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

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

OGE, the BSA can pay for their own cookies; if the army wants to make cookies as some sort training, the BSA can pay for it, since they get the cookies. It's this kind of direct spending on a private group that even the DoD disallows -- they're just buying food for a private organization.

[SSScout 1616]

"Religion::n. 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2) devotion to a religious faith 3)a personalset or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices 4) a cause, principle or belief held to with faith and ardor.

 

Religious organizations that are not religions:::

 

National Council of Churches, Habitat for Humanity, Tolerance, Inc., Interfaith Council, Cops for Christ, The Christian Childrens Fund, The Gideons, The Red Crescent, Knights of Columbus, American Friends Service Committee, any Department of Religious Studies at your local College,

usw, etc.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment..."

 

don't mean Congress can't encourage the people to pursue the religion (or religious organizations) of their choice... hence, some orgs are tax exempt, without regard to their flavor of religiosity. I think the Ethical Society nearby is also tax exempt.

 

It's all good. "By their fruits ye shall know them". Seems to me it's not so much what the persons action is, so much as the rationale that is in debate here.

 

Our country is notable because of its protection of the minority group in any debate/conflict/discussion/argument. If the Majority wills one thing, the minority is free to do its thing so long as that thing does not interfere with the Majority. If the M wants to do rites and practices and does not coerce the m to also participate under the same conditions, we're OK. So if a m enters a XYZ church and the m starts making a commotion, the M of the XYZ church has the right (not rite) to remove the m.

If the m wants to participate (or watch) and the M does not object (Mormon Temples are "private", Masonic Temples are "private"), then come on in.

 

???

 

At least here in the US...

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by SSScout)

[Hunt 11]

Of course principles are important, but if the only improper expenditure out of $8,000,000 is $6,000 for cookie dough, it's such a small detail that it's certainly not worth all the legal machinery. But the plaintiffs don't really care about the cookie dough per se--that's just a colorful example they used to try to get the courts to rule that all the DOD expenditures were improper--and it's clear that this argument is a failure, because DOD made a strong argument that they had good reasons to support the Jamboree. Note that it's not just training and readiness, but also PR and recruiting that are among the aims of the military's involvement. Of course, one can quibble about just what expenditures fit into the policy and justification and which don't, and that's fine. DOD should follow its own policies, obviously. But do you think ACLU would fund a challenge if the only potential relief was that some small portion of the overall expenditures would have to be reimbursed by BSA?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well Hunt, you don't seem to understand what a "not-exhaustive" list is; just for future reference, the ACLU lawsuit didn't attempt to list every improper expenditure, just a few typical examples.

 

The current legislation ONLY supports the BSA; any legislation that legitimately supported military goals like training and recruitment would apply to ANY large gathering that would offer similar training and recruitment oppertunities. But there is no such legislation, because it's really just a public subsidy to a private religious organization. Maybe if the US military practiced in different places with other groups and had to solve new logistics problems (instead of setting up in the same location year after year), the military might actually get better when disasters like hurricane Katrina strike. But I guess it's more important for the BSA to live off public money while pretending to teach self-sufficiency, and to discriminate while pretending to teach character.

 

You know, the Girl Scouts might hold a jamboree if the government would subsidise 1/3 of the cost.

[evmori 11]

What kinda cookies we talking about? Chocolate chips???? Snikerdoodles????? Thumbprint?????? Nutter Butter????? Vienna Fingers??????

 

It makes a difference cause if I'm paying for those dry tasteless cookies with the hole in the middle, I want my money back!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

"Well Hunt, you don't seem to understand what a "not-exhaustive" list is; just for future reference, the ACLU lawsuit didn't attempt to list every improper expenditure, just a few typical examples."

 

I understand what a "not-exhaustive" list is, but I also understand that if the example you choose to emphasize is only $6,000 out of $8,000,000, the whole list probably doesn't amount to much. Do you know what the total cost of consumable items like cookie dough was? I guess the plaintiffs' lawyers thought that people would be outraged tht our military was giving cookie dough to the Boy Scouts, but really, that was a stupid example to use, because it makes them seem petty. Maybe it was the best example they had.

