified to receive it or not, because the chaplains job is to serve the needs of the soldiers, whose religious views may not match his.

[nldscout]

Merlyn_LeRoy

You are so full of stuff its unbelievable. Chaplins are not nor can they be forced to violate the rules of the religious order that they are ordained in. Catholic chaplains won't serve communion in violation of church rules and that is not violating anyones rights. If they are serving soldiers of other faiths they do exactly as the scouts do and offer non denominational services. All Chaplains are trained to do that in addition to what there sponsoring chuch teaches them.

 

If you are going to make stuff up atleast make it half beleivable. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/requirements.jsp

...

CHAPLAIN REQUIREMENTS

1. You must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are:

a. A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.

b. Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.

c. Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.

...

 

Note "able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army."

 

Also note that I said either the chaplain has to do it, OR get someone who will.

 

Merely refusing to give communion would be dereliction of duty. His main job is facilitate the free exercise of religion for all the soldiers, not just the soldiers of his denomination.