Merlyn_LeRoy

What doesn't make sense is the DoD's position. If you were accused of doing X, and you didn't do X, and doing X is legal, why sign an agreement not to do X? And, of course, the DoD's position that it never sponsored BSA units is clearly false, and not even supported by the Boy Scouts. Not even on www.bsalegal.org: "We understand that the Department of Defense intends to remind all military entities that they may not sponsor or charter traditional Boy Scout units. We have directed our local councils to work with the unit leadership to find an alternative non-governmental chartering organization, such as a VFW Post or American Legion." That second sentence only makes sense if the DoD sponsors some units. If there weren't any, there wouldn't be anything to DO. I expected higher calibre lying from Bush/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld.

Hey Fred, you'd rather deceive your own elementary school into practicing illegal religious discrimination and exposing them to civil rights lawsuits. With Texas being the biggest offender in chartering BSA units to government agencies, they're one of the main targets. To each their own. Hey unc, I don't know what Rob Sherman's license plate says. He lives in Illinois, I live in Minnesota.

Fred Goodwin writes: * Merlyn, how exactly does DoD sponsorship of Scout units violate the Constitution? Boy Scout units chartered by the DoD are the DoD's youth groups, the same as if a military base started, say, a youth baseball team. Since everything the DoD does is authorized through congressional legislation, they are subject to following the first amendment, including any youth groups they run for the benefit of soldiers and their dependents. Since at least Torcaso v. Watkins, government exclusion of atheists is considered to violate the first amendment. So, the DoD can't run youth groups that exclude atheists. * If a Catholic priest on a military base refused communion to an atheist soldier, would that be a violation of the First Amendment? Assuming he's an on-duty military chaplain, I'd say yes. Chaplains are required to serve the needs of all soldiers, and if they personally can't (for whatever reason), find someone who can. * If the ACLU's case were so good, why do you think they decided to settle this part of it? Because they got exactly what they were suing for; the DoD will no longer sponsor Boy Scout units. If this part of the lawsuit went to trial and the ACLU won, the results would be exactly the same - all DoD sponsorships dropped. Adam Schwartz mentioned to me that the ACLU would not agree to settle any other parts of the lawsuit, so they apparently want the other issues to go to trial.

Actually Fred, I'm going to test it from the other angle; 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.

The BSA changed the rules for Explorer Posts a few years ago to include gays and atheists, and I don't recall the roof caving in.

Well Fred, you're in a good position to be a test case; your Pack 2003 is chartered by Blattman Elementary, which is a public school. Since the school "owns and operates" the pack (to use the BSA's terminology), refusing membership to an atheist boy would set up a court case to settle the issue one way or the other. Are you game? Because I'd say you'd lose for sure. Just for your own information, ask your school if the school would be willing to own & operate a youth group that only allows atheists to be members; please note I'm not talking about just allowing a student group to meet, but have the school "own & operate" it in the manner of a Cub Scout charter - the school chooses the leadership, is responsible for making sure members meet the membership requirements, etc.

scoutingagain writes: I think the BSA needs to do a better job of choosing when these cases should be defended rather than wasting money on legal fees when the issues seem pretty clear. The BSA wasn't involved in this case at all; it was the ACLU v. DoD. Since the BSA is a private organization that can discriminate, the ACLU is making sure government agencies don't practice discrimination by sponsoring BSA packs and troops.

The predecessor to the DoD case, the Poloncarz case, is the only instance where the BSA opened up one of its programs to gays and atheists. http://archive.aclu.org/news/n020498a.html Back when Explorers were part of the BSA's discriminatory program and not Learning for Life, Chicago sponsored the City Law Department's Legal Explorer Post. When Kevin Poloncarz applied as a volunteer, he was rejected for being gay. The ACLU sued, and the above press release is the announced settlement where the city of Chicago agreed to drop 28 BSA units. A week after the above announcement, the BSA announced that Exploring would turn into "Career Exploring" and be moved into Learning for Life, and no longer discriminate, thus opening that program to gays and atheists.