 

"The current legislation ONLY supports the BSA; any legislation that legitimately supported military goals like training and recruitment would apply to ANY large gathering that would offer similar training and recruitment oppertunities. But there is no such legislation, because it's really just a public subsidy to a private religious organization."

 

Sez you, but the Seventh Circuit obviously doesn't agree. Since the courts say what the law is, you are simply left to disagree with the law, as is your right as an American.

 

"You know, the Girl Scouts might hold a jamboree if the government would subsidise 1/3 of the cost."

 

Who says the government wouldn't do that?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, the amount isn't relevant; it was cited as one example of military spending that was unrelated to military readiness. You seem to think that constitutional violations that are small enough are somehow OK.

 

And the circuit court didn't rule on the case on its merits, they said the plaintiffs didn't have standing. They did not reverse the original ruling.

[Lisabob 13]

Just to throw a slightly less ambiguous example than the girl scouts out there: There's a group called Kingdom Bound Ministries that holds a large festival in upstate NY every year. They say they attracted 60,000 participants last year and they are among the 25 largest Christian festivals in America. This is explicitly a Christian organization and the purpose of the even is to celebrate and promote their faith. From their website: "KINGDOM BOUND MINISTRIES INC. EXISTS TO PRESENT THE GOSPEL THROUGH A VARIETY OF ART FORMS INCLUDING CONCERTS OUTREACHES AND AN ANNUAL PERFORMING ARTS FESTIVAL; TO BRING PEOPLE TO A SAVING KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST AND TO ENCOURAGE BELIEVERS IN THEIR WALK WITH GOD."

 

http://www.kingdombound.org/mission.html

 

Suppose they wanted to hold a jambo-type event in coordination with the DoD. Now I'm not saying they plan this, but let's suppose for the sake of discussion. Consider the arguments DoD apparently made for supporting the BSA event, and whether they apply equally to this group:

 

1) Staging/training practice in dealing with large groups (check)

2) Emergency preparedness practice w/ large groups (check)

3) Public Relations and Recruiting, emphasizing that many members of our armed forces have connections with the large group in question (check)

 

How would we feel about the DoD serving punch and cookies to Kingdom Bound participants? If the answer is "no" to Kingdom Bound, why is the boy scouts (or maybe girl scouts) a special case, given the arguments the DoD apparently put forth to defend the practice of jambo involvement? I'm not sure I'm opposed to DoD's involvement actually, but I'm interested in hearing your take on this.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Mostly attended by superannuated former Woodstock graduates?

Interesting question though. I'd like to hear a General weasel his (or her) way around the answer. THAT would be interesting in its own right!

[scoutldr 732]

"it was cited as one example of military spending that was unrelated to military readiness"

 

I work for the military...if that was a spending criterion, the DOD budget could be cut in half.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

In this particular case, the military is acting under a specific law (10 USC Sec. 2554), which only allows for the loan of equipment, services, and the only expendable listed by the law is medical supplies.

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn,

Your one note song is over.

BSA and the United States Army gets to hold the jamboree at Ft. A.P. Hill.

 

I did some research and found you are as committed to non-religion as the religious. It seems the vast majority of your posts are as old as Rocky and Bullwinkle and on one topic only. It's just a matter of time before you or someone like you becomes Bishop of Atheism.

 

Good Bye

[Lisabob 13]

Now Gonzo, there's just no call for that. You've intentionally wandered into a debate on a contentious issue and then broadsided someone just because you don't agree. OK, score a point for Merlyn here. Who cares whether you agree or not, there's no need to stoop to personal attacks. A Scout is ... what?

 

On another note I guess we're all spending a little too much time on this thread (myself included) because we can spew forth all day long and it won't change much of anything. Let's go start some threads on hiking and fishing and other scout stuff instead.

[evmori 11]

Yeah Lisabob, Gonzo wandered in & took a poke at Merlyn. But it was a well placed & accurate post.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Gonzo1 10]

Lisa,

I didn't call Merlyn any names, I don't think I was out of line.

 

I did a little research, I found out that Merlyn goes to many forums and argues about atheism. I had made a few other posts in this thread too.

 

Good day.