As I write from Afghanistan, I am sickened that once again the ACLU is off the deep end. The Boy Scouts is a highly morale organization and is closely associated with the church, but I know of no one who was kicked out for not beleiving. I was an atheist as a Boy Scout and my Scout Master was both a physicist and lay minister. He knew of my beleifs and never pressured me to change them. His influence and friendship insilled a respect and grounding in Judeo-Christian beleifs that still grows today. What will the ACLU go after next? 12-step programs which also 'require' a beleif in a higher power.

I've never heard the Boy Scouts being so up-front about their proto-military character.

WP story quotes lawyer for the Boy Scouts as saying that Pentagon participation in the event is an important showcase for the military and has the potential to draw new recruits.

"The jamboree has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with having a stronger military," Davidson said.

Privacy rights for terrorists and legal action against the Boy Scouts. Let us not forget many of these kids dads and moms are members of the military. The ACLU is anti-military and anti-American. This has to stop.

ACLU is anti-American? I don't think so. They fight for ensuring the Bill of Rights (I believe they're still part of the U.S. Constitution last time I checked) are upheld. I can't think of anything more American than that.

As for the Boy Scouts and religion, back in 2002, the Boy Scouts required an aethist scout to declare his belief in a supreme being. And that's fine too. I just don't think MY tax dollars should go to some organization that forces its members to have a religious belief.

As a former Scout, I'd like to know, Do the Boy Socuts pay to use A. P. Hill?
If so, how much? Meaning is it a sweetheart deal?

What are DOD's expenditures for the Jamboree? - Including "Pre" and "Post" Jamboree costs.

If the Boy Scouts truly pay their own way, I don't have too much of a problem with it from a Church/State perspective. But, if the DOD is subsidizing them, like they did, and maybe still do, for the NRA national shooting matches at Camp Perry in Ohio, then I do have a problem with it.

I actually have more of a problem with allowing the Boy Scouts to use any Federal facility based on the Scouts' discrimination practices.

Hypothetically, if there was an Islamic Scouts organization that wanted to hold a Jamboree at the military base, would only the ACLU be upset about it? Private organizations that emphasize religion are religious.

Penn & Teller have a show on Showtime with an unprintable name (abbreviates to BS!), that started a new season on Monday, that went into the church ties and discriminatory element of the Boy Scouts. I find the ACLU's timing interesting, but I must agree with P&T _and_ the ACLU on this.

If the Scouts want to be able to pick and choose who they allow in, and require oaths that run counter to some people's beliefs, that is fine. They have that right under association. However, this means they are a _private_ organization, and should be required to avail themselves of any program available to the public at large, with no government subsidies. If they want to gain access to facilities denied to the public at large, and receive a subsidy from the government, then they should have to hew to the same rules as other public organizations. It's that simple.

One thing that P&T brought up that is not well known is that the problem the BSA has with gays and atheists is recent - the early 1980s or so. So this isn't an attack on scoutin as an organization, only on the discriminatory character they have adopted in the last quarter century.

There are a number of cases where atheists or gays were kicked out of the Boy Scouts and sued to be allowed back in. The reason that the Boy Scouts were allowed to do this by the courts was that they are a private organization that did not recieve gov't funding. If they want to use AP Hill, they should pay to rent it. Our tax dollars shouldn't go to support a group that will only let some of us join.

The Boy Scouts, by excluding atheists and gays, are teaching the opposite of the Scout Law. Where in biggotry, exclusion, and bias is the helping other people, the respect of the beliefs of others, the understanding of others, the treating others as he wants to be treated?

Why does the DoD have to subsidize the boy scouts? Why don't they try fundraisers instead of holding out for government handouts?

I am disturbed by how many people want to pass judgement over scouting based on a limited number of cases where specific scout troops showed their intolerence. For every troop that "forces" a scout or scoutmaster to believe in G-d, there are many like the one I was in as a boy that is perfectly open to athiests. And on top of that, everyone who argues against scouts on this matter also assume that Scouts force people to become Christians. I know many troops that are a majority Jewish or Muslim and while Scouting does encourage Scouts to be religious, it does not force them into a specific religion and does not descriminate.
I will admitt that Scouting has its problems, but sitting back and insulting an institution meant to develop boys into responsible young men is reprehensible. Scouting has suffered a decline in membership because too many people are quick to critisize the program, but are not willing to join as adult leaders and do their part to make it better and change the things they find offensive.

There may be reasons why the use of DOD resources for the National Jamboree is inappropriate, but the separation of Church and State isn't one of them. Scouts are required to swear an oath to do their "duty to God". This is the same God in whom the United States of America places its trust. No specific Church is endorsed by the Boy Scouts. In fact, there are Scouts of many different religions. The doctrine is for separation of Church and State, not separation of God and State. If the Courts say we must choose between God and the Constitution, I choose God.

As a Scouter, let me say that we do a lot of fund raising, so the next time you see some cubs selling popcorn, pitch in. Also the Scouts do have a policy about gays and religion, that is geared to helping rear kids who will contribute to society. There are 36 specific religious awards for faiths including Islamic, Budhist, Judaism, and the Unitarian-Universalist. So they are not picking on any one God, and the Unitarian as I understand it are pretty relaxed about it all. The point here is that the charter group has a lot to do with how people are accepted. So you can figure a Baptist church chartered troop might be a bit more strict then the Unitarian or Budhist. Now the subject of the DoD using Scouts as pool to draw from, remember they pool most of their recruits from the regular world an most of those kids think Scouts are not cool.
As to the DoD support of the program. The DoD must also provide equivalent support for other like organizations. See link: http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/resource_library/2005Deskbook/TabF/Army_Relations_with_Boyscouts.doc

Hey Assistant Scoutmaster in Rockville,

It's not one troop here or there that is kicking out atheists or gays. It's BSA. I appreciate that many individual troops are more open and accepting than BSA as a whole, but the fact remains that BSA discriminates. Sure, there are Jewish Scouts, Muslim Scouts, etc, but getting to chose which diety you follow is not a completely free choice. I choose no gods. Atheists are banned by the BSA. Gays are banned by the BSA. The BSA has lost it's way, and it's up to the more accepting and open troops to fix it. It's your organization, and if you fix it, then I'd be all for letting BSA use AP Hill or whatever other facilities they want. Until then, no free ride.

hey, self-proclaimed Naval officer, it's i before e. our constitution says no established religion, so no public money for the scouts.
also they are not some minor league team for the military, so butt out warriors.