unc writes: I find it interesting that you cast homosexuals out on their own. You said, "It isn't illegal for the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation." You don't seem to have a problem with this. I didn't indicate one way or the other; it's simply a fact. It ISN'T illegal for the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation. I haven't indicated if I think it should or should not be illegal. But that's a big hint why the ACLU didn't sue the military for discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation. You don't win court cases by making stupid, losing arguments. Speaking of stupid, losing arguments, the Dept. of Justice, which is acting as the DoD's attorney's, are trying to win by ignoring reality. If you read their press release on it: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/November/04_civ_751.htm ... In entering into the partial settlement agreement, DOD admitted no wrongdoing and expressly denied that it sponsors BSA organizations ... So, even though the Boy Scouts themselves have stated that the DoD sponsors organizations, the DoD is insisting they don't. And even though official base newspapers like this one: http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/SoundOFF/archives/SO2002/Feb28/html/Cover-Story.htm .. explicitly mention that Fort Meade's Provost Marshal Office is becoming the new charter organization, the DoD insists they don't charter any. And then the DOJ press release says: and, even if the Department of Defense were to sponsor BSA organizations, that any such sponsorship would violate the Establishment Clause. So, even if the DoD DID charter BSA units, the DOJ says it would be legal - but the DoD doesn't. So why did the DOJ agree to a settlement? They insist that the DoD doesn't charter units, and if they do, it would be legal. But (just for laughs, I guess) they'll agree to stop doing what they insist they don't do, and even if they did do it they wouldn't have to stop. But they will. If you know anything about judges, they really dislike being lied to. The DOJ is lying - and very, very badly. Even statements by the BSA damns the DOJ's insistence that they don't sponsor units, because BSA officials contradict the DOJ's lies: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=111704a4_dmscouts ... Davis-Monthan Air Force Base has sponsored Troop 784 for about 35 years, said Joseph Daniszewski, executive director of the Catalina Council of the Boy Scouts of America. ... I wouldn't be surprised if the judge specifically mentions the DOJ's dishonesty when she rules on the other issues in this case. Like I said, judges hate being lied to, especially when you're OBVIOUSLY lying to them, and yet you continue to keep lying to their faces. That's incredibly stupid on the part of the DOJ. So, if it makes any of the people in this thread a feel better, the lying and stupidity of the Department of Justice far, far outweighs anything I've seen here. In spades.

I'd say you're also too stupid to be in the military. How hard is it to understand that: it's illegal for the military to discriminate on the basis of religion it isn't illegal for the military to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation ...so that's why the ACLU sued on the basis of religious discrimination, and not sexual orientation. Duh.

Religious discrimination by the DoD is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution; none of your examples constitute religious discrimination. There is no federal law barring discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, so the military's policies are legal and constitutional. The ADA allows for legitimate physical qualifications; if you'd like to file a lawsuit against the military, go right ahead.

You're right ed, I can't answer your question, because you can't understand the answer. I could answer the same question asked by someone else, though.

Hey Hunt, I called you a liar because you falsely claimed that I would try to bar the Boy Scouts from access to government facilities. I've said that the Boy Scouts should be treated exactly the same as other discriminatory organizations, and since the military has the authority to require that all private organizations on base not discriminate, the question becomes whether the BSA and other discriminatory organizations should all be excluded or all be allowed. Since allowing the BSA would mean allowing e.g. whites-only groups like the KKK on military bases, I think the current military policy of excluding all discriminatory organizations is preferable, because of the prejudice that such groups can bring. However, military bases are not equivalent to "government facilities", and I would never bar the BSA (or the KKK) from e.g. demonstrating in city hall, a very different sort of government facility. beaver1onit, the Boy Scouts have religious requirements for membership; asking what religion the Boy Scouts discriminate against isn't the problem, it's that they reject some members solely due to their religious views, and the government can't do that, of course. acco40, thanks for the email explaining how I was misreading your opening sentence, now I see what you mean. I don't think there will be any effect on the jamboree until judge Manning issues a ruling, and even then it's certain to be appealed. NJcubscouter, see why I've given up trying to explain legal issues to ed?

But that isn't how you summarized my position earlier; 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," which is quite different. "Government facilities" are quite different from "military bases". And I would describe my position as "the BSA should be treated the same as any other discriminatory group"; that means the military can presumably bar all discriminatory groups equally, or permit all equally (though, as I said before, the military has a legitimate government interest in barring discrimination on its own bases). If the BSA is permitted on base while other discriminatory groups are not, they aren't being treated equally, they are again getting preferential treatment by the government.

