Scouts' $1/year Balboa Park lease ruled unconstitutional

[evmori]

NJ,

Congrats on moving up to the Boy Scout ranks

 

This is one of my soap boxes. I love this country & I love the Constitution. I also love my Lord, Jesus Christ. I pray the powers that be will see th light & realize the error of their ways & reverse their decisions regarding the separation of church & state. I doubt it will come soon, but it will come.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie]

let me see if I have all this straight. we all know what Establishment means, and we all know where Separation/etc. comes from. (We do, ya know.)

 

Nevertheless, we get a long harangue about not attributing to the Constitution that which is not there, which itself asserts 'Jefferson declared:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty [especially Religious Liberty], and the Pursuit of Happiness [Private Property]." '

 

So I'm not sure if we've been restricted to the Constitution, or to Jefferson. If Jefferson, then consider:

 

 

"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from

the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817.

 

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the

elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."

--Thomas Jefferson in re the Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

 

And here is where Jefferson gives precedence to the state over a religious acitivity:

 

 

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776.

 

Ok, regardless the inconsistencies - and there are ever so many available regarding Jefferson, the man public versus the man private - let's move on.

 

"The words written to protect religious freedom and independence are now used to suppress it..." seems bitter and awry. The words written are now used to declare that no religious position shall be supported if favor above, or to the detriment of, any other.

 

AND if anyone decries the lawyers and judges who have made this so - which of course must include SCOTUS - then I will assume that they disagree with the BSA decisions in the Supreme Court and will end up joining Merlyn anyway, who is in fact playing by the rules we have instead of saying that the rules were writ by idiots so we can ignore them. Which borders on anarchy.

 

Which isn't what this thread is about.

 

So... um - welcome aboard!

 

I guess...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Right, Littlebillie. A lot of people who claim to be big on "rules" suddenly sing a different tune when they find a rule they don't like.

[evmori]

(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Lythops]

let me see if I have all this straight. we all know what Establishment means, and we all know where Separation/etc. comes from. (We do, ya know.)

 

Balogna.

 

The vast majority of Americans today think the concept, even the phrase a wall of separation between Church and State is taken either from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It is a very common misconception. My apologies if I underestimated your understanding, but your comments support my assertion that the argument has shifted center. Original intent is no longer debated, not because the point has been conceded, but largely because of ignorance. Like I said before, the center of the fight has shifted.

 

So I'm not sure if we've been restricted to the Constitution, or to Jefferson.

 

Neither. You will not find that suggestion or a basis for that logic in my post. Ive not restricted the debate to either Jefferson or the Constitution. Im asserting exactly the opposite.

 

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (mentioned by Merlyn, and who was not so coincidentally himself a protg of Jeffersons) were great men, but their views were not always representative of those of their peers. Their greatness is no assurance that all of their opinions will be great.

 

I didn't quote Jefferson because he is a great man (Neither is that likely why Merlyn referenced Madison. Is Merlyn limiting the scope of the argument to Madison? Of course not.). The quotation I offered is the justification and a legal basis for our present government because it was adopted into law, not because Jefferson said it. BTW, the quotation lead to a question and it still stands.

 

It is also erroneous to infer as Merlyn did that since James Madison authored the original bill that his views were reflected in the final law or even the intent of the final legislation. In the case of the first amendment, his draft of the amendment was not the version passed into law. The ensuing revisions and the opinions of those who made them are equally significant.

 

Let's not view one aspect of one of the views of one founding father and ascribe to all the others. They were a complicated lot with both great ability and occasional faults. It was the aggregate of all their strengths and weaknesses that gave birth to the grand, new ideas set down in these stunning documents.

 

It is at the same time important to understand that the great majority of the founding fathers were religious by nature and demonstrated their beliefs in daily life. They held as a common value that the character development religion provides was an essential element that would contribute to the success of the democracy being formed. In the course of that development it was recognized that one religion must not come to dominate others due to state sponsorship and the practice of religion was not to be hindered by government. Those were the relevant big ideas discussed in the matter of government and religion. Religion was not considered a "thing" to be purged from government.

 

AND if anyone decries the lawyers and judges who have made this so - which of course must include SCOTUS - then I will assume that they disagree with the BSA decisions in the Supreme Court and will end up joining Merlyn anyway, who is in fact playing by the rules we have instead of saying that the rules were writ by idiots so we can ignore them. Which borders on anarchy.

