Interesting crapola about the ACLU using legal pressure to get scouts thrown off of military posts

[dude1394]

What the hell is up about this. THIS is the kind of crap that makes normal people want to amend the constitution. When the ACLU(and of course others) can basically legally strongarm groups to do stupid things like banning scouts it just forces the sort of legal actions to amend the constitution.

So the full-fledged assault against ANY religioous symbols continues. I think the ACLU should refuse to use or have money, since it has god on it.

[Mavdog]

Perhaps this article better explains the issue. I'm not sure "crapola" is the correct description.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon, ACLU wrangle over Boy Scouts
by Chris Walz
Pentagram staff writer

The Pentagon and the American Civil Liberties Union agreed to a partial settlement Monday in the ACLU's on-going lawsuit against the Defense Department's support of the Boy Scouts of America. The civil liberties group says the Pentagon's support for the Boy Scouts is direct support for the Boy Scouts' religious views.

The remaining portions of the religious discrimination suit, which was filed in 1999, are still pending.

The partial settlement allows the Defense Department to continue supporting the Boy Scouts, but requires Pentagon leadership to issue a letter reminding personnel of its policy -- personnel can't sponsor non-federal organizations while in their official capacity.

The ACLU contends the Boy Scouts religiously discriminate because they require the youths to swear to religious oaths. The ACLU also points out the Pentagon donates approximately $2 million to the Boy Scouts for their quadrennial Boy Scout Jamboree, which will be held July 25 through Aug. 3 at Fort A.P. Hill.

"The settlement does not prohibit the Defense Department from supporting the Boy Scouts of America. Boy Scout units are permitted to meet on military bases and military personnel are allowed to remain active in Boy Scout programs," says a Pentagon press release. "Under the very limited settlement, applying the existing policy, the Defense Department may not officially sponsor Boy Scout units and personnel may not sponsor Boy Scout units in an official capacity. [This policy] prohibits official sponsorship to all private organizations, not just the Boy Scouts."

"The Boy Scout Jamboree will still go on as scheduled at Fort A.P. Hill," said Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Joe Richard. "We are still fully supporting the Boy Scouts. But, we are reminding base commanders and post officials they can't sponsor non-federal organizations in their official capacity. It's not a new policy, but we are reminding people."

The ACLU says the Boy Scouts' policy violates the religious freedoms of those who don't wish to swear to a religious oath. And, the government's relationship with the Boy Scouts directly links it with the Boy Scouts' discrimination.

"If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based upon religious beliefs," said Adam Schwartz, from the Illinois ACLU. "This agreement removes the Pentagon from direct sponsorship of Scout troops that engage in religious discrimination."

Bob Bork, a Boy Scouts spokesman, said they are a multi-religious organization, not a Christian-only group. He said they recognize just about every religion. But, he acknowledged, the Boy Scouts require a belief in a god, so atheists are not allowed to join.

"This agreement changes very little and there is no scout interruption in any way," Bork said. "It's a shame the ACLU has this maniacal obsession with the Boy Scouts. They try to attack us at every turn. Clearly, this is not a big issue, but it's very disruptive. I wonder why the ACLU is so opposed to the free speech of the Boy Scouts and the Defense Department, but they fight for the free speech of Nazis and nudists."

The Boy Scouts followed the agreement -- they transferred Defense Department sponsorships to other organizations, like the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The settlement, however, does not prohibit off-duty government employees from sponsoring Boy Scout troops on their own time. The Boy Scouts will still also have access to any military facilities currently available to other non-governmental organizations.

"It's critical the Pentagon send this very clear signal to its units across the globe to ensure government officials are not engaged in religious discrimination in their official capacity," said Charles Peters of the Chicago law firm Schiff Hardin, who assisted the ACLU in the lawsuit.

Aside from this week's agreement, the full lawsuit is still pending and is in the hands of U.S. District Court Judge Blanche Manning. In the lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union claims the Pentagon and the Housing and Urban Development Departments violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by spending appropriated funds to support the Boy Scouts.

Manning will decide whether the Defense and Housing and Urban Development Departments can donate funds to the Boy Scouts.

The Illinois ACLU alleges the Pentagon handpicks the Boy Scouts -- and no other organization -- to receive $2 million each year in support of the national jamboree.

"We have a problem with a government organization sponsoring another organization that requires youths to acknowledge God and to swear allegiance to God," said ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka. "It may not be their official policy, but the outgrowth has been a special relationship with the Boy Scouts. The Pentagon can't officially do this and Defense Department personnel can't do this while they're in their official capacity, especially with an organization that participates in religious discrimination. We believe both violate the Constitution."

