Posted on 11/16/2004 8:21:23 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
I fail to see how this is any different than the argument about cub/boy scouts use of school facilities. Ultimately I believe scouts use of these public facilities was affirmed. If the argument is about improper allocation of public funds, then thats something else. I guess it comes down to what they are calling 'sponsorship'. Churches sponsor troops by providing facilities and often funds. Public facilities permit fair use of facilities to the public, but are not obligated to provide 'sponsorship' in the form of funds.
As usual, it would be helpful to have an article that contained more information and less inflammation.
It seems to me that there is something deeper going on here.
If the libs can't win because most people consider moral issues to be important, then get the ACLU to bring down the moral state of America by attacking any organizations that promote higher standards.
I wonder if they'll change the name of Scout Lake at Robins AFB?
I guess the scouts can take a hike. Somewhere else.
The ACLU - protecting everyone's rights, except the average American.
The boy scouts are within their right to reject atheists. The government is also within its right to not to distribute government funds and sponsorship because of the scouts discriminatory policies. And yes, rejecting someone on the basis of their faith ( or lack of) is discrimination. I became an atheist when I was 16 (15 years ago). I didn't make a big deal about it, and there was one other kid - a tenderfoot, who was agnostic. We still had fun and I enjoyed the experience. I can't put my son into the scouts now thanks to the scouts adopting Mason-like religious policies. My kids will never know what scouting is like because we are < gads!> secularists. My existence never tore down the troop or demoralized the organization, so I have no clue why the top brass chooses to think that atheists should be excluded.
FYI
Sue the ACLU for preventing the free practice of religion.
More facts:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-boyscouts16.html
Pentagon drops Boy Scouts
November 16, 2004
BY FRANK MAIN Staff Reporter Advertisement
The U.S. Department of Defense has agreed to stop sponsoring the Boy Scouts, according to a legal agreement announced Monday.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois sued the Pentagon and other government agencies in 1999, saying their funding of the Boy Scouts was unconstitutional because the organization excluded people who did not swear an oath to God.
"It is critical that the Pentagon send this very clear signal to its units across the globe to insure that government officials are not engaged in religious discrimination in their official capacity," said Charles Peters, a lawyer with the firm Schiff Hardin, who assisted the ACLU of Illinois.
The Pentagon litigation was an offshoot of a 1998 lawsuit against the city of Chicago, which had chartered almost 30 Scouting programs. The city agreed to stop sponsoring the Boy Scouts. The controversy arose when a University of Chicago law student wanted to lead the city's Legal Explorer Post, but balked at affirming his belief in God.
The settlement with the Pentagon affects only 422 of about 120,000 Scouting programs, said Greg Shields of The Boy Scouts of America based in Irving, Texas. Most of those 422 programs were on military bases, he said.
"We have simply transferred the charters to non-military but supportive organizations like VFWs," Shields said.
The Chicago Public Schools, also named in the 1999 lawsuit, previously agreed not to sponsor Boy Scout programs.
Still unresolved in the litigation is whether the Pentagon may provide funding to the Boy Scout Jamboree, which is held every four years and draws tens of thousands of scouts. The Pentagon spends about $2 million a year to support the event, the ACLU says.
I suppose that's next on the ACLU's list.
Bump.
I don't think the presidential oath includes "so help me God." I think tradition has made it so, but it is not in the US Constitution. I'll look it up momentarily.
There for, Alcholics Anonymous shall be banned from bases since "belief in a higher power" is one of the keys.
Sponsorship by the base itself is prohibitted.
Sponsorship by the base itself is not required for the Scouts to have meetings there. If they can have meetings there, then the Scouts are not "Banned on Bases".
Nonetheless, this is still a silly ruling, considering how appropriate Scouts are for military dependents. I would hope that this - as it unfolds - just means a transfer from the base Recreation centers to the chapels, but we'll see.
Somehow I thought that our founding fathers meant the following by separation of church and state -- that the government could not create a state religion and cram it down your throat, NOT what we have now, an atmosphere hostile to religion.
And another thing. Atheists have the government's stamp of approval. Everything has to be catered to the atheistic point of view. Why? Atheism is a personal point of view about life held only by a few people, and I am highly offended by it.
Post 31, good one.
When is the ACLU going to go after American money, you know, "In God We Trust" and the eye of God on the dollar bill. Coins and bills alike refer to God. Let's redo all the money to get the dirty word God off in case somebody gets upset. That should create a nice new bureaucracy.
It seems that the Army Chaplain Corps should be allowed to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop. They believe in a higher power, don't they?
The ACLU:
Proudly Protecting Pederasts
And Punishing Patriots!
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
