Dept. of Defense & Jamboree

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hunt, thanks for putting succinctly what I have struggled to express

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt writes:

On the other hand, I'd be interested in reading Proud Eagle and NJCubScouter hash out whether the Jamboree benefits the government enough to avoid Establishment Clause problems.

 

Hmm, are you saying the government could, say, ignore the civil rights of Jews if it benefitted the government "enough"?

[Hunt 11]

Well, the Supreme Court allowed the government to ignore the civil rights of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII because of perceived national defense needs. Of course, most people no longer like that result.

 

What I'm really getting at, and what seems to be behind several of the arguments others have been made, is that there is a "secular purpose" to holding the Jamboree. With the current makeup of the Supreme Court, that may well be enough to allow the event to pass constitutional muster. The Court could conceivably balance the various elements of the Lemon test (secular purpose, advancement of religion, excessibe entanglement) rather than simply finding improper establishment if any one of the prongs is met.

So, I can imagine the Court saying something like the following: "The Establishment Clause is not violated when (1) there is a valid and compelling secular purpose for the government action involved; (2) the government action provides only indirect or minimial support for a religious or nonreligious viewpoint; and (3) the entanglement of the government entity with any religious group is minimal or transitory." Depending on how you slice the facts, this kind of ruling could save the Jamboree.

[acco40 95]

When Pope JPII visited the United States he held "Jamborees" at Dodger Stadium, TWA/Edward Jones Dome, Silver Dome, etc. Many of these facilities are government owned (albeit not federal). I have no knowledge if use fees were charged but I doubt it.

 

I love Scouting. I love my country. I wish that the BSA would proclaim themselves a PUBLIC organization (to the dismay of a few professionals in Texas) and be done with these ridiculous controversies.

 

President Bush is a big believer (or should I say talker) about using taxpayer money via faith based groups (i.e. Catholic Services) to administer charitable works - i.e. soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. While I agree that efficiency would abound I'm troubled by the legal and moral ramifications.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ed says:

 

So to be a member of any organization that receives public funding you are saying that if the membership requirements are different than those for being an American, they are wrong?

 

No, I am not saying that. I'm saying what I said. Ed, go back and look at the portion of Fuzzy Bear's post that I quoted, and why I disagreed with it, and I think you will agree with me.

 

Hunt says:

 

On the other hand, I'd be interested in reading Proud Eagle and NJCubScouter hash out whether the Jamboree benefits the government enough to avoid Establishment Clause problems.

 

Well, thanks, and I might be interested in reading it too, but it isn't going to happen, at least not from my end. Based on the never-ending circular discussions in all threads dealing with the Establishment Clause in this forum (incluing this thread and the "ACLU Cashing In" thread), I have decided that until further notice, I am not going to discuss the Establishment Clause or cases relating to it, including BSA-related cases, for awhile. It is just the same thing over and over, and some people will not accept the basic facts and I get tired of stating them.

 

It's like beating my head against a wall, and maybe it will feel better if I stop. For some reason I do not feel this way about the "gay issue," maybe because it seems to fade away on its own from time to time in this forum, but the religion issue never does.

 

(Hunt, this decision was not directed at you. I finalized it while I was reading the other thread but hadn't decided where to post it yet. The last straw, or at least next-to-last straw, was probably Ed's statement, in this thread, that the BSA doesn't discriminate against atheists.)

[packsaddle 753]

Acco40, You could add to that list the numerous venues enjoyed by Billy Graham over the decades and, at a much smaller scale, the occasional use of public picnic facilities by my RE class.

The example misses the point (although I think you do understand the point). As long as we all have equal access there is no harm done. But when one religious group (BSA in this case) gains exclusive access - or has its access funded by the government in a manner unequal to other groups or citizens, then Merlyn and all Americans have a legitimate concern.