Since other former Scouts are sharing their opinions of the organization, I'll contribute my two cents. I was a Life Scout in Oklahoma back in the early '70s. I vividly remember the trip our troop took to the 1973 national jamboree. It was the memory of a lifetime, and I mean that in both the positive and negative sense. It was positive in that it gave me the opportunity to see the western U.S. for the first time, and I was so captured by what I saw that I later moved out here. But I also saw plenty of the ugly side of Scouting, too. In my corner of the world, at that time in history, Scoutmasters tended to be ex-military types whose idea of "helping boys to be men" was typically long on bullying and short on nurturing. For example, there was the fat kid who got mercilessly picked on for the entire three weeks of the trip, and which the Scoutmasters did nothing to stop and in fact even encouraged; there were the sadistic, humiliating punishments inflicted for various petty offenses; and most vividly, there was the night outside Spokane that one Scoutmaster decided he would settle the difference between two of the boys by having them fight it out in front of the whole troop. It was sickening. My memories of Scouts are filled with mixed memories like this. I can't say what it's like now, but I can say that Deployed Naval Officer's description of Scouts as a "highly morale organization" [sic] doesn't sound like the Boy Scouts I was involved with. In my experience we were more akin to a bunch of hooligans who happened to like to go camping.

IF BSA takes federal money (and I'm not entirely convinced that they do), then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. That's how our country works. If you don't like it, you can go live in some country where religion and government are intertwined. Like Iran.

As long as the BSA pays rent for the land, it's not a problem. Lots of recreational activities by lots of groups, secular and religious, happen on federal land. As long as the BSA doesn't get preferential treatment I don't see the problem.

Don't know if BSA pays or not. The military gets benefits far beyond recruiting. This is a huge operational exercise in supply and logistics (think set up a city for 50,000 people from scratch), security, etc. How do they do it in war time? They practice.

So who has the facilities out there to host an event like this?

As to religion: Haven't you read about the military pushing religion on its members (Air Force in particular)? The military maintains a staff of chaplains (who are ordained in their various faiths. So based on that, should we stop sending our tax dollars to the military?

Isn't one of W's mantras "faith based initiatives?" Is the ACLU suing about that?

That miniscule amount of tax dollars for hosting the Jamboree does a lot more good for our kids than the fortune we are throwing at Iraq. The legal expenses and lost time will end up costing taxpayers more than a lifetime of Jamborees.

I am an Eagle Scout, and I can tell you that the OFFICIAL IN THE MANUAL NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT BECAUSE SOMEONE TRIED TO GET RID OF IT AND IT WAS VOTED DOWN BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS BSA policy is that if you do not profess a belief in a supreme being, and the jury is still out on Satan worshippers, you are to be dismissed. Period. My troop didn't care, and I know lots of other troops didn't care, but officially they are to be kicked out.

This sucks because the Jamboree was a lot of fun and the vast majority of people could care less about who is atheist, agnostic, gay, whatever, but I have to agree with the ACLU on this one. If the BSA wants to keep this stupid policy, this is what you get.

Only one thing on this subject from a former scout myself. I don't remember anything about religion being pushed on me or my fellows, so maybe that is a recent thing, dunno. The govmnt need to be fair, and to make them pay the same as everyone else. As for people being offended by the pratices of the BSA, be offened, nothing wrong with that. Ever thought that they are offeded that your offened??? Do you really all still think this is a "free" country? Think again!!

Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has approved the payment of state funds for text books in parochial schools. Keep in mind also that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared the Boy Scouts of American have the right to "expressive association" due to its core beliefs centering around the twelve concise points of the Scout Law. Keep in mind that Chief Justice Rehnquist authored that opinion on "expressive association" and that Chief Justice John Roberts was Rehnquist's law clerk. The Boy Scouts will win this one...easily.

The Boy Scouts are a private organization that actively discriminates on the basis of religion, gender and sexual orientation. They should be subject to the same restrictions as any other private organization that discriminates. The problem is the Boy Scouts want the freedom to discriminate without bearing any of the costs, i.e., the loss of subsidies from governments with non-discrimination policies.

God bless the BSA for its stand for God and country. The so-called "separation of church and state" ISN'T in the constitution. The government is allowed to have various religious groups use its property, just as atheistic groups can do so. The doctrine of establishment of religion is simply that the government is officially nonsectarian. Anyone who knows elementary US civics or has read the Constitution knows this. It is quite clear that this country is filled with God haters who would officially exclude Him from our national life; the organization for them is the ACLU!

We wave the obliderate the rights of contributors to our society, but support and defend those who try to bring down this wonderful country. Islamic terrorist like contribute heavily to the ACLU -- "Anti Christians Love Usama"

I thought it was Anti-Christ's Lawyers Union...