whitewater writes: It sounds like Hunt correctly interpreted your intentions and yet you said "Hunt lies:" Nope, Hunt 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 this, nor is this my position, yet Hunt says this is something I "will" try to do. For one thing, it's well-established law that many government facilities (like public forums owned by the government) MUST be open to ALL groups; if a town has a public forum in front of city hall, the town council can't just allow groups they like to use it. How do you feel about military chaplains? It seems like they are even more discriminatory toward atheism than the Boy Scouts and yet your tax dollars are paying for them too. While I think chaplains should be handled differently, current laws on chaplains require that they address the needs of ALL soldiers, including atheists. Chaplains function as morale officers and duties such as suicide prevention and grief counseling, and are an unofficial channel for cutting through red tape. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers is advocating for secular humanist chaplains, and there is at least one offering his services unofficially: http://www.maaf.info/polchap.html (they understandably dislike being insulted by chaplains who repeat the old "no atheists in foxholes" lie)

acco40, you seemed to think I was opposed to this agreement (when I'm not) and the press release said that court action on Jamboree support is still pending, so *this* particular decision doesn't affect it, but a court ruling is supposedly coming "soon." As for lawsuits over military chaplains, the only active one I know about is a class-action suit against the Navy by a group of evangelical Protestants.

Not on US military bases, no. They aren't public accommodations, and the military has a legitimate government interest in preventing religious discrimination on their bases. And the Boy Scouts should be treated the same as any other organization that practices religious discrimination.

Current military regulations are inconsistent; some read "discrimination" while others read "unlawful discrimination." But by reading what the regulations prohibit (e.g. you can have a club that focuses on a particular ethnic group or culture, as long as membership is still open to everyone, and clubs focusing on other ethnic groups and cultures are treated equally), it seems that the military bans discrimination by private organizations on base that would be legal discrimination by private organizations off base - anyone can form a private organization that only allows people of Irish ancestry to be members, but if you're on a military base, you can't restrict membership only to people of Irish ancestry. So I read it to mean "discrimination", not "unlawful discrimination", and if the US military won't allow private groups on military bases to exclude, say, Catholics from membership, they have to apply the same standard to the Boy Scouts and not allow them on base as long as they exclude atheists from membership. Equal treatment, and all that. But we'll have to see what the military actually does.

Hunt lies: ... Merlyn and his friends will try to push the point further, to argue that government facilities can't offer access to groups that discriminate ... Hunt, stop lying about my position. I have never advocated that, and have stated that the Boy Scouts get the same access as any other discriminatory organization.

acco40, you don't seem to have read my posts or the ACLU press release very carefully; I have no problem with the agreement. The settlement with the ACLU only addressed part of the lawsuit; public funding and military support of the jamboree is part of the remaining lawsuit. Ed, I can explain why military sponsorship violates the first amendment, I'm just not going to bother explaining it to you, because you've previously shown you can't understand the issues. Now you've shown you can't even understand why I won't explain it to you. You are free to remain ignorant and be unhappily surprised by legal decisions that are baffling to you.

Ed, you don't understand the first amendment, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. It's like trying to explain algebra to someone still fuzzy on what "2" means. And if you think you understand the first amendment better than real lawyers from the DoD, all I can say is "Welcome to Fantasy Island!" Whitewater, read the press release - it isn't talking about "access", it's talking about SPONSORSHIP. The US military can't "own and operate" atheist-excluding youth groups, any more than it could run a youth group that excluded Jews. Do you think military bases could run youth groups that excluded Jews, as long as they had some other groups that accepted Jews? Remember, the non-Jewish kids who can join the "no Jews allowed" group can also join the groups that accept Jews, so the Jewish kids can only join some of the groups, while all the other kids can join all of the groups. Now change Jew to atheist, and you still have the same legal problems. Doesn't the fact that the DoD litigated this for five years before completely giving in give you a clue that government-sponsored discriminatory Boy Scout troops just aren't legal?

whitewater, I disagree with many of your assumptions in your argument, but instead of getting sidetracked on that, do you agree that the ACLU agreement is a step in the direction of "equal access for all viewpoints"? After all, the DoD is just telling base commanders to NOT practice religious discrimination by chartering atheist-excluding Boy Scout troops. Telling government agencies to NOT practice religious discrimination is not promoting atheism, but is instead promoting equal treatment on the basis of religion.

US Embassies can't practice religious discrimination either.

You're still incapable of understanding the first amendment, Ed, so it's pointless to try and explain to you why the Department of Defense (and their literal army of lawyers) decided to not even try to defend scout sponsorship by military bases. And Girl Scouts don't have charter partners, so your second question doesn't apply.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

No, 1,200 units chartered by various military organizations is what the court found during the discovery phase; I agree most of these are probably overseas, and Gregg Shields, the official BSA spokesman, said there were over 400 within the US. So 200 is way too low.