From http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/jamboree.deaths.ap/index.html


Tens of thousands of Boy Scouts, leaders and volunteers from around the world are attending the 2005 National Scout Jamboree. The event opened Monday at Fort A.P. Hill, a 76,000-acre Army training base about an hour south of the nation's capital.

The Jamboree runs through Aug. 3, with President Bush scheduled to speak Wednesday evening. Scouts ages 12-18 are to spend 10 days camping in tents and taking part in activities that include archery, fishing and a GPS-based scavenger hunt.

The Boy Scouts of America have held the event since 1937 with the next gathering set for 2010, the Scouts' 100th anniversary. It may not be held at Fort A.P. Hill, which has hosted the event since 1981.

A federal judge recently ruled that the Pentagon can no longer financially support the event. If the ruling stands, the Boy Scouts would have to find another location for their next gathering.

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois contends that the Defense Department's sponsorship violates the First Amendment because the Scouts require members to swear an oath of duty to God.


Anyone familiar with this suit at all? A quick websearch didn't really turn up much other than the basic facts, and it seems like a massive waste of the ACLU's time and budget over something not merely innocuous but almost unimpeachably positive.

Hmmm... I don't know anything about the particulars of this lawsuit, but perhaps I can provide a bit of insight into the matter anyway. I remember, from back when I worked for Tejas Girl Scout Council, being somewhat surprised to find out how different the two organizations are with regards to their approach to such issues as religion and homosexuality, among others. The Girl Scouts have the line 'to serve God and my Country' in the Girl Scout Promise, but girls are not required to utter that word; GSUSA's official policy page states:

* The word "God" can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one's spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is okay to replace the word "God" with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate.

In practice, the Girl Scouts have been welcoming to, even at the council leadership level, individuals of all religious faiths, including atheists.

In contrast, take a look how this portion of the oath is handled by the Boy Scouts of America (linked to the page, since the issue is addressed in multiple locations on the page):

http://www.usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsoath.html

Notice that 'doing your duty to God' is used multiple times on the page. The Boy Scouts do *not* permit atheists to be members, and not only require all members of Boy Scouting to swear an oath to serve God (and to be 'morally straight'), but employ a narrowly defined view of what 'God' represents in most councils, at that.

Consider, also, the difference in the mission statements of the two organizations:

Girl Scouts:

The Purpose of Girl Scouting is to inspire girls with the highest ideals of character, conduct, patriotism, and service that they may become happy and resourceful citizens.

Boy Scouts of America:

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.

Because of their unyielding stance on the issue of athiest Scouts, and their insistance (in many councils, anyway) on using sectarian prayers/graces at their meetings, the Boy Scouts have been drawing quite a bit of heat in recent years, and have also had to fight to retain their right to meet in the public schools (because Girl Scouting does not require an oath be said to a specific God, nor do they permit sectarian prayers/graces, they haven't suffered the same fate). My guess is that the ACLU's position is that *because the Boy Scouts of America promote (a particular) religion*, they are not entitled to Federal funding due to church/state separation issues.

You may recall also that in 2000 there was a case that went to the Supreme Court over the issue of the Boy Scouts being allowed *not* to allow homosexuals to be troop leaders (homosexuals are not permitted in the Boy Scouts at any level, fyi, much to the distress to many boys who found out at a certain point that they were gay - I know several gay Eagle Scouts -, and a support group for displaced gay Boy Scouts exists). In a 5-4 decision, it was ruled that the states could not use their own non-discrimination laws to force the Boy Scouts to admit gay members:

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/680/

In practice, the Boy Scouts is rife with heavily closeted gay men/boys, and probably with athiests as well, but the Boy Scouts of America is banking that something similar will happen in this case during the appeals process, I feel fairly certain.

Regards,
Nydia

To answer your original question: No.

Using federal resources to condone bigotry isn't unimpeachably positive in my book. In any case, the ACLU has a lot of resources and does a lot of pro bono work. For all the flack they get, they're as likely to take on cases favoring religious expression (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2005/jun/16/061610228.html) as they are cases against it. Their decisions are based on the ACLU's particular interpretation of the Constitution rather than the effort that must be put into defending that interpretation.

EDIT: Awful tragedy (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/jamboree.deaths.ap/index.html) at that Jamboree, btw.

yeah I heard that on the radio on the way in today. I just don't understand how that happened. Very sad though :(

I suppose they should send their thanks to god for the four Boy Scout leaders who were electrocuted.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/jamboree.deaths.ap/index.html

(edit) Bah, I was beat to it.