The national Boy Scout Jamboree is held every four years at Fort A.P. Hill's 76,000-acre installation, which has served as the site since 1981. The Boy Scouts use approximately 3,000 acres to house some 40,000 scouts and leaders. The jamboree is highlighted with 17,000 tents and 3,500 patrol kitchens.

[dalmations202]

I'm not sure "crapola" is the correct description.

ACLU = We don't need God in our lives, we need Government.

You are correct "crapola" is probably not the best description.
This might be a much better description of what the ACLU is doing.
Rotting Dog dung. Lower than Whale slime. More putrid than pig stalls after 3 days and 3" of rain. Worse than 6 week old hot beer with rotting eggs in it. Worse than having to listen to Rosanne Barr sing the national anthem continuously for 6 months straight.


The ACLU is
So misguided. So self-centered and self serving. So religiously worshipping the power of man, and man's "intellect". So much pride, and arrogance.

Unfortunately when they learn, it will be too late.

[Mavdog]

The ACLU defends the individual against government, certainly not the idea that "we need government".

The ACLU has defended many religious citizen's right to practice their religion when the State has restricted that right. It defends those on the left and on the right (Rush Limbaugh for instance).

I support those who seek to preserve our liberties. The question that begs to be asked is why ANYBODY would NOT support a group who has as its sole mission the preservation of our individual liberties.

[mavsman55]

The question that begs to be asked is why ANYBODY would NOT support a group who has as its sole mission the preservation of our individual liberties.

Maybe because we already have those liberties? The sole point of the ACLU is to exploit our constitutional rights to the point where people should be allowed to do whatever they want. So basically it's right down your alley.

[Epitome22]

So people who want and advocate for freedom of action are 'exploiting' their constitutional rights? Perhaps this country is a little to free for you. I recommend North Korea.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
So people who want and advocate for freedom of action are 'exploiting' their constitutional rights? Perhaps this country is a little to free for you. I recommend North Korea.

How ironic that Epitome would claim that I think there is not enough freedom already. When did I say anyone who fights for freedom is exploiting their rights?

I simply stated that (I believe) the ACLU uses it's power to help people exploit their constitutional rights.

Is the ACLU everyone?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Maybe because we already have those liberties?

The citizens have their liberties as long as government does not usurp them. That is the mission of the ACLU, to preserve those liberties. I'm expecting that you don't wish to give up your liberties, do you?

The sole point of the ACLU is to exploit our constitutional rights to the point where people should be allowed to do whatever they want. So basically it's right down your alley.

"exploit our constitutional rights" ?? By golly, it sure sounds like you feel that we citizens have too many rights. nothing could be further from the truth.

Just what rights do you feel that we should cede to the state? Free speech? Free assembly? Freedom to worship as we want? Freedom of the press? Tell us, what rights have been "exploited" that should be taken away from the public?

[dude1394]

I guess the issue is what "rights" are they protecting. Is it the right of our country to have a pledge of allegience? If so then why cannot it have god in it. The ACLU in this case is not trying to protect anyones "rights" here they are strong-arming the support of a boys club for goodness sake.

[mavsman55]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Just what rights do you feel that we should cede to the state? Free speech? Free assembly? Freedom to worship as we want? Freedom of the press? Tell us, what rights have been "exploited" that should be taken away from the public?

Exactly Mavdog. We already have those liberties. We don't need the ACLU to spoonfeed them to us.

[Mavdog]

You miss the point. We (citizens) have those liberties and they are provided to us in our set of laws.

Our government sometimes curtails those rights by enacting new laws. When that is done these new laws must be confronted and brought to the courts for review. One of the major roles of the judiciary is to stop the legislative branch from usurping these rights. Unless a citizen seeks out the court this will never happen, hence there is a crucial role for the ACLU and other groups whose purpose is to fight to protect our rights.

[kingrex]

To echo Mavdog, the ACLU is a necessary part of the checks and balances that must exist in the greatest democratic society in history.

I don't always agree with their position, but I can see the benefit of their existence. The balance between the government's power over the people they server versus individual rights often swings back and forth. The ACLU serves as a force that helps swing the pendulum back towards individual rights.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
You miss the point. We (citizens) have those liberties and they are provided to us in our set of laws.

Our government sometimes curtails those rights by enacting new laws. When that is done these new laws must be confronted and brought to the courts for review. One of the major roles of the judiciary is to stop the legislative branch from usurping these rights. Unless a citizen seeks out the court this will never happen, hence there is a crucial role for the ACLU and other groups whose purpose is to fight to protect our rights.

