Merlyn_LeRoy

As I've pointed out before, military chaplains have to serve all military personnel; the Boy Scouts exclude some people solely due to their religious views. Ed, "selective prosecution" is when the GOVERNMENT decides to apply the law against one group and not another. The ACLU is not the government, and if you think a lawsuit should be brought against military chaplains, you are free to do so, and the courts will rule on it.

mmhardy writes: If your interested in getting the facts right how about the ACLU stating that the military gives the BSA $2 million per year to support the Jamboree. It doesn't say that. It says: "The ACLU of Illinois has raised concern, for example, about the Pentagons handpicking the BSA and no other organization for the expenditure of an average of $2 million each year to support the national Boy Scout Jamboree."

mmhardy writes: No, the WSJ authors basic premise is correct. The Illinois ACLU DoD case, filed in 1999. The Dale case had been making its way to the Supreme Court since 1992. But the WSJ said that this was in response to the supreme court ruling, which was in 2000: "Ever since the Supreme Court upheld the Scouts' First Amendment right to bar Scoutmasters who are openly gay, the ACLU has looked for softer targets. " That's incorrect. This lawsuit was filed before the supreme court ruled in the Dale case. And what ACLU inaccuracies are you referring to?

I might have expected that "principle" means nothing to you, Ed.

The editorial is the WSJ is entirely accurate based on the authors view point. Period. It isn't accurate; "author's view point" does not affect matters of fact, like this ACLU lawsuit being filed in 1999, and Dale being decided in 2000, so the author's viewpoint that this lawsuit was in response to Dale is factually wrong.

You might want to check with Mike Walton if this settlement doesn't adversely affect scouting in US bases in foreign countries. And your response is similar to people who fight against ACLU lawsuits to remove the ten commandments from government property, and then (after it's moved across the street to private property), point to how nothing has changed. You've missed the whole point of the lawsuit, which is to remove the improper government sponsorship.

You don't win legal arguments by getting the facts wrong. And why do you say "The ACLU is being flanked"? They have nothing to do with the CLS litigation.

At least one national media organization recognizes what is going on. But not the Wall Street Journal. For one thing, they state: "Ever since the Supreme Court upheld the Scouts' First Amendment right to bar Scoutmasters who are openly gay, the ACLU has looked for softer targets." The ACLU lawsuit against military support was filed back in 1999 (and grew out of an even earlier lawsuit with the same plaintiffs); the supreme court didn't rule on Dale until 2000, so this lawsuit wasn't filed as a result of the Dale decision. And it fails to distinguish between access to public facilities vs. public sponsorship: "The suit against the military is one of a series aimed at getting communities to deny access to public facilities." This is false for anyone familiar with what the ACLU lawsuit says. The editorial incorrectly states that the BSA had been "using" the Balboa Park property, instead of leasing it for $1/year, and that the lease was found to be illegal since there was no bidding process and the Boy Scouts describe themselves as a religious organization in court, and that such a public subsidy for a religious organization violated the first amendment. But the editorial writers at the WSJ don't seem to think atheists have any rights. Look at their opening paragraph, where they describe the ACLU's first amendment lawsuit in defense of nonbelievers as "absurd."

Thanks for posting this; I found one copy on a .mil site in MS Word that looks to be the same or similar, except the year on the date is 2002, not 2004: http://www.80asg.army.mil/staff/Army%20Relations%20With%20Boy%20Scouts.doc It's linked to from this page from the Northern Law Center of the 80th Area Support Group: http://www.80asg.army.mil/staff/nlc.htm

But the BSA will look hypocritical for dishonestly chartering thousands of packs & troops to public schools; not good for an organization that purports to promote honesty. When the ACLU challenges those, all those packs & troops will have to find new chartering orgs. For lists of government chartered units, see http://www.scoutingforall.org/packtroop

Hunt, you DID lie about me. You said: "Merlyn and his friends will try to push the point further, to argue that government facilities can't offer access to groups that discriminate..." I have never said that, and that is not my position. Yet you decided that WAS my position. And no public school should "own and operate" a youth group that discriminates against atheists, even if the cost is minimal. Constitutional principles are important, and not trivial.