ACLU = Godless heathen liberals willing to disrupt morality at all costs.

ACLU = Godless heathen liberals willing to disrupt morality at all costs.

While I grow increasingly fed up with the antics and interference of the ACLU in folks' everyday lives, I cannot allow that definition to pass, seeing how the efforts of the ACLU is not religious/morality driven, but is specifically geared toward protecting their definition of the civil liberties of American citizens as provided for under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whether they are Godless heathens or not is irrelevant; the framers of our most basic laws and rights did not exclude anyone based on religion or lack thereof from having the freedom to interpret and argue the intent of those same laws and rights.

Personally, I think it sucks that they can't leave the Scouts alone. The Scouts have done a damn fine job of building character among those who participate. While I have my disagreements with their exclusions, I leave it to them to make the decisions. It is their organization, after all.

but is specifically geared toward protecting their definition of the civil liberties of American citizens as provided for under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Bingo! THEIR definition.....

The Scouts have done a damn fine job of building character among those who participate. While I have my disagreements with their exclusions, I leave it to them to make the decisions. It is their organization, after all.

I agree with you here; it is, of course, their decision whom to include or exclude from Boy Scouting, and there is a lot of good that comes out of Boy Scouting... but their National Council also needs to realize that the right to exclude on the basis of religion (or lack thereof), and/or promote religion comes at a price, namely, loss of their right to Federal subsidy. A lot of this 'picking on the Boy Scouts', as you put it, they brought upon themselves, largely due to the fact that there are not a few athiests/non Judeo-Christian boys (and their parents) who don't feel particularly amoral ;), and who would have *liked* to have participated in Boy Scouting, but have been not only refused, but reviled by that organization for asking them to become more inclusive and less insistant on invoking God as an instrument of that 'character building'.

It is my hope that the Boy Scouts of America will follow GSUSA's lead and recognize that permitting their members to follow their *own* consciences regarding the role (or non-role) of God in their lives doesn't spell doom to the Boy Scouts' approach to enriching and guiding young men's' lives, and that the Boy Scout Oath and Promise provides an excellent opportunity to address the issue of religious tolerance and freedom with their charges, which strikes me as a fine, moral, and very American value to be instilling in young men in any case. It is unfortunate that this organization has become a battleground in the tug-of-war between the religious right and those who favor a clear separation of church and state.

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. What a horrible freak accident. My condolences go out to their families and friends.

Bingo! THEIR definition.....

Should they go by someone else's definition, then? Perhaps your's? =p

Using federal resources to condone bigotry Ahh yes fond memories of learning how to tie knots, build camp fires, and oppress the various minorities and sexual deviants....

I'd hardly call standing up for your religeous beliefs rather than changing them to fit in with current pop culture bigotry. There is a huge difference between saying "I believe homosexuality is wrong", and saying "Burn in hell you flithy faggots!" Further more, there is nothing in scouts, that says homosexuality is bad. The individual religeous groups do that. Just many churches sponsor the scouts because of all the good it does for young men.

Now then, more to the matter at hand. *IF* The Federal Government were to exclude every other group except for the boy scouts from using their land for camping/jamborees etc. Then I would say the ACLU has a point. But they don't, so they don't have one. To add to it, often the Scouts are there performing service projects. (One more of those bigotry training programs) where they clear trails, clean highways, etc, etc. All on the Federal land they're defiling with their anti-homosexual indoctrination.

Trying to to prevent the the Boy Scouts from 'doing their thing' it's just fucking retarded. Seriously.


Edit: I know two of the guys killed in the accident, a definite loss to our comunnity.

*IF* The Federal Government were to exclude every other group except for the boy scouts from using their land for camping/jamborees etc. Then I would say the ACLU has a point

What other groups are allowed to use an army base?

Fil

The ACLU can kiss my hairy ass :D

No, they dont have anything better to do because they have bitched about everything else in the world already so logically they would go after boyscouts next.

Edit: man i wish yall could have heard what Jimbo Hannen said about this. he was pretty ticked to say the least

Fil: Any organized group that can make a reasonable request to the local installation, and get it approved. Usually means trading public service (clearing trails etc) for camp ground space. Though if you group is The Army Hating Fairy Pinko Commie Brigade Boys... you probably won't get approved...

She said in an earlier ruling that the government spent between $6 million and $8 million to host the Jamboree on a military base in 1997 and 2001.
That's the only thing that I disagree with. The government doesn't give 6 to 8 million providing a campground for other clubs like the boyscouts.

What other groups are allowed to use an army base?

