Asymmetrical Information

I left the ACLU when they failed to oppose racial preferences, asset forfeiture and property right infringement. They now just play gotcha.

I always see comments like this as "I want the ACLU to stop wasting time with other people's causes and focus on the causes that are important to *me*. Because if I don't have a problem with something, nobody else should either." Obviously, someone does, or these cases wouldn't exist.

So they're tackling issues you think are trivial. So what? You don't like their stances, you're free to contribute somewhere else (or nowhere at all) or start your own organization.

(I also think it's a lot easier to deal with a nativity scene as a "secular humanist New Yorker" than somewhere where religious diversity isn't as great, and Christianity is seen as a social obligation.)

A lot of this is purely subjective stuff about whose ox is gored, but we shouldn't just throw up our hands and proclaim all causes equally worthy or unworthy.

The drug war results in probably, what, a million or so people being in prison that would not be there otherwise? How anyone can compare that monstrous injustice with the horror of having to drive by a nativity scene on their way to work or hearing the local high school principal pray at graduation is beyond me.

The Pledge is somewhere in the middle, IMHO.

I am a member of a pedestrian advocacy organization. Whenever we fight for an issue, the other side always says "we are in favour of pedestrians, but you should focus on x", where x is some issue other than the one being discussed. Its the same thing here.

As to asset forfiture, the ACLU is opposed to it as well as the drug war as far as I know.

Manish: I understand what you're saying, and I agree in your situation. It also happens with charitable contributions. "Why are you giving to the arts when people are going hungry?" If someone is volunteering time or money to a particular cause, that's their choice, and anyone who thinks a different cause trumps should put their hands, feet and funds into that cause.

I think people's complaints about the ACLU are different though. Here, we have an organization that exists to promote civil rights. The complaint is that by focusing on the trivial, they are undermining their own cause. They have lost supporters, like Walter. They have also enflamed the passions of the Christian right, with the end result of having some elected officials who oppose them on civil rights issues.

I dunno about the rest of you guys, but when I hear that the ACLU went out after the Boy Scouts or a picture of a cross on some county seal somwhere, or something else I see as ridiculous, I always think, "Well, good thing there's nothing more important for them to go on about."

And then I always find out that there *are* more important things, and the ACLU looks like they're playing camera whore.

Full disclosure: I was a Boy Scout. Made it to Life Scout. So did both of my brothers. Guess what? My older brother doesn't believe in God. When he was asked at a Board of Review, he said so. Guess what? Nothing came of it. Nothing at all.

So yeah, when people say stupid sh*t about the Boy Scouts it kinda pisses me off.

More Disclosure (I lied): We were Boy Scouts in Madison, Alabama.

I've long found the ACLU's hypocrisy on the 2nd Amendment a sufficient reason for not joining.

They take a hard line on the other amendments that protect civil liberties (sometimes even more than I think the Constitution strictly justifies), and at the same time just handwave their way out of the 2nd Amendment by saying "national guard!" - I exaggerate, but only a little.

This signals to me that they are not so much a "civil liberties" group but a "the subest of civil liberties that is popular in urban enclaves among the Right People" group.

I don't want to support the latter, much as I approve of the former, and even the works of the latter that are a genuine subset of the former.

But that's just me.

For a good laugh, take arguments from the ACLU position paper on gun ownership and apply them to rights other than the right to bear arms.

For example:

"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

Now, slightly revised:

"Most proponents of free speech concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater. Yet this, like a quiet discussion of government policies among friends, is speech.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict speech, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

I will not hold my breath waiting for the ACLU to make this argument.

Like any organization the ACLU ultimately has to serve its members, regardless of what it says in its mission statement. And the fact is that the ACLU's members think some rights are more important than others.

I've long found the ACLU's hypocrisy on the 2nd Amendment a sufficient reason for not joining.

They take a hard line on the other amendments that protect civil liberties (sometimes even more than I think the Constitution strictly justifies), and at the same time just handwave their way out of the 2nd Amendment by saying "national guard!" - I exaggerate, but only a little.

Sounds like you should take the money you would have given the ACLU if they were as good on the 2nd as you want them to be and split it, some to the ACLU and some to the NRA. Then you'd cover all your bases...