 

What? Let me get this straight, are you saying you either have to agree with everything that proceeds from SCOTUS or none at all? Nonsense.

 

I agree Merlyn is playing by the rules. I've expressed no problem with that. My issue is with the corruption of history used to justify the decision. Mr. Black was a bit too active in his judicial review for my taste.

 

No one suggested the law be ignored. That doesnt just border on anarchy, that IS anarchy.

 

I dont think anyone is giving up on appeal for the Balboa Park silliness. The smug tone of Merlyns comment could end up being very short-lived. Public opinion seems to be growing against the more radical decisions generated by the lower courts. That will is a seemingly unstoppable force. Law is currently favoring Merlyns viewpoint, but one of the beautiful elements of democratic rule is the manner in which the will of the people expresses itself. It will be an interesting thing to watch develop.

 

[dsteele]

Lord, I don't know why I read these threads, and only You know why I respond, but here goes:

 

"On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

 

Read the above again if you have to, it's missing something important. But it would be a great oath if you wanted to breed only soldiers.

 

How about this one:

 

A Scout is

 

Trustworthy,

Loyal,

Helpful,

Friendly,

Courteous,

Kind,

Obedient,

Cheerful,

Thrifty,

Brave,

and Clean.

 

It's missing something, too. What might a person who represents only those values and with no belief in God be like? Well, I happen to agree that Merlyn -- who's mission irritates me to no end, seems to be exactly what he says he is. I respect and value that. I don't like the message he's spreading and fundamentally disagree with his dis-belief in God, but he's playing it up-front.

 

However, putting on my old Scoutmaster hat, would I, if I had been unable to attend a camp out, allow Merlyn to take my place and pass on his wisdom to the Scouts for the weekend? No. We were chartered to a Presbyterian Church, which is hardly a prostlytizing fundamentalist church (I like those, too) and we didn't always have a worship service on Sunday, but did try to get the boys home in time to attend their own service.

 

As far as any of us was concerned, God is not an option.

 

Just my two cents.

 

DS

[littlebillie]

'let me see if I have all this straight. we all know what Establishment means, and we all know where Separation/etc. comes from. (We do, ya know.)

 

Balogna.'

 

No, I don't think so. the 'we' to whom I refer are the regular participants HERE, who for the most DO in fact recognize that it's Esablishment in the Constitution and Separation elsewhere. We've ALL hit the books on that one at different times, and it's been trotted out here iteratively and at length. Had I meant "the American people", I would have chosen other words - perhaps "the American people". :-) (and YES - I totally realize this is a set-up for anyone to take a personal potshot at any single participant, but I think we're all pretty clear on it nonetheless.)

 

 

"What? Let me get this straight, are you saying you either have to agree with everything that proceeds from SCOTUS or none at all? Nonsense."

 

Yes, nonsense - but nonsense of a kind with any blanket statement - and there've been more than one in this thread. Yes - I attempted irony. Apparently I failed, alas... (Too, I think back on all the times folks've said "you can't pick and choose the rules you wanna follow - they come as a set." Different issue, tho', I suppose)

 

"Public opinion seems to be growing against the more radical decisions generated by the lower courts. That will is a seemingly unstoppable force. Law is currently favoring Merlyns viewpoint, but one of the beautiful elements of democratic rule is the manner in which the will of the people expresses itself. It will be an interesting thing to watch develop."

 

Sooo - what are you saying here about public opinion? Honest question - no snipe, no set up. It's just that Public Opinion has often been *criticized* here as being too much the PC flavor of the month, and the BSA holds to timeless ideals, etc. Are you saying public opinion SHOULD affect law and policy in this way - or are you simply saying it'll be an interesting show...? The unstoppable force sentence seems to approve of PO, but even so, I thought I'd ask.

[matuawarrior]

Usually I just lurk around the Issues and Politics to see what everyone gets riled about. I have to admit that their are members here who are passionate about thier beliefs or missions.

 

There are those of us who are on the side of God's Word and are very passionate about it. I know I am, but for a long time I've been a closet Christian. I usually felt as long as its NIMBY. I didn't have a problem with it. Now I feel different otherwise.

 

There are those such as Merlyn who go out of their way to stop the BSA from having units within the government: federal, state, and local. Although, I disagree with what he is doing. I have to admit that I admire the tenacity and passion that is the driving force behind his motives.

 

There are many but few: Atheists, Agnostics, ACLU, NOW, Gay/Lesbian organizations that would like nothing better than to see the BSA disappear. They are using every legal means to get their agendas heard.