This is somewhat the crux of the issue, from my understanding the DoD and base command are not exactly funding the Boy Scouts, they're letting them use their land and services. Now if there was a case of a similiar outdoorsy activity group without the religious overtones of the Boy Scouts being denied use of the same grounds, then sure, call out the ACLU to right an injustice (although oddly, in my years in the scoutsI don't really recall being proselytized to or anything, I've never been particularly quiet about my religious aversions even then. I once had an extended, amicable discussion with my parent's Catholic pastor about my atheism.) I seriously doubt the Boy Scouts are granted exclusive use of the facility because Brigadier General Biblethumper wants all good white boys to worship Jesus.

If you have an issue with the Boy Scout's religious stance, by all means take it up with them. Making a roundabout attack trying to deny them a traditional gathering that is probably the single best use of DoD budget ever conceived, up there with continuing education initiatives and body armor, is nothing but spiteful and petty, and learning of this pretty much killed all my interest in ever donating to the ACLU again.

This is exactly the sort of use I'd want our government putting out with tax dollars and nominally public lands, helping a positive organization out in ways the Boy Scouts probably can not achieve on their own (huge, well-maintained camp grounds for tens of thousands are hard to come by). I mean, christ on a stick, I can think of a dozen social injustices you could actually describe as injustices with a straight face being perpetrated against our civil liberties as we type. Who's cornflakes got pissed in that this made the shortlist over every clause of the Patriot Act, DMCA, recent copyright law in general, gross misconduct from the Department of Justice, anything else Karl Rove has touched, a total disregard for human dignity, people getting shot by cops, the Man keeping (insert ethnicity here) down, ad infinitum?

Are church groups allowed to hold events on army bases? As has been said, it's pretty obvious that boy scouts wants to be known as a religious group, so it should be treated like one. Not that I have any major problem with boy scouts, but I can certainly see why they shouldn't be running events on military bases. Since I wouldn't want to see baptist/muslim/catholic/whatever conventions there either.

That's the only thing that I disagree with. The government doesn't give 6 to 8 million providing a campground for other clubs like the boyscouts.

This was at the bottom of the article involving the electrocuted scout leaders:

In exchange for getting use of the Army training base, the Scouts have spent about $20 million on base improvements that include road paving and plumbing upgrades. The Army says it uses the Jamboree as an opportunity to train personnel in crowd control, communications and other logistical skills.

Seems to more than equal out to me.

I'd hardly call standing up for your religeous beliefs rather than changing them to fit in with current pop culture bigotry.
So if the group in question were blacks, or Catholics, or Jews (all groups regarded with suspicion even in this century), disallowing them would be just fine as well? Damn pop culture and its pernicious accepting of people!

Further more, there is nothing in scouts, that says homosexuality is bad.
This is wrong on its face. The Boy Scouts refuse acceptance of atheists and homosexuals among its ranks based on perceived issues of morality. That is, homosexuality and atheism are moral ills, thus those classes of individuals must be excluded from membership.

A shame, too, since scouting is generally a good thing.

Are church groups allowed to hold events on army bases? As has been said, it's pretty obvious that boy scouts wants to be known as a religious group, so it should be treated like one. Not that I have any major problem with boy scouts, but I can certainly see why they shouldn't be running events on military bases. Since I wouldn't want to see baptist/muslim/catholic/whatever conventions there either.

I'm not certain about army bases, but churches, other religious groups, civil groups, 12 step programs, etc. ad nauseum are allowed to - and encouraged to use government property all the time. Most times this takes place in schools and libraries. I know of a church that had some tornado damage a few years back used my son's high school to meet while their church was being fixed.

Government (in the US at least) is supposed to be "for the people, by the people" and, in essence if not in fact, the people own the government and its property. There is no constitutional reason for denying any group the peaceful use of government property unless it would be unsafe to do so.

I fail to see why people think "separation of church and state" (which doesn't appear in our constitution) means that "church" can't be involved in "state." If anything, the country was founded on the belief that STATE can't control the CHURCH.

But that's anther discussion :) First paragraph is all I meant to post about it

(which doesn't appear in our constitution)

Sure it doesn't. However, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... does. And there have been judicial decision based on that that govern our actions today.

"right to a fair trial" and "fair trial" don't appear in the constituion, either. Heh.

Sure it doesn't. However, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... does. And there have been judicial decision based on that that govern our actions today.

"right to a fair trial" and "fair trial" don't appear in the constituion, either. Heh.