Why is doing something about illegal, government-sponsored discrimination against atheists a "sad crusade to spend my time on," anyway? Isn't fighting against discrimination a worthwhile endeavor in your view? Or maybe just discrimination against atheists?

Well, since you can't seem to see the part that says it's the responsibility of chaplains to provide for the free exercise of religion of all military personnel, I don't think it's possible to convince you that it's the chaplains responsibility.

As I quoted before: http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/requirements.jsp ... 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. It's the chaplain's responsibility to facilitate the free exercise of ALL military personnel, which means if he can't do it, it's his responsibility to find someone who can. But you're the one who thinks your public school can own & operate a youth group that excludes atheists.

I keep writing things like: Chaplains are required to serve the needs of all soldiers, and if they personally can't (for whatever reason), find someone who can. or But the EO chaplain is REQUIRED to serve the Lutheran soldier's request for communion, or get someone who will, or now 12. The priest-chaplain shall not, and cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be permitted or required to celebrate, perform, or participate in a communion service other than that of the Orthodox Church. Neither shall the priest-chaplain be permitted or required to offer any sacramental-type service of non-Orthodox nature. Rather, the priest-chaplain shall refer individuals requiring such to those other chaplains qualified to render such service under the auspices of their denominational authority. ...and people can't seem to see those parts. Carol, it isn't a witchhunt; public schools can't legally practice the discrimination required to "own and operate" a Cub Scout Pack. If thousands of public schools ran "atheists only" youth clubs, they would likewise be removed, and people wouldn't call it a witchhunt, they would say that those schools never should have run "atheists only" youth clubs to start with.

Fred writes: 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). Why is that odd? And how does finding someone else to perform the function violate the chaplain's conscience? As my earlier example showed, an Eastern Orthodox chaplain may consider giving communion to a Lutheran as not following his (the chaplain's) religion's requirements for receiving communion - now, do you think that chaplain has performed his duty if he simply refuses? And, as a Greek Orthodox example (watch the wrap) http://www.usafhc.af.mil/Attachments/Recruiting/ 03c.%20Greek%20Orthodox%20Chaplain%20Guidelines.doc ... 12. The priest-chaplain shall not, and cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be permitted or required to celebrate, perform, or participate in a communion service other than that of the Orthodox Church. Neither shall the priest-chaplain be permitted or required to offer any sacramental-type service of non-Orthodox nature. Rather, the priest-chaplain shall refer individuals requiring such to those other chaplains qualified to render such service under the auspices of their denominational authority. ...

Hunt writes: But Merlyn, you said that a Catholic chaplain would have to find somebody to give communion to an atheist soldier. I don't think that's the truth, and thus it's a ... well, you know. 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. Now, I didn't set up the idiotic question in the first place, but military regs state that chaplains are there to serve ALL the soldiers, not just some of them, and chaplains can't just ignore requests by soldiers who are atheists. And I've already explained how you misrepresented my viewpoint and misstated what I would actually do. If you don't like it, I suggest you be more careful not to misrepresent my views in the future. And I already know all the arguing here doesn't accomplish anything, that's why I also contact various state ACLUs. The southern California ACLU is very interested that there are 550 public schools in that state that unlawfully charter Packs and Troops.

