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

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Why is doing something about illegal, government-sponsored discrimination against atheists a "sad crusade to spend my time on," anyway? Isn't fighting against discrimination a worthwhile endeavor in your view? Or maybe just discrimination against atheists?

[mmhardy 10]

The ACLU contends by the DOD offering children the opportunity to belong to a Cub Scout Pack or Boy Scout Troop that government employees acting in their official capacities have administered a religious oath and practiced religious discrimination. The ACLU feels that such support is tantamount to the practice of religious discrimination. However in its zeal to undermine the Scouting movement, the ACLU has taken an awkward and backhanded stab at the United States Constitution. Article I of the US Constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The ACLU is being solely focused on the elimination of establishment of religious elements from public life. The group seems to forgotten the notion of citizens to have the right to practice religion as they see fit as outlined in the rest of Article I.

 

This recent stand by the ACLU conflicts with the earlier record that the ACLU has taken with respect to religious liberty. The ACLU was instrumental in the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In 1995 the ACLU submitted an Amicus Curiae to the Supreme Court of the United States that argued the constitutionality of the RFRA. The Writ extends several critical facets of government extending itself to ensure religious freedom. Namely;

 

This [supreme] Court has repeatedly held that government can constitutionally accommodate religion.

Since the beginning, legislatures have granted exceptions for religious objectives to secular laws, one of which (the substitute of an affirmation for oath) is found in the Constitution itself.

The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment indicates an intent to protect religious liberty.

 

The ACLU has totally flip-flopped in its stand toward promoting Religious Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution. I fully expect the ACLU to demand the US government to discontinue funding the National Cathedral as well as chapels at every military base in the US and overseas including the military academies at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs. If they dont take the next step and demand the dismantling of these obviously religious assets supported by the government of the United States then their motives would lend one to believe that the ACLU is taking action only to harm and damage the BSA.

 

[Hunt 11]

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.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hunt, I am not knowing what a killfile action is, I assumme it is a scoutlike way to react to merlyn, n'cest pas?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, you DID lie about me. You said:

 

"Merlyn and his friends will try to push the point further, to argue that government facilities can't offer access to groups that discriminate..."

 

I have never said that, and that is not my position. Yet you decided that WAS my position.

 

And no public school should "own and operate" a youth group that discriminates against atheists, even if the cost is minimal. Constitutional principles are important, and not trivial.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

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.

[fgoodwin 23]

I think the discussion of chaplains is very relevant to the issue of school or military sponsorship of Cub Scouts.

 

There is no question that the Chaplaincy is "owned" by the military (and of course, the denominational chaplain is subject to the tenets of his faith, not unlike Cub Scout Packs being subject to BSA policies). The question is, can a chaplain "discriminate" on the basis of his or her religious beliefs?

 

I believe the answer is yes, even though they are required to provide for the spiritual needs of persons who are not members of their own denomination. Merlyn says that if a chaplain cannot perform a religious duty in violation of his own faith, he must find someone else who can; I disagree with that (the regulation says the chaplain will refer the person to another clegyperson, if possible).

 

In any event, I think the relevance to Cub Scouts in the public schools and on military bases is this: the Pack may be "owned" by the school or base and the BSA's policy of no atheists or homosexuals is no more a violation of the First Amendment than is the clergyman's refusal to marry two avowed atheists.

 

Even if the clergyman refers the couple to someone else to perform the offending religious rite, that's no different than a Cubmaster referring atheist children to join "Spiral Scouts" or some other youth group that is open to atheists.

 

Fred G.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

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.

[packsaddle 753]

NJ, No offence intended but as for me, I'd side with your mom every time. She's probably a better cook too.

[NWScouter 9]

I received an email from the BSA forwarded to me by my district commissioner. In it says two things 1. There are only about 400 BSA units nationwide that are sponsored by government agencies and 2. They have had and continue to instruct BSA professionals to find other chartered partners for those units.

 

The national leadership realizes that it is not in the best interests of the BSA to have government entities to charter units. The time, money and effort to fight a losing battle and the requirements that would be made to keep them are not worth it.

 

What amazes me are the people who see the fact that government does not promote religion is a hindrance to their constructional right to practice religion. My faith is strong enough and needs no such government support.

 

[evmori 11]

NJ,

Yep 2 wrongs don't make a right but there are times the 2 wrongs aren't even wrong!

 

My mom made great chocolate chip cookies!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

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.

[scoutingagain 20]

From NWScouter

 

" received an email from the BSA forwarded to me by my district commissioner. In it says two things 1. There are only about 400 BSA units nationwide that are sponsored by government agencies and 2. They have had and continue to instruct BSA professionals to find other chartered partners for those units.

 

The national leadership realizes that it is not in the best interests of the BSA to have government entities to charter units. The time, money and effort to fight a losing battle and the requirements that would be made to keep them are not worth it. "

 

Thanks for posting this. This is good news. This is exactly what the BSA should be doing, demonstrating leadership, support and guidance for those units. These units can work towards an orderly transition to a legally acceptable charter and get back to serving their youth members and not worry about the ACLU or whether or not they're in violation of the Constitution.

 

And the Government can go back to business of education and defending our country and not be in the business of providing direct support and operation of a private organization that has the resources to run itself without government interference or involvement.

 

And the ACLU can take on cases that will make more of a difference and Merlyn will have nothing to say on this forum and all these threads on the ACLU and civil liberties will come to an end.( Sure)

 

SA

 

 

[EagleInKY 14]

SA - I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the old "slippery slope" argument. I don't believe that they will stop their assault on the BSA. Next they'll be going after us using their facilities. In particular, they are very much opposed to the use of AP Hill for Jamboree. I would expect an all out assault by the ACLU to block the next Jamboree (after 2005).

[scoutingagain 20]

I have no objection to the DOD supporting the National Jamboree, not because I think the BSA deserves or needs a special service, but because is serves as a legitimate training and exercise opportunity for the military to set up and support a large scale encampment for thousands of personnel and the associated logistics needed to do this.

 

To be fair though, the DOD should offer this service to any organization that wants to hold a periodic large scale encampment. Perhaps the ACLU would like to hold one of it's National meetings as an outdoor camping event?

 

SA