North: Values under siege

[fgoodwin 23]

North: Values under siege

 

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060308/NEWSREC0101/603080306/

http://tinyurl.com/gstt2

 

Article published Mar 8, 2006

 

By Daarel Burnette II

Staff Writer

 

The Boy Scouts of America is being attacked by left-wing factions bent on forcing the youth organization to abandon its Judeo-Christian traditions, talk show host Oliver North told an audience in Greensboro on Tuesday.

 

These "assaults,'' by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are scaring off public and private donors, afraid of being associated with the religious controversies being whipped up around the Scouts, North said.

 

" 'In God We Trust' is a national motto, not a right-wing slogan," said North, who is a former Scout. "If it's good enough for our currency, why isn't it good enough for our Boy Scouts?"

 

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the BSA is a private organization and allowed to exclude homosexuals from membership. That and other controversies involving gay people and atheists have led to calls to deny the Scouts funding and access to public facilities.

 

North spoke at the Koury Convention Center as part of the Friends of Scouting fund-raising campaign. The breakfast, attended by 300 people, raised $225,000 for the Old North State Council, according to Tim Harper, the field director for the council. Tickets cost $750, with tables for 10 going for $5,000.

 

The council has about 10,000 Scouts and covers an eight-county area including Alamance, Davidson, Guilford, Randolph and Rockingham.

 

North is a retired Marine lieutenant colonel decorated for valor during the Vietnam War, and now the host for Fox News' "War Stories" talk show. He gained notoriety working in the Reagan administration when he became involved in a plan to secretly ship arms to Iran and use the proceeds to help Nicaraguan Contra rebels.

 

Harper, who has been involved with the Scouts for 41 years, said that Old North State hasn't seen a decline in overall giving because of the controversies.

 

"This area is a faith-based area and we're heavily backed by the faith community," Harper said.

 

"I think our values and principles align with the community."

 

But Maurice Hull, the vice president of the council, said that the Scouts have seen a shift from where they receive money.

 

"We have seen more grass-roots support from individuals and less from organizations," he said.

 

Hull said that the BSA have been unfairly labeled recently as a right-wing organization.

 

"That's simply not true," he said. "We're tolerant of all religious beliefs."

 

Others, such as Susan Pyle, a High Point resident and a former Girl Scout, say it might be time for the Boy Scouts to focus less on religion and more on the other aspects of the organization.

 

"It's hardly a religious organization," Pyle said while standing in line to get a book signed by North.

 

"It's so much more than that." Boy Scout Alden Mueller, a 17-year-old senior at Early College at Guilford, said having faith as part of the Boy Scouts oath is a valuable tradition

 

"Faith provides moral basis to build values on," Mueller said.

 

"It's a shame to reinvent the value system on the lack of beliefs."

[DanKroh 11]

Two comments on this article come to mind:

 

1. "In God We Trust" has only been a "national motto" (along with "under God" in the pledge) since the 1950's, and was a response to the "Godless Communists".

 

2. Personally, I'd rather not have a man convicted of 3 felony counts which were overturned on a technicality as a spokesperson for my "values-based" organization. I especially like how the article glosses over that by saying that he "gained notoriety during the Reagan era". Notoriety, indeed!(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Lisabob 13]

Right on, Dan - Olli North is hardly the role model I'd want the boys in our unit emulating, let alone purporting to speak for the entire BSA.

 

Look, I really do not think that the BSA would be smart to resort to 'siege mentality' as a way to promote our program. We do a lot of great things that are not controversial; why not spend our considerable effort on promoting those instead of on making up scare stories about how we're being 'bashed'? For just about any organization there will always be those who disagree with how the group is run. BSA is no different in that regard. By constantly highlighting those disagreements we do ourselves a dis-service. It might be great for political rabble rousing and fundraising and selling books, but it is not great for the majority of BSA units.

 

Lisa'bob

[GernBlansten 10]

Right on Lisa bob.

BSA seems to fixate on its detractors and not promote the positive. Perhaps that is the root cause for the decline in membership. Ops, that's already another thread altogether. Back to my box of chocolates...

[evmori 11]

Ollie is a criminal! Having him as a spokesman for the BSA is not a good thing.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7 11]

I like Oliver North. I agree with many of his sentiments.

 

And let's the get the story right and complete:

 

According to the U.S. Dept. of Treasury, the motto 'In God We Trust' came about not at the time of the Constitutional Conventions, but due to increased pressures to recognize God on coins and money during the Civil War. In April 22, 1864, Congress passed an Amendment authorizing the motto to be placed on the two-cent coin. It appeared on various coins throughout the years, and appeared on paper money in 1957

[DanKroh 11]

Actually, Rooster, my post didn't say anything about when it was printed on money (coin or paper), I said it became the "national motto" in the 1950's.

 

From the U.S. Treasury web site:

"A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States."

 

Yes, please, let's do get the story right....

[Kahuna 172]

I won't get into my feelings about Col North as a spokesman for the BSA, but as long as we are getting things straight: North is not a criminal.

If your conviction is overturned (your technicality is my justice), you do not stand convicted. You may think he broke the law, but according to the law, he didn't. He retains his retired rank, pension and benefits from the USMC.