Wow! The level of ignorance here is incredible. Those of you who think the ACLU stands up for the Bill of Rights, need to come back to the real world, and do some investigating of the facts. The ACLU was founded by a socialist, and has done more damage to this nation with it's legal actions than just about any other organization or group this nation has ever known. The truth is out there, all you have to do is look for it. Stop believing everything you read in newspapers like the Post and the Times. Check with other sources. There are many reputable sources out there, producing reasonable, rational articles and books that reveal the damage the ACLU has done. An excellent place to start is:

http://www.acluvsamerica.com/main/default.aspx

Some things are right, and some things are wrong. It's that simple. When you stand against a group for being 'intolerant', well, that makes you intolerant as well! You morons who love moral relativism never seem to grasp that fact.

For the "discrimination crowd" (DC), God discriminates too! Only women can bear children. Black student unions discriminate too; they are for blacks and are funded with student dollars. Chess clubs also discriminate; they are for chess players-football players need not apply. The US government discriminates; it taxes people who earn good salaries more than poor people. Isn't that "good" discrimination according to the ACLU, NAACP and the rest of the DC? Restaurants discriminate; if you don't have money or clothes on, you don't eat. Society discriminates; pedophiles are excluded from teaching. Country clubs discriminate; only members can enter. And so on and so forth. What is the problem if the government wants to support activities that "discriminate"? In fact, it is compliment to have "discriminating taste" in food, fashion etc. But not for anything else? We need to support those things in society that glorify Christ and our nation, but others can have their own club too and hate those things ... and even receive money if they have some other useful purpose. The ACLU does some good things but their failure is that they don't "discriminate" between good and evil; they support all comers. The only folks the ACLU absolutely hates are anti-abortion protesters; they don't get "defended" and their "rights" don't count as much as those of Hamas or the IRA.

The ACLU does a lot of good work protecting rights and people while most of us just stick our heads in the sand. There is nothing anti-American about that. There is something anti-American about intolerance.

Look, some of the previous posters were in fairly liberal troops, and I'm happy for you, but the OFFICIAL POLICY is to discriminate. The BSA is not worthy of any form of support, and should not receive any government subsidies. Let them pray for funding, see how that works.

"Haven't you read about the military pushing religion on its members (Air Force in particular)? The military maintains a staff of chaplains (who are ordained in their various faiths. So based on that, should we stop sending our tax dollars to the military?"

No, because the official policy is that events where attendance is COMPULSORY should be nondenominational and inclusive. Optional sectarian services are still allowed, so stop whining.

"We wave the obliderate [m-w.com: 'The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.'] the rights of contributors to our society, but support and defend those who try to bring down this wonderful country. Islamic terrorist like contribute heavily to the ACLU -- "Anti Christians Love Usama""

Try posting in whatever your first language is, moron. Oh, wait, you're from flyover country, trying to be witty by making up words, so of course you are a monolingual troglodyte.

"Privacy rights for terrorists and legal action against the Boy Scouts. Let us not forget many of these kids dads and moms are members of the military. The ACLU is anti-military and anti-American. This has to stop."

Another neo-con jihad against the ACLU, whoop-dee-doo. So who is deserving of rights, who is it OK to sue in your book, and who is a terrorist? You just know them when you see them, right? Why don't we make you our supreme monarch? Oh, that's right, because we're a DEMOCRACY.

-Ashamed to have been a Cub Scout.

There is nothing wrong with being intolerant of evil, no matter what the "pro-Satan" crowd thinks. Not every choice or option is acceptable. The only rulemark is law or the Bible, and law without moral authority is just a version of "might makes right". The Holocaust in Nazi Germany and the Catholic Inquisition were "legal" but the "law" was wrong because it lacked God-given moral authority: There is no substitute. Period.

Yes, the level of ignorance here IS incredible. One shining example:

"When you stand against a group for being 'intolerant', well, that makes you intolerant as well! You morons who love moral relativism never seem to grasp that fact."

Yes, shame on those intolerant bigots who defame your precious KKK or white-power militia. THEY'RE the mean ones!

Is the ACLU out of its collective mind? Few organizations have the broad-based good will as the Boy Scouts ("he's a real boy scout" is now idiomatic). I don't know what they're thinking. The ACLU representatives insist they are not opposed to either religion or the values held by most Americans - but it's hard to take that seriously when they seem to focus on challenging 1) expressions of religion and 2) groups formed to support and further traditional values and lifestyles.

As a postscript to my previous comments, if my son expressed a desire to become a Scout, I think I'd sit down and have a heart-to-heart discussion with him about the forms that discrimination can take, and how hurtful it is to other people. Participating in Scouting is participating in discrimination, regardless of whether his troop actively practices it or not. His dues would help to support the BSA's unfair policies. The Scouting ideal includes being helpful, friendly, courteous, and fair. Does Scouting practice what it preaches? Is that the kind of organization he wants to belong to?

Then, after the talk, if he still wanted to join, I would respect and support him in his choice.

Beyond the issue of the ACLU's intent - doesn't this seem almost suicidal? Their choice of targets seems almost designed to undermine their credibility and public support.

Hello Cosmic Avenger:

On the basis of your smug comments, palpable frustration (paranoia?) with "flyover country" and tagline of "cosmic", I'm thinking that you're a burnout liberal arts grad student somewhere in NY of SF, a professional activist, a bitter Ralph Nader or John Kerry voter, or all of the above. Does that about sum it up?

To Cosmic Avenger:

You need to take more time and think about the postings of others before responding. My point, which you obviously missed, is that we SHOULD be intolerant of things that are wrong, such as the "KKK or white-power militia", which, by the way, are not precious to me. Let's remain adult here, and stop libeling others by making associations that are not true.

The problem is we need a solid foundation upon which to base our moral decisions. Those who follow moral relativism have no solid foundation, as I showed with my example. They claim to be tolerant, yet they are incredibly INTOLERANT or those who disagree. Their view point is self-contradictory.