Now that you mention it, how is the NRA on defending every other Amendment besides the 2nd? :)

My understanding of the original wording of the "separation and church" argument was to prevent a state sponsered religion, which people of varying faiths might find oppressive. It was not to strip all mention of any faith from our public lives, which seems to be the ACLU's goal.

If people oppress you because you are an atheist, a Hindu, or a Muslim, then the ACLU should, according to its charter, defend your civil liberties. But it seems to me that the ACLU has become the oppressor and the oppressed group seems to be American Christians who are forbidden to express their faith on their town seals, in their town squares, or in their civic clubs. This seems to me a complete bastardization of preventing government from enforcing a religious standard on its populace.

You may not like looking at the nativity scene, or the star of David, or the statue of Buddha, but is that really keeping you from believing or practicing whatever you want? Are your sensibilities so fragile that you are offended merely looking at the symbols of someone else's faith? I am not a Jew but one of our local temples does a fabulous Hanukkah display that I love. But that's just me.

And, let's face it, the ACLU has had the knife out for the boy scouts ever since they lost homosexual inclusion on the grounds that the boy scouts were a religious organization. It seems to me that, ever since that bitter blow, they've been saying "Okay, you want to define yourself as a religious organization. We are going to make absolutely sure that you don't get to use any government facility, ever again, for as long as you are in existence." Cheap vendettas don't really make anyone look good.

Cathy

"If people oppress you because you are an atheist, a Hindu, or a Muslim, then the ACLU should, according to its charter, defend your civil liberties."

And according to the Bill of Rights they should defend gun owners as well.... What was i thinking, sorry, just thinking that owning a gun was an actual Civil liberty framed in the Bill of Rights... sorry.

"Now that you mention it, how is the NRA on defending every other Amendment besides the 2nd? :)"

I don't expect the NRA to defend other amendments anymore than I expect AAA to do so. It's not why they exist.

On the other hand the ACLU is nominally in the business of defending civil rights and the constitution, but they're selective in which amendments they support.

Tell the ACLU this ... there is a nativity scene in Gonzales, Texas.

Come on down here and make an issue of it, you vile porkers.

And, please hurry. Tomorrow is National Ammo Day. We'll be ready for everyone of you buggers.

> Here, we have an organization that exists to promote civil rights.

While the ACLU acts as a "promote civil rights" organization, its name says otherwise.

The NRA was established as a training organization and that's how it spends the vast majority of its money.

But it seems to me that the ACLU has become the oppressor and the oppressed group seems to be American Christians who are forbidden to express their faith on their town seals, in their town squares, or in their civic clubs.

That's a pretty disingenuous way of wording it. Putting an symbol of Christianity on a town seal is an expression of faith? Whose faith is being expressed exactly?

How are individual American Christians being oppressed? I've heard this claim a lot, but can't seem to find many specifics beyond "the courts won't let us pass laws that favor our religion over others."

Cathy,
The question isn't whehter or not one is offended by looking at the Star of David, a statue of the Buddha or any other religious symbol. The question is whether it is proper to force others to look at while it is on public property, owned by all of us yet used to advance one faith over others. Can you cite one example of where a town has put up a Buddha or a Star of David on public property? In this country, it is only Christian symbols which are placed on the public square like that. The Menorah on your local synagogue maybe be beautiful or it may not, but that isn't the issue. It's on THEIR property. That is the issue. If you want to discriminate on the basis of religion, great, just don't do it on public property.

the oppressed group seems to be American Christians who are forbidden to express their faith on their town seals, in their town squares,

You proved the ACLU's point. In America, it would be an establishment of a religion to define a city government as "their town" where "their" = "American Christians." In fact, what you wrote is pretty chilling. I suppose a non-Christian doesn't count as a full and equal resident of "their" town.

The Boy Scouts of America has a policy of not admitting boys who are atheists.

There are currently about a million boy scouts. I would guess there are thousands of atheists among them, but I don't know.

Here's a story about Darrell Lambert, an Eagle Scout excommunicated from the BSA for being an atheist:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/31/atheist.scout.ap/

The Boy Scouts should not be ostracized and lose their support over this. They should change their policy and stop discriminating against atheists.

The ACLU is on the right side of this dispute.