I type things like: Chaplains are required to serve the needs of all soldiers, and if they personally can't (for whatever reason), find someone who can. or But the EO chaplain is REQUIRED to serve the Lutheran soldier's request for communion, or get someone who will, ...but nobody can apparently see those second parts.

acco40 writes: Merlyn, could you enlighten us on the St. Louis Special School District program mentioned in your link? I think it is a wonderful program - classroom scouting and venturing for special needs children. Well, it's their web page, just look around. They've got lots of information there, including their non-discrimination notice: http://www.ssd.k12.mo.us/about_SSD/PublicNotices/non_discrim.html Notice that their nondiscrimination policy applies to all matters concerning education programs and services, and that it includes both religion and sexual orientation, so both atheist and gay students must be allowed into their school's Classroom Scouting and Classroom Venturing programs. You can also look at the St. Louis Area Council's side at http://www.stlbsa.org/Districts/Special%2bNeeds/ It's interesting that Classroom Venturing is described as an "inclusive program". Do you have more information? Are the children Scouts by the strict definition? As far as I can tell, yes. For the Classroom Scouting, it's a joint effort between Boy & Girl Scouts. They also have camporees at Beaumont Scout Reservation. The St. Louis Area page that explains about Classroom Venturing starts with the Venturing logo and the opening paragraph is taken from scouting.org's page about Venturing. If these aren't actual Scouting and Venturing programs, they've got very confusing names. Is it open to all students? If so, that is GREAT! This could be a shining example of how Scouting aids all! That's the big question, isn't it? This program was started nearly 20 years ago, before the Boy Scouts started publically kicking out atheists and gays and saying that no Scout unit could allow them to join (even if it was OK with the Scout unit and its charter partner). However, I don't know of any Scouting or Venturing program that allows atheists and gays with the OK of BSA national. The superintendent of the Special School District says atheists can join; I'm waiting to hear back from the St. Louis Area Council to see if they say the same thing (and I'll see if BSA national also says it's OK).

Ed, public schools have no right to the free exercise of religion because they aren't people; they're government agencies which have to be neutral on the basis of religion, or else they're infringing on the free exercise rights of the students, who ARE people with such rights.

That doesn't fix the discrimination problems. For example, this program: http://www.ssd.k12.mo.us/Sp_edu/enrichment_programs/ It's run by the school, and all students must be able to join, because it's the school's program.

I guess the military must've got it all wrong then: http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=5814 Muslim Chaplain Deploys to Kuwait SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- Lt. Hussain M. Shaikh, a Muslim chaplain assigned to Commander, Amphibious Group 3, recently deployed to the Arabian Gulf in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and the global war on terror. Shaikh is one of only three Navy chaplains to wear the Islamic crescent moon pin on his left collar tip. His primary mission is to minister and provide spiritual care for all religious faiths in the fleet. As an Imam (leader or guide), Shaikh leads Islamic prayers, counsels Sailors and serves as an interpreter of the Koran, Islam's holy book. In 1996, the Navy commissioned its first Muslim chaplain after recognizing an increase in the number of Muslims in the fleet. ...which, of course, means that prior to 1996, non-Muslim chaplains had to minister to Muslim sailors.

http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/requirements.jsp ... CHAPLAIN REQUIREMENTS 1. You must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are: a. A clergy person in your denomination or faith group. b. Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army. 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.

No, it wouldn't be a violation of his religious rights, because he knowingly and purposely became a military chaplain, who is required to serve all soldiers. If he can't do that, he should resign. Your question is the same if the chaplain is, say Eastern Orthodox and the soldier Lutheran, and wants communion. From the point of view of the EO chaplain, the soldier may not be considered acceptable to receive communion, because the Lutheran church doesn't perform baptisms that the EO church recognizes as valid, so the soldier is not validly baptized, which is a requirement for receiving communion. But the EO chaplain is REQUIRED to serve the Lutheran soldier's request for communion, or get someone who will, regardless of whether the chaplain thinks he's qualified to receive it or not, because the chaplains job is to serve the needs of the soldiers, whose religious views may not match his.

Fred, I'm an atheist activist and I work for atheists' rights. Right now, government support of the Boy Scouts' discrimination against atheists is one of the most blatant violations of the first amendment, and I'm working to change that, either by the Boy Scouts allowing atheists, or by stopping all government charters to BSA units (and other unlawful government support). If there was, say, an all-white group that had public schools "owning and operating" their all-white youth groups in public schools, don't you think a few people might work against that?