According to the dictionary, a 'moron' is someone "having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education." Those who spout this garbage about tolerance without having thought the concept through would seem to fit that description; childish, uneducated, immature. Lucky for them (and you?), there is hope. Only time will tell.

Do yourself a favor and think about the issues first, then respond.

"they seem to focus on challenging 1) expressions of religion and 2) groups formed to support and further traditional values and lifestyles."

No, they pay particular attention to 1) a) coerced expressions of faith as a violation of the coerced person's civil rights, b) publically subsidized expressions of sectarian religion as a misuse of public resources, c) public sectarian expressions of religion by government representatives *in their official capacity* as discrimination by an agent of the government, and 2) using goverment funds to promote any particular lifestyle or religion. Of course, people like you think there's only one legitimate religion, lifestyle, and viewpoint, so you see nothing wrong with having it subsidized.

I busted my a-- to earn my Eagle Scout and it used to be something I was very proud of. I had a WONDERFUL experience in Boy Scouts growing up, and as a previous poster noted, I think that has a lot to do with who ran my Troop. Luckily for me, they taught me many important life lessons. As far as I know, it was run by a bunch of atheist ex-Marines who didn't care what we believed in or what we did with our boyfriends/girlfriends. That aspect (religion and sexual orientation) was wholly outside the point of BSA, as far as they were concerned. I never realized, until I was older, the degree to which the national organization was exclusionary and bigoted. (Of course, I should have known there was something wrong with the national organization, since our Scoutmaster regularly derided the "redjackets," those who would show up to camporees in full uniform and be sticklers for dumb rules; we weren't anarchic by any means, but we certainly did things our own way.)

Unfortunately, I don't think I could ever be involved in Scouts again or let my son join, since BSA has decided to throw itself fully into the culture war. So much for having fun and learning to be a responsible adult. Apparently it's more important to profess belief in their God and publicly announce you love chicks - then it's okay to hang out with you.

All the above posters wouldn't have to jump to BSA's defense and slam the ACLU if it weren't for the BSA's stupid insistence to continue to exclude people who aren't dangerous.

If more people were involved in scouting, parents and kids alike, I can guarantee you the world would be a better place. A local Cub Scout pack was denied use of an elementary school cafeteria for it's meetings because of these new guidelines about "appropriate" use. The pack folded because it couldn't find a new location, much to the detriment of the kids and the community. Its just another case of the vocal few pulling the rug out from under the majority.

ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class... Communism is the goal."

That's BS, DS. "Yay, I found some sort of comment by the founder of the ACLU which I'm going to pretend is what the organization still stands for! I've proven my point, yay!"

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thos. Jefferson

There, now I've proven my point that our country should engage in armed revolution against our own government, because one of our Founders once said that. Or, more to the point, how about this one:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, THUS BUILDING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE." - Thos. Jefferson

ooooo... BURN!

This is actually from the ACLU website. I challenge any of you to disagree with its mission statement (and still proudly call yourself an American and, where relevant, a Christian).

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

"Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

"Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

"Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

"Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

"If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."

http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

"I'm an Eagle Scout...":

A very feeble attempt to detract from the reality of the ACLU, which is at issue in this forum. You've excerpted quotes from TJ, out of context; quotes from several centuries ago; another time and place. Mr. Baldwin founded his organization relatively recently and Strossen and Romero are basically his progeny.

With respect to TJ, my guess is that he would find the ACLU's roster of cases and positions as generally antithetical to what he stood for.

Regards,

DS

The BSA wants to have it both ways: they say they are a religious organization when it suits them (to exclude atheists, agnostics and gay people) but when anybody expects or demands that they be treated the same way any other religious organization would, they cry foul. Well boo hoo hoo. Suck it up and have the courage of your convictions.

"people like you" ?

Let's try not to go ad hominem here. I would suggest a few things.

First, many find it difficult to find any material "coercion" in the bulk of the cases the ACLU chooses to pursue. When they appear to focused on exterminating even de minimus public expressions of faith or values - regardless of whether they have any real significance or meaning - it at least looks like they're opposed to the expressions, and not on any actual harm to innocent bystanders.

Second, one would be hard pressed to describe the Boy Scouts as sectarian. They do adhere to values based on the great monotheistic relions of the world, but beyond that there is little or nothing of a particularly religious nature to the organization - much less affiliation with any particular religion.

Third, any functioning society must have a minimum moral and ethical consensus - otherwise it would be impossible to establish mutually agreed-upon laws and standards of behavior. That consensus may be, but does not have to be, based upon any particular religion. Nonetheless, like it or not, the majority of people in this country do rely on religious faith to inform their understanding of morals and ethics. This is not inconsistent with the lack of any officially established religion.

Fourth, it's a step to far to say that government funds cannot be used to promote any particular lifestyle. Of course they can - that's the purpose of:
<> Laws prohibiting murder, incest, child abuse, polygamy, under age drinking, prostitution
<> Programs promoting safe sex and recycling
<> Tax credits for hybrid vehicles
<> Programs discouraging drug abuse, smoking, teen pregnancy, child immunizations and healthy eating

Our government promotes and discourages all sorts of different kinds of behavior - and appropriately so.

Like it or not, our laws will ultimately be shaped by a societal consensus of how we should be governed, what behaviors are acceptable, and what behaviors are not acceptable in a civilized society. Some will say that homosexual marriage should be sanctioned by society, but smoking tobacco should be prohibited (how about smoking marajuana?) Unless those positions are completely arbitrary, there has to be some moral theory behind them. Many more will say that homosexual marriage should not be officially recognized by society. Many - not all - of those individuals come to that conclusion based at least in part on their religious beliefs. There is nothing in our constitution that could - or should - prohibit their full participation. You may find the basis of their moral reasoning objectionable (do you ever wonder how the basis of your moral reasoning appears to them?) but that doesn't give you any right - or the de-factor political power - to exclude their views from the political debate.