Cathy, you wrote:

"But it seems to me that the ACLU has become the oppressor and the oppressed group seems to be American Christians who are forbidden to express their faith on their town seals, in their town squares, or in their civic clubs." [Emphasis added.]

I thought the whole point was that the town seals, squares, courthouses, etc. do not belong to Christians. Or at least, should not.

I don't particularly object to nativity scenes or the like on public property. For one thing, they're temporary.

I do have concerns about permanent, overt Christian references on government property. If they were frequently (or even occasionally) offset by similar references involving other religions, or atheism, or whatever, it would be different. But that's almost never the case.

To me, that's a clear suggestion that Christianity has a favored status.

"I thought the whole point was that the town seals, squares, courthouses, etc. do not belong to Christians. Or at least, should not."

Yeah, but nobody said they did. If Buddhists Muslims, Jews, etc want to place religious stuff on public property, I have no problem. The more the merrier. One position is inclusionary, one is exclusionary. If someone prevents them from putting stuff on public property, then they should be sued. It belongs to all of us and ALL OF US should be able to express ourselves.

Also, you should read up more on the town seal debacle. It's a clear case of discrimination against Christianity. Especially since there was more than one religous symbol on the seal and the only one they had a problem with was the CHristian one. And the reason for the Christian symbol was strictly historical.

The ACLU basically only cares about an anti-Christianity agenda, not a religious freedom agenda.

The Boy Scouts should not be ostracized and lose their support over this. They should change their policy and stop discriminating against atheists.

The ACLU is on the right side of this dispute.

It's still the wrong damn dispute.

My understanding of the original wording of the "separation and church" argument was to prevent a state sponsered religion, which people of varying faiths might find oppressive. It was not to strip all mention of any faith from our public lives, which seems to be the ACLU's goal.

This seems to be a distinction without a difference. Religion can be mentioned in 'public life' (whatever that means). When the gov't puts up the 10 Commandments on public property (as an endorsement, not a display of 'assorted laws in history' or an open forum) or a nativity they are endorsements of a religion. They may not seem like a major endorsement to you but suppose a town hall put up a monument that said something like "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet". How many Christians would shrug this off as just a 'mention' of religion in public life?

You may not like looking at the nativity scene, or the star of David, or the statue of Buddha, but is that really keeping you from believing or practicing whatever you want? Are your sensibilities so fragile that you are offended merely looking at the symbols of someone else's faith? I am not a Jew but one of our local temples does a fabulous Hanukkah display that I love. But that's just me.

The doctrine that has been evolvoing seems sensible to me. If a town has an 'open door' policy then what people do is fine. For example, if the town has a civic center where private clubs and groups can meet...that's fine by me. I don't think it is persecution of Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever to say a town cannot declare itself 'officially' Christian is not persection IMO.

Actually, the establishment clause was originally intended to prevent the establishment of a federal church, as I understand it; several states had state churches, and were not prevented from doing so. However, the doctrine of incorporation, which was used against the southern states during Reconstruction and proceeds, I believe, from the fourteenth amendment, now prevents the states from having their own churches.

The Boy Scouts shall overcome, because their cause is just (tongue only half in cheek). The BSA isn't going to "stop discriminating against atheists," because belief in God is central to their group. Atheists who want to be Scouts should either (a) work toward a belief in God through study, prayer, or whatever means they like, (b) start their own organization that incorporates all the good stuff of Scouting without the faith basis (after all, Baden-Powell started it from scratch), or (c) lie about their atheism, which raises a moral issue but I suspect is the most common approach.

The ACLU is a symptom. Multiculturalism ceases to be OK, in my mind, when the cultures that are the basis for so much of our society become anathema - e.g. among others, the LA County seal, which has been purged of the cross symbolizing the Spanish missionaries' role in the county's history (there's a building in its place on the seal, which I guess is supposed to be a mission but could as easily be a library, since its essential identifying characteristic is gone). The conquistadores are still represented - a galleon under sail - but the missionaries are laboring in anonymity now. Oh, and didn't Junipero Serra used to be the central figure? It's now a Native American woman holding a harvest basket, a symbol that should've been included in the original seal, but in terms of whose influence on today's California was more profound, arguably Fr. Serra's was.