You miss the point as well.

We have unalienable rights as well. The ACLU fights against those rights, in order for the comfort of their designed agenda. I have the right to pray. I have the right to bear arms. I have the right to love. I have the right to worship God anywhere, anytime. I have the right to get together with other believers and do this as well.

These are not rights given by the government. These are rights given by the designer of man. You can make laws against it, you can make rules against it, but you cannot actually control it because they are unalienable rights.

I understand the fact that we do not need a state government, but separation of church and state is not in the constitution. That phrasing was first written after the constitution was ratified, and was an interpretation of what was written. It is not what is written there though.

Amendment 1:
<u>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</u>; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So it says that their will be no law establishing one Governmental religion, and they cannot pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Meaning that "separation of chuch and state" is actually unconstitutional. They cannot pass a law that prohibits any child or teacher or administrator or General from allowing the free exercise of religion on any public grounds.

Interpretation by anti-Christians have made very liberal judges read this to their agenda for years. ANY person with any amount of the least little bit of common sense though can read what it says, and interpret it. You cannot form a State/Country religion where government controls it, and you cannot pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of their religion. We can't pass a law making it unlawful for Muslims to pray. We cannot pass a law prohibiting the Wiccas from peacably assembling to worship trees (or nature). We cannot pass any law denying any child the right to pray in school, or assemble on public lands to excercise their religion.

[Mavdog]

Clearly you are in a state of confusion. You may have these rights, inalienable they be, but your ability to exercise those same rights can be inhibited, prohibited, by government. There are many, perhaps close to the majority of people in this world who cannot exercise those rights on a daily basis. The state can give and it can also take away.

As it relates to the specific right of religious faith, our rights are protected by the amendment. Your interpertation (funny, I don't see the word "one" in there like you do) doesn't acknowledge the thoughts of those who wrote it, a group various in their religious beliefs who wanted a society in which each of them would be able to practice their religion and not impose (or have imposed) that religious creed upon one another.

Students can engage in private prayer if they wish, not do so if they wish. Teachers can include their faith in their teachings if they teach in a faith run school. If they're not, keep the religious faith out of it. Assembling on public property isn't necessary to practice that religion, is it?

There is a real fear not of "a State/Country religion where government controls it" but the reverse, a religion that controls government. I'm glad there are groups such as the ACLU who act to stop it when either occur.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Clearly you are in a state of confusion. You may have these rights, inalienable they be, but your ability to exercise those same rights can be inhibited, prohibited, by government. There are many, perhaps close to the majority of people in this world who cannot exercise those rights on a daily basis. The state can give and it can also take away.

I am not in any confusion. I have spent my entire life, studying, living, acknowledging, and defending these rights. I'll somehow argue you can't say the same. The state can take away many things, but they will never be able to control them. The government can take away my right to bear arms, but I can still build a gun, knife, or sword. The government can legalize sodomy, but can't make it right. The government can bastardize what the constitution says and claim it separates church and state so no God in government, but it will never be able to control it. China has laws against it, and guess what the largest growing religion is there(let me give you a hint). Government can inhibit, but not take away. God gave us certain unalienable rights, and this is what keeps this country free. God also controls who is in control, even if you don't like it.

As it relates to the specific right of religious faith, our rights are protected by the amendment. Your interpertation (funny, I don't see the word "one" in there like you do) doesn't acknowledge the thoughts of those who wrote it, a group various in their religious beliefs who wanted a society in which each of them would be able to practice their religion and not impose (or have imposed) that religious creed upon one another.

You have no clue about the thoughts of those who wrote it (neither do I). I will give you credit though, I wrote that the Government could not establish one religion according to the constitution and you are correct, the government has no business establishing one or more governmental religions. They were never meant to control religion. A faith in God was never excluded from government though.

Students can engage in private prayer if they wish, not do so if they wish. Teachers can include their faith in their teachings if they teach in a faith run school. If they're not, keep the religious faith out of it.

Why are you scared of the religious? Why? I have dealt with "intellectuals" all my life. Funny how the smarter man gets, the more they either do one of two things, believe in themselves(man) or believe that they don't know it all, and someone much smarter than them must have designed this world, and deserves it all (God).

Logically, I can tell you God wins. Religiously I can tell you God wins. Ethically, I can tell you God wins. But, from what I read, you think Man controls it all, and controls his own destiny. I can also tell you that this has been happening for centuries, and is exactly why Empires will always fail. This is also what the framers of the constitution tried to keep from happening. Too bad, it won't work either.