[SR540Beaver 116]

I appreciate anybody's service to this country.....but that does not excuse current or future transgressions. Duke Cunningham of California was a Vietnam fighter pilot hero and well respected politician. He let the power go to his head, took advantage of it and is now headed to prison in disgrace. Ollie North took an oath to follow the law and did not. He sold arms to known terrorists to secretly fund fighters in another war. Congress had expressly forbidden what he was doing. While he covers himself in the flag and patriotism and tries to use the excuse that the ends justified the means, what he did was criminal. He escaped prison on a technicality. He disgraced the Marine uniform he wore. He has traded on that notoriety for fame and money. He continues to be rewarded by being hired for speaking engagements and by Fox News using him as an anaylst and host. He did nothing to be proud of or to be praised for. I am always amazed at folks admiring him as much as they do. OJ was guilty and so was Ollie.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Kahuna,

 

You are correct. Technically he is not a criminal....even though he did commit crimes. He was indeed convicted and then the convictions were overturned because of limited immunity that had been granted to him for his pre-trial Congressional testimony. I wonder if he and OJ play golf together?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

 

North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.

 

However, on July 20, 1990, a three-judge appeals panel overturned North's conviction in advance of further proceedings on the grounds that his public testimony may have prejudiced his right to a fair trial. [2] The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed the charges on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel.

 

Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial.

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

DanKroh,

 

Still trying to get the story right...

 

IN GOD WE TRUST

 

Your description of events implies that the inspiration behind these words was mere political appeasement, meant to encourage a generation confronted with the Cold War. While not an official motto, most Americans embraced those words nearly 100 years before Stalins reign. In God we trust is not a transitory sentiment brought about by the fear of communism or panic stirred by McCarthyism. It was, and has been, the motto of Christians and Jews for thousands of years - and was adopted by this country because it reflects the sentiments of the majority. If the minority cannot accept that fact, so be it. Their self-imposed bitterness does not constitute a violation of their Constitutional rights. I expect to see that verified in the Supreme Court one day soon.

 

[DanKroh 11]

Well, Rooster, keep trying....

 

The second half of my comment, that it becoming the "national motto" being a response to "Godless Communists" is completely my personal opinion, although it is an opinion shared by many others who write on the subject. Your "story" may also be a popular one, but it's the first time I've seen it.

 

And while many Jews may indeed feel that they trust God, they would not promote writing "God" on something as "vulgar" (in the sense of being common and handled by many, not profane) as currency.

 

Edited to add, because I found the quote:

In fact, President Teddy Roosevelt disapproved of using the motto on currency: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Rooster7 11]

DanKroh,

 

Let's keep the argument meaningful.

 

I agree: Orthodox Jews may have a problem with God's name being printed on money (or anywhere else for that matter).

 

And, if it pleases you, I will also acknowledge: "In God We Trust" has not been adopted by Christians or Jews as their official motto.

 

But, I can't seriously believe that my original post led you to believe that I thought otherwise. The above red herrings which you seem to want focus your argument upon, are not substantive to the discussion.

 

I intended to make two simple points:

 

1) In God We Trust has been embraced by a majority of Americans (then and now), stemming from a personal commitment that God in fact exists and affects our lives.

 

2) The minority, who take issue with In God We Trust, have no Constitutional argument supporting the idea that their rights have been violated.

 

If youre compelled to argue with me then focus on these two points. Everything else is just a worthless distraction.

 

[DanKroh 11]

Rooster, as far as I can see, you are the one going off on red herrings. I opined as to the motivation of the adoption of the national motto. You disagreed with that opinion. I could provide you with links to many essays by learned people who assert the same thing, but I doubt you would give them credence.

 

Whether you believed this was an "official" motto of Judaism and Christianity never really crossed my mind, but it seemed unfair to drag Jews into your argument when they would, in reality, want to have nothing to do with putting "God" on our money. (And, btw, it's not just Orthodox Jews. Most Conservative Jews and many Reformed Jews still have a problem with writing "God" on something so common.)

 

But then you bring up two different (although related, true) points and want me to discuss them with you. OK, I'll play along, since you seem determined to change the subject to your points.

 

1) I've no doubt that in this age of increasing religious furvor, that the motto is embraced by a majority of Americans. Personally, I have no problem with the motto. Even though the "God" I trust is not the same one as you trust. Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't adopted as the national motto until the 1950s, and that it was (possibly) adopted in response to communism. In fact, I'm not sure what this point has to do with my original comment at all. I never said it wasn't a popular motto among Christians (and even Jews), just that it hasn't been THE national motto for that long. What I DO have a problem with is when people try to use the presence of the motto on our currency and on our monuments as proof that we were founded as a Christian nation.

 

2) I do have to completely disagree with this one. I think that minority does have a valid argument. (I'm still pondering whether I agree with their position, though, btw). There are some people who feel that the government adopting a Christian motto violates the separation of church and state outlined in the Constitution. Are they a minority? Yes. But being in a minority doesn't change the fact that such a motto might violate separation of church and state, much as you might like the motto. In fact, if the rights of the minority (i.e. non-Christians) matter so little, why hasn't there been an amendment to the Constitution to do away with separation of church and state and establish Christianity as the state religion?

 

Perhaps if you want to continue to discuss the constitutionality of our national motto, you should spin off a new thread, since I don't see what it has to do with the original post.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[scoutingagain 20]

I'll stay out of the motto thing.

 

But seems to me having Ollie North, Anne Coulter, Jane Fonda or Micheal Moore to speak at a Scout function is a sure fire way to potentially alienate half the population of the country in our currently polarized political environment.

 

Now getting all four to show up and talking about all the good things scouting does, regardless of one's political affiliation would be neat trick, and worth paying $$ to hear.

 

SA