This is not a politically correct viewpoint. I know it. No one need waste time telling me. The missionaries were not evil people as a group, not the cynical opportunists that the Spanish crown probably was; they truly believed that without them, the natives of CA were spiritually doomed. Full circle now - multiculturalism that militates against this kind of mindset is, imho, a good thing - but multiculturalism that condemns one group because of its historical ascendancy, without regard to its beneficial influence, is not.

You're a secular humanist?

*removes AI from blog roll*

Just kidding.

>Tell the ACLU this ... there is a nativity scene in
>Gonzales, Texas.

>Come on down here and make an issue of it, you vile
>porkers.

Did you put the town cannon and a "Come and Take It" flag in front of it?

The Boy Scouts shall overcome, because their cause is just (tongue only half in cheek). The BSA isn't going to "stop discriminating against atheists," because belief in God is central to their group.

No its not, I was a Scout and aside from a brief mention I can certainly say God was not a central part of what Boy Scouts did or their existence. Furthermore, I understand the Boy Scouts' requirement is a fuzzy belief in a 'higher diety'. Hindus would qualify along with traditional Christians. At some point you have to start taking what you say seriously. Hindus, Catholics, Buddahists all have very different conceptions of 'God(s)' and it is getting silly to try to imagine them as the same thing.

You didn't mention it but how should we take the Scout's position on homosexuality seriously? There are demoninations of Christianity that accept homosexuals...even gay marriage! I'm supposed to take a 'religious' institution seriously when it spans all religions from Hinduism to Judism to Christianity BUT can't accept gays?

I agree with you on the LA County seal because missions were a real factor in California's history, LA in particular. I do not think the city was expressing an endorsement of Catholicism hence it would not violate my view of what the 1st means.

A small quibble about "incorporation." The idea is simply that "due process" in the 14th Amendment requires fairness from the states toward their citizens, and that the prior Amendments limn part of what we mean by "fairness." So the "fairness" element of due process requires states offer their citizens the protections of the original Amendments.

As a (or for Jane, "an") historical matter, I'm not sure if the Northern states used it to bend the Southern states over, but the justification for it is non-crazy.

The ACLU lost me more than twenty years ago, when they took the part of Walter Polovchak's father when the kid (then 12 years old) resisted forcible return to the Soviet Union. Any belief I ever had in the ACLU's respect for "civil liberties" died when they got involved in that case.

Boonton:

I stand corrected. As a Scout mom (and former Girl Scout) who also professes a religion, I seem to be reading more into one line of the Scout Law and Oath than I ought to be. So what's the ACLU's justification for getting the feds to disavow the organization, then? And according to the original source for this thread, the case in point is the ACLU's getting the Pentagon to state that it won't sponsor the Boy Scouts - which it already has a policy of not doing (sponsoring any private group, that is). So what the??

I'm guessing (hoping?) the ACLU does do some good at the margins, but that stuff doesn't make the paper, while "ACLU Caterwauls About Stupid Sh*t Yet Again" always does.

I believe the mission with the cross was specifically added to L.A.'s symbol in the 1950s or 1960s as an "in your face, Commies!" gesture. It's like how the Confederate flag went up over southern capitols around the same time. The liberals didn't pick this fight and the tradition's a lot less venerable than people would like to think.

As to the cross on the (former) LA County seal, if the non-venerable tradition of which you speak is the tendency of the ACLU to try to remove crosses from the public sphere, you may well be right - I don't know. But it's inarguable that the missions themselves, complete with crosses, were influential in the region from the eighteenth century, no matter when the seal itself was (temporarily) finalized. We could as readily say that because the Native American woman who is now the central figure of the seal only appeared on it this year, there's only a very short tradition supporting her placement there and therefore she's vulnerable. How long a symbol has been on public display is irrelevant to its... um... relevance.

For that matter, the "under God" phrase in the Pledge was an anti-Commie addition of the '50s or so, wasn't it? But it doesn't change the fact that the Founders went on record as believing that "[we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights," etc., etc., which, IMHO, undermines the argument that there is no place for the non-exclusive use of religious symbols in the public arena, where those symbols are meaningful and relevant. Symbols can engender powerful emotions both positive and negative... but is their power a reason to outlaw them? It's insufficient in the art world.

