Dept. of Defense & Jamboree

[evmori]

The ACLU has no interest in defending the Constitution! They have an agenda like eisely posted and it is not defending the Constitution! They want to stretch the discrimination portion of the 1st Amendment so far out of whack that it will be unrecognizable!

 

Merlyn,

If you are a true defender of the Constitution, you would be going after all groups that discriminate! The Girl Scouts do it! So do many many other groups. Your only interest here is self serving! That is evident by your posts! Go ahead call me stupid! Tell me I am a liar! That's is what you seem to stoop to when you are backed into a corner! Really shows your character! I will continue to pray for you! You really need it!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Eamonn, I'm not sure I understand your last post. Could you elaborate?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hey Ed, show me another group that discriminates against atheists like the Boy Scouts do while getting government largess and yes, I certainly will go after them.

 

NJCubScouter, I don't know what the supreme court would do; this ruling seems to have more to do with the federal statute covering the jamboree, and not the military's involvement per se.

[Fuzzy Bear]

NJ wrote, "In the end, that is what I think will determine the issue: Whether the government's actions can be seen as an endorsement of the BSA's policies."

 

Since the government and the BSA agree about their policies regarding God, look in your wallet, listen to Congress open their sessions; I would assume that their backing will continue. As far as discriminating against homosexuals, the military continues their, Dont tell or ask policy, which is covert discrimination. Congress and the military may not discriminate the same way that the BSA does but there are similarities. The BSA is a softer target. If the government does not endorse the BSA policies, then they would be remiss not to change many of their own actions but most likely they wont which will be to miss the example that is being made of the BSA.

 

FB

 

[Eamonn]

Hi packsaddle

You said

Eamonn, I'm not sure I understand your last post. Could you elaborate?

Mr. Westley, is trying to say that the DoD allowing the military to use the BSA to assist in its training is somehow linked to the Establishment Clause. Barnes-Wallace, 275 F. Supp. 2d at 1276 (finding that lease provided to Boy Scouts for city park was not result of religion-neutral process and thus violated Establishment Clause).

While some of the arguments may be the same I fail to see how these two matters are linked?

Eamonn.

 

 

 

[Proud Eagle]

Lets see

 

DOD gets to use Jamborree for training

 

they get to use it for recruiting

 

they get to use it for public relations

 

they recieve the benefits of the BSA's good will (such as BSA being receptive to working the DOD on other matters)

 

they recieve certain improvements at the AP Hill site

 

there is a clear body of statistical evidence indicating that Scouts are more likely than the average person to enter the military, this makes them a prime target for recruiting

 

there is a body of anecdotal evidence that BSA's programs give a person skills of use to the DOD, making them not only more likely buy also more valuable than average recruits

 

there is a long history of mutual support and cooperation with the aim of improving Americas national defense, both in times of war and peace, this includes everything from war-time scrap-metal drives to peace time emergency preparedness training

 

there is no other group with a comparable event that has a comparable relationship (in the cost benefit department) that can be used as a comparison to determine if DOD is discriminating

 

there is no difference between Congress allocating funds specifically for Jambo and DOD using discretionary funds for it, both are actions by the govt, both would involve expending money, both would be due to acts of Congress (one direct, the other inderect), and most spending must be approved by Congress, so even if DOD could choose how to use the money, Congress would still have to approve that so it still wouldn't pass muster

 

lets just hope this gets sorted out over time

 

as it is it is a mess that creates a great deal of unpalitible possible precedents such as:

no DOD training involving any non-govt group for fear of descrimination

no DOD recruiting at any descriminatory group's property or events

limits on DOD being able to make decisions involving private groups that may affect national security

little or no use of DOD facilities by private groups (for fear of descrimination charges), since after all allowing any use of govt facilities is a form of approval and it most likely comes at a cost to the tax payer

 

 

[packsaddle]

Proud Eagle, I follow your reasoning for most of the features you mentioned. The last one is a bit of a reach, however, because in the strict sense groups of two or more persons (i.e. families) are private groups and those will probably continue to use the bases for a variety of activities. For example, I can arrange to bring my church youth group (just as an example) onto Ft. Benning for an outing. As long as we were given equal access and were subject to the same rules as anyone else, there would be no legal risk (beyond getting lost or bitten by a cottonmouth ). I think the issue is related to preferential treatment (funding by DOD and discrimination by BSA) on both sides. My youth group would fall under the same situation if 1] we excluded persons from our group (which we don't, BTW) and 2] if special funding in support of our outing (and not in support of others) was allocated by the base.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

