fgoodwin

I think the discussion of chaplains is very relevant to the issue of school or military sponsorship of Cub Scouts. There is no question that the Chaplaincy is "owned" by the military (and of course, the denominational chaplain is subject to the tenets of his faith, not unlike Cub Scout Packs being subject to BSA policies). The question is, can a chaplain "discriminate" on the basis of his or her religious beliefs? I believe the answer is yes, even though they are required to provide for the spiritual needs of persons who are not members of their own denomination. Merlyn says that if a chaplain cannot perform a religious duty in violation of his own faith, he must find someone else who can; I disagree with that (the regulation says the chaplain will refer the person to another clegyperson, if possible). In any event, I think the relevance to Cub Scouts in the public schools and on military bases is this: the Pack may be "owned" by the school or base and the BSA's policy of no atheists or homosexuals is no more a violation of the First Amendment than is the clergyman's refusal to marry two avowed atheists. Even if the clergyman refers the couple to someone else to perform the offending religious rite, that's no different than a Cubmaster referring atheist children to join "Spiral Scouts" or some other youth group that is open to atheists. Fred G.

NJCubScouter writes:It certainly is NOT what the first paragraph of the Fox News story suggests it is. (What a surprise that a Fox News story is slanted... "fair and balanced," what a joke.)NJCS, here are two more articles on this story, both based on an AP newswire: House praises Scouts and condemns lawsuit http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20041121/3018689.asp House supports Scouts, decries legal challenges http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031779267886 http://tinyurl.com/4895s It appears that the "praise" was part of the resolution, but the "condemnation" was part of the floor debate, as is implied in these articles (including the FOX report). So will you now also accuse the Buffalo News, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Associated Press of bias? Or could it be that FOX wasn't nearly as nefarious and biased as you imply? Fred G.

What a crock! Black churches and ministers have been telling their congregations who to vote for since the Civil Rights marches of the early 60s ("Rev" Al Sharpton, anyone?). Where has the righteous indignation been for the last 40+ years? Or is it only a problem when conservatives get into the act?

Packsaddle, if you have both the old and the new UUA award booklets, maybe you can compare them and post a list of the differences for us? The UUA website goes into some detail about this dispute: http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/ As far as I can tell, everything Bob White said is consistent with information on the UUA website regarding this dispute. And the BSA religious emblems poster hasn't carried the UUA medal for several years now.

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, 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, 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.

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?

Hunt, thanx for your research. Can you post a link to the chaplain manual?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139160,00.html House Passes Resolution on Boy Scouts Saturday, November 20, 2004 WASHINGTON The House on Saturday commended the Boy Scouts (search) and condemned legal efforts to limit government ties to the group because of its requirement that members believe in God. A nonbinding resolution, passed by a 391-3 vote, recognized the 3.2 million-member Boy Scouts for its public service efforts. But the main thrust of the debate was what the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said were the "strident legal attacks" on the group. The Pentagon (search) agreed last week to tell U.S. military bases around the world not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops. The warning resulted from legal challenges to government relations with a group that bans openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God. The American Civil Liberties Union (search) and others say that direct government sponsorship of such a program amounts to discrimination. The Pentagon's ruling does not prevent service members from leading Boy Scout troops on their own time. Also, Boy Scouts still can meet on areas of military bases where civilian organizations are allowed to hold events. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz. said the ACLU's challenge was a "nuisance lawsuit" and he was urging Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to reconsider the Pentagon's position. "Scouting values, military values, citizenship values, a respect and reverence for a creator are not a violation of the doctrine of church and state," said Hayworth, who was an Eagle Scout. The measure's sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Congress would work "to defend the Boy Scout's ability to continue the fine work that they have done for nearly a century." Voting against the resolution were Democratic Reps. John Dingell of Michigan, Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Lynn Woolsey of California.

Yes, as far as I could tell, they were real Cub Scout uniforms; the Bear Cub had the light blue cap & neckerchief; the Wolf Cub had the yellow cap & necketchief. The Cubmaster was even wearing the green cap with red panel. I also saw another Scouter wearing the "Smokie the Bear" hat that currently costs more than the gold in Fort Knox! Fred G.

I just saw "Christmas with the Kranks", which is based on the book, "Skipping Christmas" by John Grisham. Having read the book, I would say the movie follows the story fairly closely, but the movie does throw in a sub-plot that the book doesn't have, and I'm not sure it really does much to advance the main story. In any event, the movie changes the Boy Scouts into Cub Scouts, and while the Scouts are fairly sympathetic in their first appearance, they are much less so in the second. Still, because the boys wear Cub Scout uniforms (and wear them correctly, as far as I could tell), this might make a fun outing for a den meeting. I'm sure your boys will love seeing Cub Scouts on the big screen, and will laugh along with everyone else at the rest of the story. This is a great family picture -- my own family couldn't decide if the film was destined to achieve "Christmas Classic" status (along the lines of "A Christmas Story", for example), but its a nice way to get into the Christmas spirit, even if it isn't quite Thanksgiving yet! Fred G.

