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

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt writes:

But Merlyn, you said that a Catholic chaplain would have to find somebody to give communion to an atheist soldier. I don't think that's the truth, and thus it's a ... well, you know.

 

No, it IS the truth. A chaplain (doesn't matter if the chaplain is Catholic or Jewish or whatnot) WOULD have to find somebody to give communion. That's his JOB.

 

Now, I didn't set up the idiotic question in the first place, but military regs state that chaplains are there to serve ALL the soldiers, not just some of them, and chaplains can't just ignore requests by soldiers who are atheists.

 

And I've already explained how you misrepresented my viewpoint and misstated what I would actually do. If you don't like it, I suggest you be more careful not to misrepresent my views in the future.

 

And I already know all the arguing here doesn't accomplish anything, that's why I also contact various state ACLUs. The southern California ACLU is very interested that there are 550 public schools in that state that unlawfully charter Packs and Troops.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

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.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

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.)

[fgoodwin 23]

Merlyn LeRoy writes:No, it IS the truth. A chaplain (doesn't matter if the chaplain is Catholic or Jewish or whatnot) WOULD have to find somebody to give communion. That's his JOB.Merlyn, if you feel that strongly about it, can you quote exactly where that requirement comes from?

 

I took Hunt's suggestion and googled the army chaplain requirements. An Army chaplain is not required to perform a religious function that violates his own faith (that is spelled out in the regulations) but I see no resulting requirement that forces the chaplain to then find some other person to perform the function that would otherwise violate the chaplain's conscience (and that seems an odd requirement anyway).

 

So what is your source for this claim?

 

Fred G.

 

PS: Does anyone else see the irony in an avowed atheist opining as to the duties and responsibilities of a military chaplain?

 

[evmori 11]

PS: Does anyone else see the irony in an avowed atheist opining as to the duties and responsibilities of a military chaplain?

 

Merlyn is always opining about stuff he has little knowledge of! Why would this stop him!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutingagain 20]

"PS: Does anyone else see the irony in an avowed atheist opining as to the duties and responsibilities of a military chaplain?"

 

Yes, Fred it is ironic isn't it.

 

Does anyone else see the irony of so many so called conservative scouters argueing for a branch of the government to be directly involved in the sponsorship and operation of a private youth organization? A private organization that wants to be free to set it's own membership standards without interference from the government?

 

SA

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Fred writes:

I took Hunt's suggestion and googled the army chaplain requirements. An Army chaplain is not required to perform a religious function that violates his own faith (that is spelled out in the regulations) but I see no resulting requirement that forces the chaplain to then find some other person to perform the function that would otherwise violate the chaplain's conscience (and that seems an odd requirement anyway).

 

Why is that odd?

 

And how does finding someone else to perform the function violate the chaplain's conscience?

 

As my earlier example showed, an Eastern Orthodox chaplain may consider giving communion to a Lutheran as not following his (the chaplain's) religion's requirements for receiving communion - now, do you think that chaplain has performed his duty if he simply refuses?

 

And, as a Greek Orthodox example (watch the wrap)

http://www.usafhc.af.mil/Attachments/Recruiting/ 03c.%20Greek%20Orthodox%20Chaplain%20Guidelines.doc

...

12. The priest-chaplain shall not, and cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be permitted or required to celebrate, perform, or participate in a communion service other than that of the Orthodox Church. Neither shall the priest-chaplain be permitted or required to offer any sacramental-type service of non-Orthodox nature. Rather, the priest-chaplain shall refer individuals requiring such to those other chaplains qualified to render such service under the auspices of their denominational authority.

...

 

[fgoodwin 23]

Merlyn, the document you rely on is not a US Gov't regulation; it is a set of "guidelines" written by a specific denomination.

 

And note that the priest, under the guidelines you cite, is not required to perform a marriage between an Orthodox and an atheist (for example), nor is the priest required to refer the the happy couple to other clergy.

 

So your own reference provides the counter-example to your claim that denominational clergy are required to find someone else to perform a religious function that would otherwise violate the tenets of the priest's own faith.

[cubbingcarol 10]

Did anyone else catch what Merlyn said

 

"That's why I also contact various state ACLUs. The Southern California ACLU is very interested that there are 550 public schools in that state that unlawfully charter Packs and Troops"

 

Is this a witch hunt?

 

Carol

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I keep writing things like:

 

Chaplains are required to serve the needs of all soldiers, and if they personally can't (for whatever reason), find someone who can.

 

or

 

But the EO chaplain is REQUIRED to serve the Lutheran soldier's request for communion, or get someone who will,

 

or now

 

12. The priest-chaplain shall not, and cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be permitted or required to celebrate, perform, or participate in a communion service other than that of the Orthodox Church. Neither shall the priest-chaplain be permitted or required to offer any sacramental-type service of non-Orthodox nature. Rather, the priest-chaplain shall refer individuals requiring such to those other chaplains qualified to render such service under the auspices of their denominational authority.

 

...and people can't seem to see those parts.

 

Carol, it isn't a witchhunt; public schools can't legally practice the discrimination required to "own and operate" a Cub Scout Pack. If thousands of public schools ran "atheists only" youth clubs, they would likewise be removed, and people wouldn't call it a witchhunt, they would say that those schools never should have run "atheists only" youth clubs to start with.

[fgoodwin 23]

Merlyn, I guess we will continue to talk past each other, because the Orthodox chaplain is not required to find anyone else to marry a non-Orthodox to an atheist (for example). It takes only one counter-example to disprove a general claim, and you yourself provided the source for the counter-example.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

As I quoted before:

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

...

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.

 

It's the chaplain's responsibility to facilitate the free exercise of ALL military personnel, which means if he can't do it, it's his responsibility to find someone who can.

 

But you're the one who thinks your public school can own & operate a youth group that excludes atheists.

[fgoodwin 23]

Merlyn, you can believe whatever you want, but you provided a cite that nowhere requires an Orthodox priest to marry a non-Orthodox to an atheist, nor does it require the priest to find anyone else to do the job.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well, since you can't seem to see the part that says it's the responsibility of chaplains to provide for the free exercise of religion of all military personnel, I don't think it's possible to convince you that it's the chaplains responsibility.

[Hunt 11]

Merlyn says: "And I already know all the arguing here doesn't accomplish anything, that's why I also contact various state ACLUs."

 

What a sad thing, to spend your time needling people when even you don't think there's any point to it. And what a sad crusade to spend your time on, when there are so many real problems in the world. I really feel pity for you, Merlyn.

Although I suspect that you may underestimate the effect your participation here may have had in changing people's views--although perhaps not in the direction you'd like.