The problem I see for the ACLU is that it often appears to be trying to do exactly that - exclude from our public life any moral reasoning that is not based on either a relativistic or a purely materialistic basis. That is simply not where the majority of Americans are. The ACLU does try to put forth a public face that they're only supporting free speach, but that is becoming less and less persuasive as they consistently oppose speach that has any religious content.

I'm the Eric who thinks the ACLU should be disbanded, not the Eric who was singing their praises.

Enough with the empty slogans. I've read many articles and books about the damage the ACLU has done (see web site mentioned above, and the book by the same name, for example). Show me the 'good' the ACLU has done.

If good is standing up for the murder of un-born human babies, then yes, they've done good. If good is allowing Islamists to proselytize in public schools (yes, it HAPPENED in California, only a short time ago), then yes, the ACLU is doing good.

If good is forcing the American people, who, when allowed to vote on the issue (remember Democracy, Cosmic Avenger?), OVERWHELMING vote against homo-sexual 'marriage', to accept something that violates their morals and principles (isn't that EXACTLY what the BSA is accused of doing? Forcing someone to violate their morals and principles by acknowledging God?), then yes, the ACLU is doing lots of good.

The ACLU might be doing 'good', if they were to leave the legislation up to the people (there's that Democracy thing again, Cosmic Avenger!) and not force their morals on the people, by way of activist judges. The majority, who do not accept those morals, have good reason. By the way, that is what democracy is all about, the majority. So unless so aspect can be shown to be morally wrong (can not be done with moral relativism, by the way!), the majority is SUPPOSED to rule in a democracy.

The irony is that, through their alleged zeal to defend the constitutional (which includes religious rights/freedoms of ALL Americans), the ACLU is now seen ny many as persecutors of those who have religious convictions.

It is not the mission statement of the ACLU that is problematic, it is their complete lack of context. Do they really believe that the framers of our constitution would really care whether or not Fort AP Hill hosts a boy scout jamboree every four years? Of course not.

The framers had context and conviction. The ACLU has only the latter and that is what alienates their narrow gaggle of activist lawyers from a great number of Americans.

This just proves that the ACLU defends those who would rape boys and attack those who would help them.

It should be the A-ACLU. They always seem to take the anti-American stance. Why do they always look for ways to tear down the good? They say they support the principle of freedom of speech. The intent of the framers of the constitution was to ALLOW tolerance and freedom of expression and dissent, not to highlight & idolize those things. Elevating trashiness, nastiness and baseness above the well-being of the people does us no good. It only divides & separates (like a good bra ;-).

And, excuse me? "It is exactly BECAUSE the BSA enjoys such widespread support that someone needs to challenge them." We need to challenge organizations that help develop our young people's character BECAUSE they enjoy enormous support? Logic?

Does "A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE" mean that people cannot be their whole selves in public? Is the public so fragile that seeing a public expression of faith will somehow shatter something you hold dear? I do not understand how a strong healthy person can be offended so easily by allowing another person to be true to themselves. Do you really think Thomas Jefferson intended to rip all things dear to people away for fear of offending others?

To Paul:

How about the First Amendment?? Doesn't specifically state "separation of church and state" but Supreme Court has upheld that.

From the Americans United for Separation of Church and State website. Doesn't mean I am a God-hater, just that I think religion and government should be separate.

The First Amendment's religion clauses state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The Establishment Clause forbids more than the establishment of a national religion; it also forbids laws or actions respecting an establishment of religion. As James Madison, Father of the Constitution, put it "The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion." In a January 1, 1802 letter, President Thomas Jefferson wrote of the intended relationship between religion and government: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The Establishment Clause sets up a line of demarcation between religion and government in our society, and the Supreme Court determines where the line is drawn to accommodate liberties in our ever-changing society. Although the exact language is absent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that the Constitution does indeed call for separation between church and state.

Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" was first noted by the Supreme Court in an 1878 opinion by Chief Justice Morrison Waite. Justice Hugo Black later reaffirmed the wall's significance in the landmark case Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" The wall forbids government to actually or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over non-religion and vice-versa. Requiring neutrality removes the authority of government from religious practice and protects each citizen's right to express his or her personal beliefs.

I think that I'll have to get out my Junior Woochucks' Manual to get the answers to some of the philosophical issues raised above. Only God and the Junior Woodchucks would know what the true answers are.

Although a blog is not a scientific survey, I found it interesting as to how many former scouts commented on their positive experiences in the scouts, but support the ACLU in its action. And, the number of people with reasoned approaches to the dilemma.

Because the discrimination policies of the BSA sems to have overtaken the Church/State issue in the blog, I have to wonder if Lord Baden-Powell would be allowed to be a memeber of a BSA troop which follwed the rules strictly?

Kevin: Your dilemma about having to choose between God and the Constituion was solved by Christ. In the New Testament, Luke (20:25), Mark (12:17) and Matthew (22:21) all quote him as saying, "Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." Looks like the good ol' Constitution trumps God, at least in the Civil Affairs of State.

Paul-2: How the heck did Hammas and the IRA ever get into the merits of an ACLU action aginst DOD for being in bed with the Boy Scouts?

I cannot help but notice how everyone here who is defending BSA and slamming the ACLU is implicitly arguing for a Christian America. Which is all fine and good, except that (1) the Constitution does not support you (at least not anymore than it supports my position that we should not be a Christian country), and (2) it only really works out if the majority wants it to be a Christian country. If the majority wants it to be anything else, you're screwed. If you appeal exclusively to the base instincts of the majority, then this great experiment in democratic repulicanism is doomed. What makes this country so great is that it protects certain fundamental rights even for minorities. Now let's actually protect them, rather than constantly trying to undermine them.