There is a Jamboree 2005 Yahoo Group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/2005Jamboree/ There is also the JamboLeader Discussion List at: http://www.usscouts.org/lists/index.asp Fred Goodwin 2005 JamboStaff Episcopal Church Relationships Booth

Merlyn_LeRoy writes:http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/requirements.jsp ... CHAPLAIN REQUIREMENTS 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. ... Note "able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army." Also note that I said either the chaplain has to do it, OR get someone who will. Merely refusing to give communion would be dereliction of duty. His main job is facilitate the free exercise of religion for all the soldiers, not just the soldiers of his denomination.Merlyn, I don't believe your conclusion follows from the requirement listed. I can see how a Catholic Chaplain may not prohibit a Muslim soldier (for example) from praying, but the Army regulation you cite can hardly be read to force the Catholic Chaplain to read Muslim prayers or otherwise worship Allah, just because there is no Imam on the base to serve as the Muslim soldier's clergyman. The Muslim soldier can "freely" exercise his religion without forcing the Catholic to also worship as a Muslim. Similarly, the Catholic Clergyman should be allowed to freely exercise his religion, without being forced to don the robes of a Muslim cleric. Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

Merlyn, I am not a Catholic, but it is my understanding that Catholic priests may not administer the Eucharist to non-Catholics; so if the priest were forced to provide communion to a non-Catholic atheist, wouldn't that be a violation of the priest's First Amendment rights?

Merlyn, I didn't know you were an atheist, but knowing that now, I can certainly understand why you feel as you do about BSA.

Merlyn, why do you hate BSA so much? Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

NJCS writes:I have answered questions like that numerous times before. I have retired from that activity. You can ask the DoD, obviously they understand the law the same way I do, on that specific issue.Well, you were the one who said it was unconstitutional; the DoD obviously DISAGREES with you, inasmuch as they deny any wrongdoing. But if you don't want to repeat your arguments, how about pointing me to the thread where you discuss it? Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

Hunt writes:Again, some folks seem to have trouble distinguishing pedophilia from homosexuality.Hmm; quoting from "Man/Boy Love and the Gay Movement" by David Thorstad on the NAMBLA.org website:Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilizationThe first gay journal in the world - Der Eigene, published beginning in 1896 (one year before the formation of the first homosexual rights group, the Scientific Humanitarian Committee of Magnus Hirschfeld) - was a pederast and anarchist journal "for male culture"The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream.Men and youths have always been attracted to each other, and, like homosexuality in general, their love is irrepressible.To paraphrase FOX News, "I report; you decide". Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

acco40 writes:You can ask your dog to overturn the decision if you want - it is your right.No thanx; you can ask your dog, I'll ask Sec. Rumsfeld; but thanx for the constructive suggestion. Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

Merlyn_LeRoy writes:I'm working with various state ACLUs and American Atheists, and possibly Americans United for Separation of Chuch & State and Lambda Legal, to find plaintiffs with standing over the 8,200+ Scout units chartered by government agencies.OK, so rather than creating something that would actually benefit those you claim to support, you'd rather work to destroy an organization that benefits thousands of youth? So, tell me again why you hate BSA so much? Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

Merlyn, how exactly does DoD sponsorship of Scout units violate the Constitution?If a Catholic priest on a military base refused communion to an atheist soldier, would that be a violation of the First Amendment?If the ACLU's case were so good, why do you think they decided to settle this part of it?Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

Merlyn_LeRoy writes:ask your school if the school would be willing to own & operate a youth group that only allows atheists to be members.I've got a better idea: since you seem so concerned about gay and atheist youth, why don't you form such a group, then ask your child's school if they will sponsor it. Then you can report back to us. Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

NJCubScouter writes:So this is a campaign to try to get the government to reverse its decision to follow the Constitution? I always thought it was a good thing when the government follows the Constitution. But I guess some people think the Constitution is only a good thing when it favors them, or the things they like.And pray, where might I ask does the Constitution prohibit DoD sponsorship of Boy Scout Troops? Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

OGE writes:Pounder while I may agree with some of the above, the ACLU does not decide the lawsuits they file, judges do. Its not the ACLU that changes things, its the Courts. We waste time talking down the ACLU while we should be working on fixing the judicial systemOf course the judges decide, not the ACLU, but as has been pointed out many times over, there would be nothing for the judges to decide were it not for the ACLU constantly looking for cases to bring against BSA and anyone else who dares to support BSA. If ACLU weren't out looking to pick a fight with BSA, then there would be nothing to decide and the status quo would reign. So yes, the fault lies squarely with the ACLU, although in this particular case, the Pentagon caved before the case ever got to a decision. I think that is what's got people so upset. And its perfectly within our Constitutional rights to ask the Secretary of Defense to overturn this decision. Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council