None of that promises that religous people can't effect government by application of their own moral values... it only says government can't dictate religion. Regardless of the various interpretations by individual judges, the *intent* of that phrase is well known to be a protection from a state mandated religion. I do understand that some people think that politicians with religious beliefs make this a muddy area. As far as this thread goes though, it wouldn't be *fair* for the government to give cash to one religious entity over another. While the boy scouts may maintain policies and tenets that are based on a religious morality, they aren't a religion and in my opinion don't qualify as one for the basis of this discussion.

What other groups are allowed to use an army base?

At times (I'm not sure what the current regulation is) hunting clubs have been allowed onto military bases for the purposes of hunting deer/turkey/whatever.

I'm not certain about army bases, but churches, other religious groups, civil groups, 12 step programs, etc. ad nauseum are allowed to - and encouraged to use government property all the time. Most times this takes place in schools and libraries. I know of a church that had some tornado damage a few years back used my son's high school to meet while their church was being fixed.

Fair enough, but the military isn't just letting them use their land, they're "financially supporting" it. If all they did was give them some land to sit on, then it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. (Though religious gatherings or whatever on an army base still seem like a very bad idea)

While the boy scouts may maintain policies and tenets that are based on a religious morality, they aren't a religion and in my opinion don't qualify as one for the basis of this discussion.

They don't just follow religious morality(heck, I think the idea's of that jesus fellow are a pretty good way to live too), they make you swear an oath to their god. They aren't a full fledged religion, no, but they are a religious group. Their focus may not be 100% on the religion like a church, but they certainly promote and practice it.

...but they certainly promote and practice it.
More importantly, they exclude citizens from membership based on it. The dispute isn't due to the Boy Scouts having a religious basis for their code; it's their discriminatory practices that resulted in this and other lawsuits.

They aren't a full fledged religion, no, but they are a religious group. Their focus may not be 100% on the religion like a church, but they certainly promote and practice it.

I was a Boy Scout . . . and a Webelos, and a Cub Scout. At no point during those 5-6 years did I make the connection between scouting and religon. I would even go so far as to say none of my fellow scouts did either.

So, what some Boy Scout Officials in a room thousands of miles away think scouting is and should be is far removed from what it actually is. Without a doubt.

I was a Boy Scout . . . and a Webelos, and a Cub Scout. At no point during those 5-6 years did I make the connection between scouting and religon. I would even go so far as to say none of my fellow scouts did either.
I wonder if and how much that has changed since you (and Malse) were in the Scouts. I know as a Cub Scout I didn't notice any particular stressing of religion. It was present in the background, but not salient. I'm curious (as a rhetorical aside to the thread) whether the last 5 years have brought religion closer to the scouting forefront.

I was a Boy Scout . . . and a Webelos, and a Cub Scout. At no point during those 5-6 years did I make the connection between scouting and religon. I would even go so far as to say none of my fellow scouts did either.

So, what some Boy Scout Officials in a room thousands of miles away think scouting is and should be is far removed from what it actually is. Without a doubt.

Unfortunately, those officials sitting in a room thousands of miles away make policy decisions that affect how the Scouts operate, and it is those policies that attract the "you-will-make-everything-the-way-I-think-it-should-be" ists and their litigation.

Granted, but the scouts I knew didn't "promote and practice" anything but merit badges.

Do I think Scouting is assinine in its stance on gays and religon, absolutely. But when it comes down to it, on the city and town level, this stance has little or no effect on how a troop is run. (With the exception of troops that wish to make a point about it and challenge the ruling.)

Well, it's possible that the Scouts have gone on some fundamentalist Christian jihad since ten years ago. But given I know we had a kid of a sort of weird vaguely non-Christian sect and another kid who I know is gay, both of who's fathers helped out with the Pinewood Derby, it's just hard for me to fathom some hardcore repress-them-heathens overall Scout culture versus a couple nutjobs out in Utah or Kansas thumping young boys with Bibles tainting the whole enterprise.

Which still gets aside from the original question, though, of why they ACLU thought this issue needed to be taken to court. The world may never know.

I was a Boy Scout . . . and a Webelos, and a Cub Scout. At no point during those 5-6 years did I make the connection between scouting and religon.

You must not have been paying any attention at all. The last line of the Boy Scout law says that "a scout is reverent."

Yeah, reverent. I paid real close attention to reverent :rolleyes:

The Boy scout troop I was in was about one degree removed from a boys home.

You must not have been paying any attention at all. The last line of the Boy Scout law says that "a scout is reverent."

Roliel is gay!