One day -- no matter how hard we try to keep out the "others" (namely, those pesky Mexicans!) -- you're going to wake up and be the minority, and you're going to regret being so short-sighted about minority rights.

And I say this from the point of view from someone who is (1) an American, (2) Christian, (3) white, and (4) a card-carrying conservative (although I'm sure the Religious Right wants me out of what used to be the GOP, but now seems to be the Christian Republican party. anyone else remember the principles of limited govt?). Proceed to tell me how godless and wrong I am...

I'm not arguing for a Christian America. Religion is completely unimportant to me, even though I barely meet the BSA requirements for faith and my faith is non-Christian.

BTW, I am an Eagle Scout. Scouting taught me any number of values about leadership, responsibility, compassion, service and on and on.

One of the things the Boy Scouts taught me is to take a stand for what I believe is right.

The ACLU never taught my any of these things. It just taught me to keep my children away from their clients, for their own safety.

Lyn,

My point is that because they represent the majority, they are not acknowledging that they are infringing on the fundamental rights (and I can call them that, because the text is in the Constitution, it's not a penumbra) of minorities. The majority of the South supported Jim Crow laws, remember. That didn't make the entire South terrible, but it meant that someone had to stand up to that aspect of it. Same here, someone has to stand up to this aspect of the the govt giving money to the discriminatory BSA. (I'm conflating some arguments here, but I also used to skip steps on my math homework, doesn't mean I got the answers wrong!)

And, yes, I think Jefferson, and a lot of other Founders, had a greater degree of "anti-Christianity" in them than most current Evangelical Christians would like to acknowledge. Remember, TJ was the one who wrote his own Bible, taking out all the miracles and such. George Washington was the one who used to go to a different church in Alexandria each week so no one could tell if he went every week. They had perhaps a more vivid understanding of what it was to have a state religion. We have yet to fully experience how terribly wrong that always ends up, for both state and religion, nevermind the poor citizens. They weren't against Christianity, but they most definitely had a different understanding of it than most of the posters today do.

Wow... comparing the Boy Scouts to Jim Crow... that defies logic...

eh . . . first thing that popped in my head. somewhere in there was my point, though.

on second thought, I was comparing BSA to the South, and BSA's "requirements" (how does being straight make you better at tying knots?) and Jim Crow laws. obviously an inflammatory exaggeration, but I do think it's not a completely unfair comparison.

(I had to change my handle cuz I can't taunt you... you have inside knowledge.)

Jacknut,

I wonder where hating atheists and homosexuals fits into this:

"Scouting taught me any number of values about leadership, responsibility, compassion, service and on and on."

I don't disagree with you that Scouting taught me those things, but I wonder why the jump to hating the godless gays (which seems antithetical to everything else they taught me)?

The constitution clearly doesn't forbid government religious activity, which is different than endorsement per se. The famous "Jefferson Letter" was written to a Baptist pastor in reference to the Peace Treaty of Tripoli in 1799, and was noting that the US isn't formally a "Christian Nation" (in Jefferson's OPINION), but rather that Muslims could expect to have rights in the US; this allowed the Muslim government (pirates!) at Tripoli to conclude a peace treaty (which they broke soon after). THAT'S ALL it means.

President Jefferson was a well known unbeliever in his day; that is why he wasn't allowed to "write the constitution" without editing by other men, some of whom were Bible believing blood-washed Christians. What the Supreme Court has done with one president's letter is indeed amazing, but the government can still work with religious groups. For example, catholic hispitals receive Medicare fees, the US army PAYS Muslim, Jewsih, Christian and SATANIST chaplains with "our tax dollars". Your money says "in God (not Allah or Buddha or the Great Secular Man) we trust"; there is a reason this is so, and it was begun after the mid-1800s, not in 1776 or 1787.

"I'm an Eagle Scout",

I don't think that anyone is questioning the fact that TJ was a Deist (God as the "clock-maker", who takes off to leave humanity to their devices), and that his views of state and religion may have been opposed to those of, say, Evangelicals or anyone who may prefer the image of a more interventionist God that needs to be semi-intertwined with the state.

What many people are saying here is that it is HIGHLY unlikely that TJ and the rest of the founding padres would have identified with many of the clients and cases the ACLU has chosen to take on. Therefore, to me, extending the 1776 philosophy to the ACLU in the here and now seems highly dubious.

Ah the terrible, all-powerful ACLU! They must be in cahoots with all those communist, activist judges who are waging a war on my Christianity!

Look, I said somewhere way up top (or meant to, at least) that I don't agree with everything the ACLU does. if I bothered to look into it, I probably wouldn't agree with 99% of what they do. But they are certainly not anymore "quasi-governmental" than Jack Abramoff, Big Tobacco, the NAACP, the AARP, or the NRA, or anyone else who has enough money to throw their weight around. And they're certainly not inhibiting anyone's religious "freedom." One of the reasons the "War on Christmas" didn't get widespread traction outside the "Justice Sunday" crowd is because there's no war on Christmas. Your Christian rights are protected because the vast majority of Americans are protecting them. You are still going to be able to go to your stadium-sized church every Sunday and comfortably surround yourself with folks who look and think just like you. You're going to be able to tell your mailman "Merry Christmas," even if he's Jewish. I cannot think of a single case where someone's fundamental religious rights were taken away by a Supreme Court decision (and granted, I haven't studied them in a few years, but still).

What the "godless" ACLU, has done for the most part, is try to keep the govt from subsidizing religious organizations. Now that may be too extreme for your taste (although you seem to be awful derisive of the "Satanist chaplains", so is it just Christian chaplains you want funded? See why no money is an easier position?), but it's a defensible position whether you're more of a "clockmaker" person, a "Bible believing blood-washed Christian" (what the hell is that, anyways?), or just a plain old agnostic.