Assembling on public property isn't necessary to practice that religion, is it?

No not required, but shouldn't be denied either.

There is a real fear not of "a State/Country religion where government controls it" but the reverse, a religion that controls government. I'm glad there are groups such as the ACLU who act to stop it when either occur.

I did not say that I wanted a religion to control the government. I don't want to be Muslim, or Buddhist, or any other Protestant religion for that matter. Why should I be a religion? Why should government be run by religion? I am a Christian -- I truly believe that Jesus died for my sins. The bill is paid. I need to have Christian attitudes though. I need to help the innocent, even at great cost to me (Panama). I need to defend the unalienable rights of people. I need to help others, and put them before myself. Our government needs to have this same attitude. Believe it or not, no matter which god the Muslims pray to, or the Buddhist, etc....they still have this same attitude. I am not talking about the one true God, but the gods that they pray to still teach helping others. All true religions teach the same basic thing of kindness towards others, and acting in an ethical manner. This is inbred on us long before birth.

I really understand you Mav, because 15 years ago, I was you. I could argue how everything and everyone should stay out of each others way. How I control my destiny, and I didn't need anyone else. How might makes "right". How it is only "right" if it is fair. How your rights end where mine began. How I should "mind my own business" and "live and accept everyone else". Even, They aren't wrong, they just believe different than me. And, Everyone is right in his own little universe, and don't discern good from bad.

Then I got to know Jesus. He changed my life. He made me understand that discernment is not judging. I came to understand how their is a "wrong and right". He gave me us book of rules and understanding, and became my friend, Lord, advisor and brother. There isn't a Christian who doesn't understand what I just wrote, and a non-Christian who does. Then he made me understand the one thing that I still have such a problem with --- and I read it in your writing ---- IT ISN'T ABOUT ME. This stings greatly, and cuts to the Pride daily. I have to work on my pride every day, but am getting better (I hope). Once I finally figured out that I am not the center of the universe, and the world doesn't revolve around me, I finally started gaining wisdom. And the first thing I truly learned was that fear of the Lord is wisdom, and to keep his commandments.

Mav, this ends this topic for me. I know you deserve to reply, so please do, but PM me if you have questions of me and don't just want your say. I do not want to argue.....it is worthless. I probably shouldn't have even stated what I have, but I'll stand behind it. I will not reply anymore to this article. You may have the last word. I hope maybe you (or someone else) can get some understanding from it though.

[dude1394]

The problem will all of this (imo) is that it's a pretty blatant attempt to remove religion from our the culture of our country. What a shame since this is a judeo-christian country. Although the ideals of the ACLU are noble they are terribly misguided.

Why for example would the ACLU try to remove the boy scouts from being supported by some government entities but not be as hard-over on the second amendment which is explicit.

[dude1394]

Couldn't have said it better myself (definitely couldn't in fact). The bolded items is the true target here. boy scout hating leftists

-----------

Ever since the Supreme Court upheld the Scouts' First Amendment right to bar Scoutmasters who are openly gay, the ACLU has looked for softer targets. The suit against the military is one of a series aimed at getting communities to deny access to public facilities. The original lawsuit also challenged the city of Chicago's sponsorship of troops in public schools, another venue where sponsors aren't always easy to find. The city settled.

In Connecticut the ACLU has succeeded in getting the state to remove the Scouts from the list of charitable institutions to which public employees may make voluntary contributions. And earlier this year it settled a suit against the city of San Diego, which agreed to evict the Scouts from a public park they have been using since 1918. The Scouts countersued, lost, and the case is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

The question no one seems to be asking is, who's better off as a result of these lawsuits? Surely not the 3.2 million Boy Scouts, whose venerable organization is part of the web of voluntary associations once considered the bedrock of American life. If anything, the purpose of the ACLU attacks is to paint Scouts as religious bigots. Other losers are communities themselves, which are forced to sever ties to an organization that helps to build character in young men.

It's been 20 years since the ACLU brought its first suit against the Scouts. If there's one thing we've learned by now, it's that the ACLU offensive says more about the degraded status of the civil liberties group than it does about the Boy Scouts.

[Mavdog]

If the Boy Scouts want to use public facilities, the "venerable organisation" needs to not discriminate in its membership. if they wish to continue to discriminate, they need to use private facilities.

[dude1394]

BINGO...

[Epitome22]

I dunno about Gay scouts but I do find a significant conflict of interest in governmental bodies sponsoring organizations that discriminate against anti-religious people.

[dude1394]

How about the vice-versa... Governmental bodies sponsoring organizations that discriminate against religious people.