Two quick comments: Several posters objected to Jane's criticism of the ACLU's priorities by telling her to contribute to another organization or to start her own civil rights group. Fair enough, but that misses what the ACLU is doing to the scouts. The ACLU is not content with the freedom gays and atheists (and like-minded straights and religionists) have to form their own youth organizations. No, the ACLU wants to use the power of government to fundamentally alter the Boy Scouts of America. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas, they want to make it unlawful for the scouts to exist in their current form. They want to make it unlawful to hold and act on the beliefs inherent in scouting.

Second, the scouts require a belief in god (small "d") for the same reason most 12 step programs require an acknowledgement in some greater power than self. Scouting is NOT about camping. It's about developing youth. The scouting organization believes it's easier to inculcate values (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent) if it is in the context of a youth's obligation (duty) to a Supreme Being. You might believe these values can be taught without bringing god into the equation. Fine, form your own organization. Don't send your kids to scouts. Just remember, should the ACLU get its way, scouts (in its current form) won't be there for those who disagree with you. That seems like less liberty, not more.

When I used the words "their seals", "their town squares", the careful reader would have noted that I did not say "their exclusive seals", et al. Christians are, in point of fact, part of the community, therefore I think my use of terms such as "their seals" was entirely appropriate and certainly not "chilling".

In an earlier post, the writer set forth the possiblity of having a monument in the town square that said "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" and asked the question "How many Christians would shrug this off as just a mention of religion in public life?"

Unfortunately, I can't answer that question as the national Christian community doesn't meet at my house on Tuesday nights. However, I can tell you how much it would bother me. Zero. For that matter, you can put a picture of the devil dancing on the town seal for all I care.

The point I was trying to make was simply that the ACLU, like most organizations, tends to pick and choose its battles. By foregoing battles such as federal search and seizure, and eminent domain to pursue this vendetta against the Boy Scouts, they haven't done themselves any favors.

The ACLU is fairly decentralized, as I understand it. Some of the cases they work on are tremendously important - enemy combatants, etc. But when the chapter is in an area where there aren't very many enemy combatants, I guess they try to justify their existence however they can.

David Walser wrote:

Several posters objected to Jane's criticism of the ACLU's priorities by telling her to contribute to another organization or to start her own civil rights group. Fair enough, but that misses what the ACLU is doing to the scouts. The ACLU is not content with the freedom gays and atheists (and like-minded straights and religionists) have to form their own youth organizations. No, the ACLU wants to use the power of government to fundamentally alter the Boy Scouts of America. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas, they want to make it unlawful for the scouts to exist in their current form. They want to make it unlawful to hold and act on the beliefs inherent in scouting.

Correct and this along with their support of government-sponsored radial discrimination vis-à-vis "affirmative action" pretty much disqualifies them from any serious consideration as a group that defends civil liberties.

Brennan:

Excellent point that never occurred to me for a second. It tempts me to conclude that those chapters trying to keep the Pentagon from doing something it doesn't do anyway (sponsor the Boy Scouts) exist in such oases of freedom that we have are less to worry about than the national ACLU mouthpieces would have us believe. But of course I won't draw that conclusion, since the alternative conclusion is that they just have a focus problem.

Has the ACLU ever attempted to oppose the observation of Christmas as a public holiday? This would seem like a logical extension of their other case law.

Several posters objected to Jane's criticism of the ACLU's priorities by telling her to contribute to another organization or to start her own civil rights group. Fair enough, but that misses what the ACLU is doing to the scouts. The ACLU is not content with the freedom gays and atheists (and like-minded straights and religionists) have to form their own youth organizations. No, the ACLU wants to use the power of government to fundamentally alter the Boy Scouts of America.

So what do you propose be done besides (a) voting with your dollars and (b) trying to convince others to do the same? Use the power of government to fundamentally alter the ACLU? I don't see any other solution that isn't worse than the problem it purports to solve.

Wow - look at the topicality. Slate and AI - thesis , antithesis, (one hopes, somewhere in the comments) synthesis. From Slate (and contra some of the commenters' claims that the ACLU is solely concerned with suing the Boy Scouts):

"Responding to a different lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Northern California contesting the administration of the so-called "no fly" list, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer agreed that some SSIs go too far."
From The Secrets of Flight

I realize that the idea of secret laws is unlikely to bother Bush-backers. But for a number of the rest of us, it's creepy. The fact that the ACLU is out there fighting what we think of as "the good fight" is comforting, and that probably explains a lot of support for the ACLU that exists despite some of its other legal projects.