 

I agree with you that BSA should be a public organization. Chartered by Congress and offering the boys instruction in citizenship in the community and nation, it ought to live up to the same ideals of the constitution that it teaches the boys. However, BSA actively sought private status and the right to discriminate. And won it...with knowledge of the eventual consequences. And now those consequences are coming to pass. I suppose, as much as anything, I wonder why so many scouters seem so surprised.

[acco40 95]

You hit the nail on the head. As they say, beware of what you wish for, it may come true!

[evmori 11]

Actually, NJ, that's why I asked the question I asked. You seem to be equating being an American with being a member of the BSA. And I don't agree. Being an American doesn't automatically entitle you to be a member of the BSA. If you don't meet their membership requirements, you can't be a member!

 

Hunt,

No flamebait! Just my views. And if you look at it, it is just membership requirements!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ed, I can only conclude that the language I am typing in is not the language you are reading in, and since I don't know how to fix that, there really is no point in responding.

[evmori 11]

If anyone answers anything other than 1. yes and no, 2. no and yes/yes, to these questions, then they have some reading to do. And if these are the answers, then it seems to me that the government and the BSA have very different policies regarding religion.

 

OK NJ. So what if the BSA & US government have different policies regarding religion? Many state governments & the US government have different policies regarding taxes & other things. What's you point? An organization can't have different policies than the US government? This ain't China!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutingagain 20]

Acco and PackSaddle,

 

If I read your posts correctly you would advocate that the BSA become a public institution teaching citizeship and the ideals of the constitution. What about the issues of faith and reverence as the BSA has historically included? ie. " Duty to God?" and " A Scout is Reverent" Where would these fit into a public scouting organization with membership open to a secular public? Are we willing to drop the religious aspects of scouting to be able to have special access to public facilities?

 

Asking for the purposes of discussion. If scouting became a public insitution, how would it effect the current program?

 

My own opinion is I would like to see units granted a local option rather than the whole organization be required to go one way or the other. Seems to me that would allow the government to sponsor some units and provide support to the overall organization while allowing other units their right of association with only those they wish to allow as members. For larger activities i.e. district, council and national events all units would be invited and some units with restricted membership requirements would have to decide if they wanted to partipate or not. This exists now with the issue of female leadership. Those units that do not allow women as leaders will have to participate with those units that do if they want to attend such events. Maybe some refuse to particpate because some units allow women to be leaders, I don't know.

 

SA

[packsaddle 753]

Scoutingagain, I see your point. For our unit such a change would have no effect whatsoever on the program, at least if past history serves as a guide. However, if the exclusionary policies were not in place we would not have lost several families in the past - families who left simply because they objected to the policy, not because someone was gay or atheist. It is difficult for me to think of how that was of benefit to the boys.

I would go with local option although I'm not sure what legal questions could emerge from such. As I gather from reading these threads, something like that happens already for LDS units. Someone else could probably illuminate that better than I can.

[dodaddy 10]

Let me see- having been active in the BSA since 1957 ( with the exception of military service) I am having a hard time recalling ever being required to attend a religious service-openly or publicly profess or swear to a belief in anything or confront anything similar to the gay not gay issue. What I do recall is a lifetime of great memories being made and lessons being learned. Who believed what never came up and no one cared. We had a gay kid ( at least he came out several years later) who was just as focused on camping and being a kid as the rest of us. We went to camporees and the National Jamboree but I can not recall ever hearing of the POLITICAL BS now blanketing the BSA and others. Common sense has been drowned out by the shouts of the politically correct few-we are so damned worried about lawsuits and "proper nurturing" that the overall program has suffered. OA is now the National Honor Society of Scouting not the BROTHERHOOD OF HONOR CAMPERS it was founded as. I don't care who camps where-who supports whom or what few dollars get spent for one program more than another-let's just get back to the real scouting program and let the politically correct and politicians fight over something worthwhile like a quality education for example.-

I know this is basically a rant and relief thread but gee whiz I am fed up with all of the BS (This message has been edited by a staff member.)