If we believe that the ACLU is opposed to the things we hold most dear, we should do everything that is moral, legal and within our power to oppose them.

It is time to go home folks. One last detail: You don't have to "hate" to be "intolerant" of evil. I don't "hate" pedopjiles but they still need to be locked up. In truth, Jesus Christ commands us to "pray for those who despitefully use you", but at the same time He empowers government (not the individual) to use the "sword" to execute (criminal) justice.
People who are unbelievers have a right to be so, but it is a tragedy that no one has ever sat down with them and showed them how much Christ loves them and died that they might not be slaves to sin, which is really what all of us are talking about. Jesus said that He came to save the world, not condemn it, but He still made a clear distinction between good conduct and the sinful actions that are common to ALL OF US, including yours truly. But society dies when it endorses sin; history has made the point endlessly.

First, let's kill all the lawyers!

Of course, the true meaning behind that statement was once we get all the lawyers out of the way, we can proceed with the revolution. So, maybe it is what you people want - get rid of the pesky ACLU and then establish your theocracy. Bring on the End Times, and the good Bible-believing, bloodwashed Christian Boy Scouts can be our army!

And what is sin, Paul-4? Associating with atheists? Associating with homosexuals? Being Jewish and not accepting Jesus as your savior?

When society grows beyond a small enclave -- such as, say, Plymouth, Massachusetts -- it has to realize that not everyone is going to believe in the same thing. And that society can either structure itself to absorb and protect those differences, or it can devote itself to conforming everyone against their will. Which would you rather live in?

Anyone remember the closing argument in "A Time to Kill"? Now imagine that little girl is white.

Now imagine you don't run the country...

I agree that many political groups that support REPUBLICANS are EVIL. I am not a republican, I am a Christian. May Christ bless you with spiritual understanding in these matters. There is a Judgement Day coming for us ALL. "There is none righteous, no not one" ... "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me". Decide for yourself if it is true. "There will be a Test" .....

To tack on to what anonymous has said above, if you look at some of the ACLU's press releases ("ACLU rebukes DOJ"; "ACLU demands that the White House..."), they really do come off as believing that they are a fourth branch of government. That is what's highly disconcerting about what they do, and the sway they appear to have with the judiciary. What's more unfortunate is that a more reasoned and context-aware civil liberties group has not materialized to assume the mantle the ACLU has bestowed on themselves.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the ACLU is probably one of the least powerful organizations in this country currently. Who is receptive to their arguments (assuming they are as crazy as you assert)? Congress? The President? The Supreme Court?

Implicit in your argument is still that what you stand for is good and Christian, and what the ACLU stands for is not allowing you to impose your Christianity on others. There's no other way to interpret your comments. Because I can't find a single instance where the ACLU has impeded true speech. Is making sure govt money is not spend to support religious organizations infringing on free speech? That is a HUGE jump in logic to me, particularly when the govt SHOULDN'T be subsidizing religious speech. That doesn't mean that the ACLU (or the govt's lack of funding) infringes a religious group's right to speak. It's just that the religious group has to go find money to support itself to do its speaking.

Which is how it should be.

Sin is any conduct that disobeys the written Word of God. But man is not the final judge, Christ is. I pray you make the right choices, but you are free to make the wrong ones. But that doesn't mean that society must protect and promote them. Law must make a stand somewhere and it may as well be on the side of righteousness instead of sin. Liberty isn't being a libertine. Freedom isn't license. You get to choose.

How is a group challenging the govt wrong? Every single one of us should be challenging the excesses of the govt. I rebuke DOJ constantly, I just wish I had the purse to take them to court and do it officially. I make demands on the WH all the time, I just wish I had the money and access to do it directly. This is a DEMOCRACY, citizens of America are allowed -- indeed, they should be required, to challenge our govt. And if the ACLU is so crazy, it shouldn't be winning court cases. But maybe not everything they do is so crazy afterall. Maybe this is just another aspect of our imperfect, sloppy political process.

I'm amazed at the number of people who just don't get this.

The BSA currently uses Fort AP Hill free of charge, essentially a gift from the DoD of the normal rental costs.

The BSA currently officially bans atheists, because the Scout Oath and Scout Law both require religious belief.

Fort AP Hill is a public (owned by the govt) accomodation, and Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

The ACLU is asking that either the BSA ends the ban on athiest Scouts or the DoD follow the law.

The ACLU isn't trying to destroy the BSA, just make them follow the law. The BSA really does discriminate against athiests and gays, and they have gone to the Supreme Court to preserve their ability to discriminate.

I would like to remind all that the oath of office for the President of the United States and other Federal officers ends with the phrase "So Help Me God"

You're right, I get to choose. And my govt doesn't get to make that choice for me. And the Constitution says there are certain choices that are protected.

And you imposing your version of Christ's judgment on me is one of those things that's not allowed.

"If my neighbor believes in twenty gods or no gods, it does not pick my pocket or break by leg and therefore it's no harm to me." - Thomas Jefferson

Anything beyond picking my pocket or breaking my leg is of no concern to the American government, but should be settled either with you and yours at church on Friday/Saturday/Sunday, or with you and God.

Publius: Please, by all means, challenge the excesses of govt. and all the power to you. However, when you also try to target the social, economic and religious fabric of the country (see the ACLU founder's stated intentions as summarized above), one cannot help but become concerned over the course of your litigation.

Thanks, Harry. and that's strictly by tradition (i.e., it's not in the version of the oath codified in the Constitution). I hope at some point someone has the balls to omit it.

Next you're going to remind me our money says "In God We Trust"

which was nothing more than a cheap 1950s political ploy to separate us from those terrible godless Communists (see, God must love us, Communism died and we survived!).