I just got back from the jamboree. I went down to visit my cousin and check it out for nostalgia's sake. The accident hasn't seemed to have too great of an effect on the gathering, though there was a noticable recognition of what happened in the air. When I went 8 years ago we had a "tragedy" too, not nearly as bad but a few scouts stole and flipped a hummer, crushing one and injuring another or something like that. Not nearly as severe but I remember them getting very tight on security afterwards. The one thing I heard though that hit me the most was that "hey, at least we'll get to get on the news this year". Its just so shitty that an organization about youth who serve their country and their community as well as learning ways to protect and take care of themselves and their community (cooking, first aid, lifesaving, environmental science are all part of the "required" merit badges and a key part of the program) will only find any press at all when they are kicking kids out and taking their Eagle Scout Badges away, or now for people having to believe in God (and not just the Christian God, but any Religious Being ... one of the guys who was in scouts with me was a Buddhist, another a Hindu).

Don't get me wrong. Kicking someone out and taking their Eagle Scout badge away because they killed their whole family = good. Kicking someone out and taking their badge away because they came out of the closet = bad. However, it just seems because some ultra-psycho-conservatives at the National Council Office are such tight asses that they think gays are bad they end up punishing thousands of scouts accross the country. My old home troop can't even meet in the Church they used to use as a meeting location because the Church didn't believe with the Scout's policy towards homosexuality. I don't believe Scouts in NYC can meet in schools or any government owned buildings for that same reason.

I look back at my time in scouting, and look at the guys who became Eagles or whatever with me, and like to think that we've all walked away being better men (and Women, if you wanna include Girl Scouts, though that organization has a lot more things going wrong with it than the Boy Scouts anymore it seems ...) and so forth. I just get so mad at the way the leadership is running it ousting the whole organization over trying to improve their image and get more people involved. Surely no society has ever had a problem with too many kids helping old ladies accross the street and picking up trash in their local parks (or I suppose in my case, creating a youth group for my church, or in Wedri's case, painting a few rooms in his church, and so on).

Roliel is gay!

Sure, I'm gay. And you're the greatest scholar this world has ever known -- such deep, dark secrets that we both hide so well. You obviously hide it better than I do.

More importantly, they exclude citizens from membership based on it. The dispute isn't due to the Boy Scouts having a religious basis for their code; it's their discriminatory practices that resulted in this and other lawsuits.

Good point, I knew I was missing something.

Granted, but the scouts I knew didn't "promote and practice" anything but merit badges.

Me too, I was in scounts myself for a few years. But it's the ones in charge that do it,and that's what counts.

Sure, I'm gay. And you're the greatest scholar this world has ever known -- such deep, dark secrets that we both hide so well. You obviously hide it better than I do.

And your the worlds most honest man too?

Next time be honest up front, so we know you are biased about this subject and can not evaluate it honestly because you come from a biased position from the start. That is all.:)

What the fuck are you talking about? I said that the Scout law says "a scout is reverent." Considering that's the truth, I somehow doubt I was being dishonest. If anyone here is being dishonest, it's you saying "That is all," because I know you can't stand to keep your mouth shut for more than fifteen seconds.

What the fuck are you talking about? I said that the Scout law says "a scout is reverent." Considering that's the truth, I somehow doubt I was being dishonest. If anyone here is being dishonest, it's you saying "That is all," because I know you can't stand to keep your mouth shut for more than fifteen seconds.

You you can?:rolleyes:

Ya'll keep comparing troops and saying things like, "Well my troop wasn't like that, must not be true." Troops vary a lot depending on who is sponsoring them. Here in Mormon country we have some very, very religious and family oriented troops. They meet in churches and are backed by the same church. My troop on the other hand met in a school gym (that we rented) and was full of drug toting heretics.

All said though, I walked away from scouts with a lot of valuable experience I probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere else, short of an extended stay in the military or something. When it comes down to it I like organizations like the scouts that have a set of beliefs that they stick firmly too, regardless of opposition. If ya don't agree, don't join them, there are far worse groups to be concered with. But I don't think the government should directly fund or favor such groups.

Like said elsewhere though, lots of troops are privately sponsored anyhow, and they do put a lot back into the community.

And your the worlds most honest man too?

Next time be honest up front, so we know you are biased about this subject and can not evaluate it honestly because you come from a biased position from the start. That is all.:)

I'm gonna have to go with Roliel here. What in the hell are you talking about? Being gay has as much to do with this as someone being atheist. You're saying that only people that agree with everything the boy scouts do can fairly discuss them? Yeah...

Elren isn't saying anything. His emotes have more content than his sentences.