 

BUT what are WE doing about it? The only time I see Christian Scouters say anything is after the fact. We go on the defensive just like in this thread. When are WE, as Christians, going on the Offensive? When are WE, as Christians, going to start fighting just as hard or even harder than Merlyn and his cohorts? I'm not talking about just posting on this forum. I'm talking of going the extra mile with the same drive that they have in fighting for our beliefs by visiting or writing the lawmakers that have the same values that we do. I have great respect for Ed and others who have stood by God's Word. I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I also believe that in order for an individual not to BELIEVE in God, that person would have to THINK that there is a God First.

 

 

 

It all starts with Faith.

 

Matua

 

 

[evmori]

matua,

Excellent point! It's time to stand up & be counted!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[dsteele]

Ed, Matua and others . . .

 

I have to, by nature of my commission, stand with the Boy Scouts of America within constraints. I have to admit I'm probably pushing the envelope with my participation on these forums.

 

In the vein of standing up, there is an organization outside of Scouting that is standing up in favor of the BSA. I used to get emails from them freuqntly.

 

I don't have the exact location, but I believe if you do a search for Grassfire on any search engine, you won't have difficulty in finding them.

 

DS

[littlebillie]

What is this Christians-against-the-rest-of-the-world tone that's just arisen? Can I get some clarification here? It's a little scary. What about Jewish, Hindu and Moslem Scouts - and Americans? Where do you see Catholics and Mormons in your Christian cry to arms? As I say - scary.

 

I do want to make one clarification pending a response to that, tho' - "There are many but few: Atheists, Agnostics, ACLU, NOW, Gay/Lesbian organizations that would like nothing better than to see the BSA

disappear." ACTUALLY - many would just like to see the BSA open its doors a little wider, rather than disappear. THAT is the preferred end result. Characterizing it otherwise is unnecessarily alarmist.

[acco40]

littlebillie, I think that there are extremists on both ends. Some would like to see the end of Scouting. Others, would just like Scouting to "open its doors" a little wider. Yet, some see the "opening of the door", to any extent, as the ruination of Scouting as we know it. C'est la vie.

 

 

[CubsRgr8]

Reminder #1: If we have faith () that the press is accurately reporting the judge's reasoning behind his ruling, it was the city's preferential treatment of a religious organization that is the issue at hand not BSA's membership requirements.

 

Reminder #2: BSA's membership requirements are both legal and constitutionally protected. Period. That includes requiring scouters and scouts of age to profess a belief in God.

 

I remain puzzled by littlebillie and others within scouting who would open the doors to atheists. Why does BSA exist?

 

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

These values include belief in God. There's nothing vague or imprecise about it. As leaders, we agree to serve as role models, doing our best to live out these values in our own lives while using the BSA program to teach them to scouts. Leaders need to be committed to teaching all of these values, not just some.

[NJCubScouter]

I want to "second" what littlebillie said. In particular, if anyone really does want Scouting to "disappear," those people really are irrelevant to the discussion of either the gay issue (on which I disagree with the BSA's current interpretation of its own governing documents) or the atheist issue (on which I can't object to the BSA's policy, as currently enforced, because it is based on the same documents, though I do think they were a little silly to file the lawsuit mentioned in this thread, because it looks like a sure loser to me based on past precedent, which Merlyn correctly recites. And now they have actually lost, at the lowest court level at least.)

 

The reason it is irrelevant is that as littlebille says, most people who object to the BSA policies simply want the BSA to change them. Many of these people are WITHIN the BSA and only have its best interests at heart. (If anyone questions the word "many," please consider that nine BSA COUNCILS -- not nine Scouters or nine units or nine CO's, but nine COUNCILS -- are on record asking the BSA to change its policy on the gay issue. (I'm not talking about the nondiscrimination policies that appear in articles that Eisely sometimes posts, and then the SE or council president always "clarifies" later that they were only talking about LFL -- no doubt after getting a call from National. I'm talking about resolutions that were actually sent to National, which if I am not mistaken, asked for consideration of "local option.") It's not a numbers game, and I don't doubt that the people who want to change the policy are a minority within the BSA, but it's not some tiny crackpot group that wants to destroy the BSA. On the gay issue, it's a bunch of people, myself included, who want to IMPROVE the BSA -- and by the way, we're right.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

So, CubsRgr8, do you think polytheists should be kicked out of Boy Scouts? Believing in multiple gods isn't compatible with monotheism.