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

[OldGreyEagle 5]

::clearning throat::

 

Is the USO private or public?

[whitewater 10]

I don't think anyone here doesn't understand the Constitution or the First Amendment. The problem is that everyone looks at issues through their own perspectives.

 

Everyone has a basic belief system that shapes their lives and the way they look at things. Christianity is a belief system- Buddhism is a belief system- other religions are belief systems. Even atheism and agnosticism are belief systems.

 

And there lies the problem with the ACLU's postion as I see it. By removing religion from government (which could be argued isn't even possible because government is still run by people who have inherent beliefs), what we are left with is an atheistic belief system. In other words, we aren't really left with government not promoting religion. In fact, we have government promoting atheism. Atheism is not the absence of religion- it's just another belief system.

 

I think the proper solution is not removal of everything religious. The proper solution is the teaching of tolerance for others' views and beliefs, and providing equal access for all viewpoints.

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

whitewater, I disagree with many of your assumptions in your argument, but instead of getting sidetracked on that, do you agree that the ACLU agreement is a step in the direction of "equal access for all viewpoints"? After all, the DoD is just telling base commanders to NOT practice religious discrimination by chartering atheist-excluding Boy Scout troops.

 

Telling government agencies to NOT practice religious discrimination is not promoting atheism, but is instead promoting equal treatment on the basis of religion.

[evmori 11]

I understand the 1st Amendment very well, thank-you. Just because you can't answer my question you dismiss it based on my lack of understanding! Typical ACLU dribble! If you can't answer the question. Merlyn just say so!

 

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[whitewater 10]

Merlyn,

No, I'm afraid I don't agree.

 

How is removing access to a group with a particular viewpoint to be construed as promoting equal access to all viewpoints?

 

I don't see government sponsorship of the Boy Scouts as practicing religious discrimination unless the BSA is the only sanctioned youth organization allowed. As long as other groups are allowed and you aren't forced to join, I don't see a problem.

[evmori 11]

Wonder if these issues are related????

 

 

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/10/10132004.html

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, you don't understand the first amendment, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. It's like trying to explain algebra to someone still fuzzy on what "2" means. And if you think you understand the first amendment better than real lawyers from the DoD, all I can say is "Welcome to Fantasy Island!"

 

Whitewater, read the press release - it isn't talking about "access", it's talking about SPONSORSHIP. The US military can't "own and operate" atheist-excluding youth groups, any more than it could run a youth group that excluded Jews.

 

Do you think military bases could run youth groups that excluded Jews, as long as they had some other groups that accepted Jews? Remember, the non-Jewish kids who can join the "no Jews allowed" group can also join the groups that accept Jews, so the Jewish kids can only join some of the groups, while all the other kids can join all of the groups.

 

Now change Jew to atheist, and you still have the same legal problems.

 

Doesn't the fact that the DoD litigated this for five years before completely giving in give you a clue that government-sponsored discriminatory Boy Scout troops just aren't legal?

[acco40 95]

Merlyn, the DOD and the ACLU are 100% correct with the law. You may not like it but that does not make it lawful. It really is that simple - the BSA, a private organization as determined by our courts, may practice religious discrimination. The USG, as prescribed by law, may not. Therefore, the USG may not sponsor BSA groups. It is not that complicated.

 

Now, no Army base allows equal access to all. That would be preposterous to do in the face of our current defense situation. My question, does any of this have any impact on Fort AP Hill sponsoring the National Jamboree? While participants pay to attend Jambo, I am not clear on if the BSA "rents" the facilities or not. I have heard from certain resources (i.e. PBSs Frontline) that the USG spends about $5,000,000 in taxpayers money to support Jambo. Any legal beagles out there that know the facts care to weigh in?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[evmori 11]

OK Merlyn so you can't answer the question. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Typical of an ACLUer. Declare the person questioning your motives inept therefore eliminating the need to address their valid question.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[whitewater 10]

I suppose there is a legal difference between access and sponsorship. However, it is unlikely that any of the Scout Troops on military bases will actually go away. They may cease to be sponsored directly by the military but they will then be still be sponsored by another group or entity on the base. And since they will still be afforded access and resources they will retain some semblance of support.

 

Because of that, I doubt the assault on the Boy Scouts will stop when they are no longer directly sponsored. That is why I was referring to access in my arguments- I was simply trying to be more general.

 

Personally, I don't see much technical difference between the military sponsoring a Boy Scout Troop and having Catholic Chaplain on the payroll. Yes, I know a chaplain must provide generic religious services if there are those of other faiths present. But it is still religious in nature, which means there is no benefit to atheists.

 

[Hunt 11]

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.)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE, I did not know the answer to your question about the USO, but I figured they probably have a web site. They do and it says this:

 

"A nonprofit, congressionally chartered, private organization, the USO relies on the generosity of individuals, organizations and corporations to support USO activities. The USO is not part of the U.S. Government but is endorsed by the President of the United States and the Department of Defense. Each President has been the Honorary Chairman of the USO since its inception."

 

http://www.uso.org/pubs/8_14_19.cfm

 

Hmm, non-profit, congressionally chartered, private, endorsed by the President of the United States who serves as honorary chairman. Sounds familiar.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

acco40, you don't seem to have read my posts or the ACLU press release very carefully; I have no problem with the agreement. The settlement with the ACLU only addressed part of the lawsuit; public funding and military support of the jamboree is part of the remaining lawsuit.

 

Ed, I can explain why military sponsorship violates the first amendment, I'm just not going to bother explaining it to you, because you've previously shown you can't understand the issues. Now you've shown you can't even understand why I won't explain it to you. You are free to remain ignorant and be unhappily surprised by legal decisions that are baffling to you.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt lies:

...

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

...

 

Hunt, stop lying about my position. I have never advocated that, and have stated that the Boy Scouts get the same access as any other discriminatory organization.

[Hunt 11]

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?