Statement of Boy Scouts of America: Court Rules Boy Scout Jamboree to Go Forward

[packsaddle 753]

Ed, Here's the statement from BSA attorneys during their 1998 legal battle:

"Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization."

You'll have to ask the attorneys or BSA which religions are endorsed and which ones are not.

Frankly, I think you should have known this already. It has sure been repeated enough times in these threads.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[evmori 11]

Yeah pack, I knew that. And that statement makes no sense. Having religious requirements doesn't make an organization a religious organization. That would be the same as stating Firesign Theater is an atheist organization since it has members that are atheist!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hey Ed, which members of Firesign Theatre are atheists? I've known them for years, and I frankly don't know. David Ossman's wife is a Buddhist, I think, and Phil Austin seems somewhat religious, but I've never heard any of them state that they're an atheist. Keep in mind that I'm not a member of Firesign Theatre, I do their web site.

 

And why do you think that religious organizations can only be made up of one religion? Why wouldn't an organization made up of, say, members of the various Abrahamic religions be a "religious organization"?

[evmori 11]

Again, Merlyn, you missed the point. Because an organization has religious requirements to join doesn't make the organization a religious organization. I assume Firesign Theater pays you to do their web site and you are an atheist. Does that make Firesign Theater an atheist organization because they have an atheist on the payroll? No.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, the BSA says it's a religious organization.

The courts agree.

What part don't you understand?

[Hunt 11]

The question of whether BSA is a "religious organization" is not really relevant, since everyone recognizes that BSA imposes a religious requirement for membership. This is something that a government entity cannot do, and thus, a unit owned by a government entity cannot legally do this. It's really that simple.

[acco40 95]

This topic has gone all over the map. The BSA is a religious organization (says the BSA and the US judicial system and most intelligent individuals). The argument by the BSA is that your taxpayer dollars don't go to supporting the BSA (i.e. the National Jamboree) but the Department of Defense which uses the BSA (the BSA provides a service) for their training. You may not agree and think that this is a stretch but ...

 

The DoD was sued, not the BSA. Now, for those who get emotional over these topics, don't confuse legal with right/wrong, moral, ethical, etc.

 

While the National Jamboree is "open" to the public, Scouts do get preferential treatment (and in my book they should with Scouts who camp at the Jamboree getting "more" preferential treatment that those who just meander in but that is a different topic altogether). Adults, such as myself who attended in 2005, did not get the same "rights" as the Scouts when it came to participation in the events (and rightly so) even though we paid the same fee to participate.

 

IMHO, schools should not sponsor private organizations period, regardless of their joining requirements.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Part of the lawsuit against the DoD cited expenditures that obviously only benefited the boy scouts without any sort of "training" rationale, like $5000 worth of cookie dough.

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn,

send me a PM with your address and I'll mail you some cookies.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You don't have to go to all that trouble, just send me the $5000

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn,

If I send you a few crumbs of a cookie, that might more accurately represent a prorata share of the $5000, wouldn't it?

 

[Hunt 11]

"Part of the lawsuit against the DoD cited expenditures that obviously only benefited the boy scouts without any sort of "training" rationale, like $5000 worth of cookie dough."

 

Even if it were true that providing the cookie dough only benefits BSA (which is debatable), it still wouldn't mean that the overall support of the Jamboree was unlawful. In fact, DOD policy requires that any expenditures must not solely benefit BSA. DOD's brief does a good job of defending $8,000,000 of expenditures on the basis of training, PR, and dual-use improvements to Fort A.P. Hill. I think BSA would gladly give up the cookie dough, if that's the only problematic expenditure. But hey, if a plaintiffs' lawyer wants to go up and tell Justice Scalia about the cookie dough, more power to him.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So principles mean nothing?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, the cookie dough was only one example of a not-exhaustive list, to show that the DoD is spending money that is unrelated to military readiness, the supposed reason for supporting the jamboree. If you think you can rationalize buying cookie dough is important military training, go ahead and try to justify it. I say it's obviously spending tax dollars for the benefit of a private religious group, in violation of both the constitution and the DoD's own requirements.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

If the DOD looks upon the Jamboree as an excellent training opportunity then all things they do is regarded as training. While cookie dough may seem an extravagance, I didnt realize that Army cooks only prepared mere subsistence meals for refugee's or Army encampments. Making cookies for 40,000 may be just the experience needed for the cooks to understand the logisitics of food preparation