Fort AP Hill "hosts" many events in that it lets groups use facilities (land, bunk rooms) when such activities do not interfere with Army functions. Food is the reponsibility of the attending organization. The attending organization is responsible for ensuring that facilities are left in the same condition as found. You can think of it as a "no cost campground."

I'm about as adament, hard-over for separation of church and state as anyone I know. But even I don't see a problem with this.

Alan, did you just refer to the BSA getting a free weekend at a military installation the "fabric" of our society?!

Need I remind you that somebody got ELECTROCUTED AND DIED at Jamboree? Liability reasons alone I don't want those kids running around govt property.

Besides, what if some sort of terrorist infiltrates the BSA by pretending to love Jesus and then blows up one of our military bases?

The BSA and other organization use state and national parks, for camping and other recreation, all the time, presumably at some level of taxpayer expense, without this type of scrutiny by the ACLU. What exactly is the difference if they use unoccupied land on a military base which, as noted by Bob, is often opened to a range of organizations?

ACLU has turned into a loose cannon. They will take increasingly volatile issues and run them through the publicity mill for their own benefit. If their goal is to separate tax dollars from religious interests, lets see them take on all the tax breaks given to religious institutions, aid to Israel, and US currency itself. Kudos to BSA for standing for their time-honored values.

Publius:

By extension of your argument, your kids should not be allowed to run around any local, state or national parks, nor public school playgrounds. How far should we take this?

Whats the DOD doing promoting the Boys Scouts? Is this some kind of youth movement, where when they grow up, they wear belt buckles like this one that German soldiers wore in WWII, that said, translated, "God is with us".

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/herman/gottmituns.jpg

I agree with "Eagle Scout." I too am a former Eagle Scout and had a wonderful time in scouting. I also have to agree with "Eagle Scout" in saying that I am having some problems with having my son being involved in Scouting since BSA has decided to get mixed up in things that I don't think that they should worry about. I finally decided to have my son join a Cub Scout pack because I had fun in scouting and I want him to have a chance to do some of the things that I did when I was his age. However, I am going to keep a close eye on the goings on in the national level to see if this institution really has my son's best interest in mind. I saw a lot of the dilution of the real mission of the Boy Scouts of America when they started moving away from teaching outdoor skills and to preaching morality when I was getting out of scouting in the late 70's - early 80's. That is when they moved the headquarters from New Brunswick, NJ to Irving, TX. It is my opinion that this change was due to the Boy Scout leadership was listening to its big donors (most of who belonged to the conservative religious right) instead of its members. When William Dickson Boyce, the Chicago publisher that brought scouting to America, met the unknown scout he was impressed by his concern and willingness to help. He did not ask him his religion or his sexual orientation. I think that BSA needs to get back to this issue and not all these side issues.
The Boy Scouts were established by Lord Baden Powell because he saw his soldiers in South Africa did not know how to live off the land or find there way. When Lord Powell came back to England, he started a movement that aimed to teach boys how to live off the land, get around and survive in the wild so he and the military cadre that came after him didn't have to teach it to all of the soldiers. The military sees this experience and would like to tap into it. So in ways it is a recruiting aspect that the DoD helps sponsor Boy Scout functions.

I went to numerous Camporees and Jaborees that were held on military reservations or state or federal parks. I know that each troop attending had to pay a reservation fee so that the troop or council that was sponsoring the event could pay for the resources that they used (logistical, trash, security etc.) at the location. I would hope that the same is true today and the Boy Scouts are paying for the use of the land and what resources they use when they are on state or federal land.

"When William Dickson Boyce, the Chicago publisher that brought scouting to America, met the unknown scout he was impressed by his concern and willingness to help. He did not ask him his religion or his sexual orientation."

Well, that's because Mr. Boyce had no reason to at the time. Quite frankly, most of the scouts of his day were probably of the same racial, ethic, relgious and sexual persuasions. In later years, sexual orientation, in particular sort of foisted itself on the scouts as an issue and, quite frankly, the scouting leadership found itself in the position of having to maintain the integrity of its organization in the face of the moral decline of the 60s and 70s. So, please go ahead and accuse scouting of not changing with the times and the whims of popular culture. However, I would not buy into the argument that scouting has shifted from its roots.

The BSA broadly represent things about the USA that are good and wholesome; sodomy isn't "good and wholesome", which is why homosexuals are excluded from leadership. Every group has standards. This is a good thing. The GLAD folks are just as free to have their group in peace. Official government neutrality allows both but doesn't require the government to subsidize (directly or indirectly) in any way. I would hope that the military and the ACLU would BOTH exclude NAMBLA from using their facilities, but they can still have their group and opinion. The "line" is when NAMBLA attempts to translate opinion into action; then they go to jail. A valid government can't stand for anything and nothing, so we must corporately choose what we wish to stand for. Does our government act in an evil manner at times? Absolutely. This is why we need better people with better standards to be our government, legislature, judges, and ultimately our citizenry. Will this exclude some people? Yes, it will. They are currently called criminals or perverts. God has standards and so must we. After all, every group, culture, and country has its local mores. But make no mistake, God is the Judge and He will enforce His standards at the Great Judgement of the Nations.

What troubles me most is that freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion. I was a Girl Scout back in the day and yes, we referenced "God," but we were referencing God in a highly non-sectarian and generically monotheistic manner. You could be Protestant or Catholic or Baptist or Jewish or Muslim and connect with the message.

Using Ft. AP Hill or any other military reservation is not advancing the underlying Constitutional evil to be avoided: the establishment and advancement of a particular sect as a state religion. We didn't want to be like England and have an official church. Made sense, after all, a lot of people in the Colonies were here to escape persecution.

Even though I think the ACLU is wrong here, I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. I have seen them advocate the occasional cause that I could agree with in the past. I cannot agree with them here, though.