The BSA doesn't discriminate against atheists. The BSA has membership requirements like many other organizations. To be a member of the IBEW I need to be an electrician. If not, I can't join. Atheists don't meet the membership requirements of the BSA therefore they can't join! A boy can't join the Girl Scouts! Why? Because to join the Girl Scout one must be a girl! Membership requirement! You can call it discrimination if that make you feel warm & fuzzy. But in the end, it is a membership requirement! Nothing more. Nothing less. Start your own scouting organization that has a membership requirement that one must be an atheist to join!

 

Now, get back to editing that school list that is so inaccurate!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[JimmyD]

I've been at college since septmeber and I really don't post much but I do read the forums everyday. Merylin if it was to me I would've banned you a very long time ago. All you do is start trouble and i'm really sick of your little anti-scouting stance. Before you gone to say you have rights on this form you don't. You have a privledge to post here and just remember that Lincoln threw out habeas corpus and I wouldn't mind seeing something similar done here also.

[NJCubScouter]

Fuzzy Bear says:

 

Since the government and the BSA agree about their policies regarding God, look in your wallet, listen to Congress open their sessions;

 

When you get done looking at your money and listening to Congress, you might try answering the following questions:

 

1a. Can you be a citizen of the United States and not believe in God?

 

1b. Can you be a member of the BSA and not believe in God?

 

2a. In order to hold public office in the United States, are you required to pass any religious requirements or agree to any religious principles?

 

2b. In order to hold a leadership position in the BSA, are you required to agree to any religious principles?

 

2c. Are there any advancement requirements for youth in the BSA that are religious in nature?

 

If anyone answers anything other than 1. yes and no, 2. no and yes/yes, to these questions, then they have some reading to do. And if these are the answers, then it seems to me that the government and the BSA have very different policies regarding religion.

 

 

[evmori]

NJ,

One does not have to profess a faith in God to be a Boy Scout. One needs to profess a faith in a god to be a Boy Scout. Big difference. So the answer to #2 can be No.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, actually it was "1b" that said "God," not "2." I used "God" in connection with both the USA and BSA because Fuzzy Bear did, and it was his statement I was responding to. I suspect I could go back and find dozens of posts in which you use the word "God" in connection with the BSA. But if you want to change "God" to higher power, supreme being, god or gods, whatever you want, it doesn't matter. The point is still the same. You do not have to believe in any God, god, higher power, supreme being or anything in order to be a U.S. citizen and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Last time I checked that was not true of membership in the BSA.

[evmori]

NJ,

My bad! Oops!

 

So to be a member of any organization that receives public funding you are saying that if the membership requirements are different than those for being an American, they are wrong? If I'm not mistaken, to be an American all that is required is to be born in the USA or pass the naturalization test (after living in the USA for xxx years) if you weren't.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

Ed, in the interests of fairness, I have to say that you seem to throwing out "flamebait" in a manner very similar to what Merlyn does. For you to say something like "BSA does not discriminate against atheists," suggests that you are just trying to get a rise out of somebody, because you know that BSA does in fact discriminate--it's just that the discrimination is lawful, because BSA is private. But you already know that.

You also must already know that the issue here is whether the government can sponsor an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. Stop pretending that you don't understand it. Sure, it annoys Merlyn when you do that, but it wastes everybody else's time too.

You also know that the ACLU does care about defending rights guaranteed by the Consititution. You might not agree with their interpretation, or their tactics, but I, personally, am sick of your constant impugning their motives while you seem not to know (or pretend not to know) what they actually do.

Really, you and Merlyn should both give it a rest.

On the other hand, I'd be interested in reading Proud Eagle and NJCubScouter hash out whether the Jamboree benefits the government enough to avoid Establishment Clause problems.

[FScouter]

"... hash out whether the Jamboree benefits the government enough to avoid Establishment Clause problems."

 

Does anyone really believe that holding a National Jamboree is akin to our government establishing a national religion?