Anyway, if you don't like them (and it's not precisely shocking that most of you don't), don't send a check. More for the NRA.

So what's the ACLU's justification for getting the feds to disavow the organization, then? And according to the original source for this thread, the case in point is the ACLU's getting the Pentagon to state that it won't sponsor the Boy Scouts - which it already has a policy of not doing (sponsoring any private group, that is). So what the??

I imagine their line is that the scouts should not receive any preferential treatment by gov't that any other partisan group (such as an athiest organization, the KKK, the Democratic/Republican parties, the green party and so on would receive.

I'm guessing (hoping?) the ACLU does do some good at the margins, but that stuff doesn't make the paper

I suspect that most of the ACLU's everday cases are pretty good. Stuff like a local town telling someone they can't put a elect Bush or Kerry sign on their lawn or a kid getting suspended because he wears a t-shirt advocating some policy.

No, the ACLU wants to use the power of government to fundamentally alter the Boy Scouts of America. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas, they want to make it unlawful for the scouts to exist in their current form. They want to make it unlawful to hold and act on the beliefs inherent in scouting.

Really? Do you have any specific examples?

In an earlier post, the writer set forth the possiblity of having a monument in the town square that said "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" and asked the question "How many Christians would shrug this off as just a mention of religion in public life?"

Unfortunately, I can't answer that question as the national Christian community doesn't meet at my house on Tuesday nights. However, I can tell you how much it would bother me. Zero. For that matter, you can put a picture of the devil dancing on the town seal for all I care.

It's nice that it wouldn't bother you but that's not really the question. Would those who just shrug and say 'that's not establishment!' be so willing to shrug if it was their ox that was being gored?

To put it in perspective, there have been reports of Christian oriented groups suing over public colleges that teach courses where reading portions of the Koran is a requirement (note just required to read portions of it to know what it says, not teaching the Koran as being true).

The point I was trying to make was simply that the ACLU, like most organizations, tends to pick and choose its battles. By foregoing battles such as federal search and seizure, and eminent domain to pursue this vendetta against the Boy Scouts, they haven't done themselves any favors.

My understanding is that each local ACLU organization is allowed to choose its own cases. I know they have fought search & seizure cases and have probably tackled at least a few eminent domain ones as well.

Anyone who thinks an atheist would make a poor candidate for a Boy Scout is mistaken.

The policy of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude atheists is ignorant and contrary to the ideals promoted by the Boy Scouts (which includes religious tolerance!).

I challenge anyone to defend why the BSA should discriminate against atheists. They do have a legal right to discriminate, but morally and practically it is dead wrong.

You're missing my point, Tim. I'm highly in favour of what the ACLU is doing about things like criminal law. I think there's much work to be done in that field, but when they spend time and money going after things like nativity scenes, I think either htey have too much money, or their priorities are seriously awry. And I think their stance on the Boy Scouts is fundamentally inimical to a basic civil right, which is freedom of association.

I think the Boy Scouts issue is much ado about nothing from both sides, quite frankly. I was in the Scouts years ago, and unless things have changed dramatically, the religious component isn't much of anything. The only thing I recall was that the Scout oath had some vague reference to doing duty to "God and country" or some such thing. It certainly didn't play an important role in Scouting at this time (early 80s, for reference), so I am not sure why excluding athiests is a big deal. We simply took this oath, which really didn't hold much significance for a group of young boys, and then went hiking, camping, to a baseball game etc. without any further mention of God. On the flip side, if you are an athiest, what's the big deal about mouthing some words that you don't believe anyway, as part of a greater "to go along, get along" agenda. An athiest co-worker of mine once said, if he were in that situation, he would have "taken the stupid oath and then gone camping." Maybe things have changed since I was in the Scouts, but I really don't see the outrage on either side. While I have a pretty high regard for the ACLU and think it does a lot of good work, I think they are picking a battle here over a rather trivial issue.

Jane and James are absolutely correct. There is quite a bit of the knee jerk to many conservative arguments against the ACLU, but what has always struck me as true is that they don't spend capital on important issues.

From the standpoint of organizational effectiveness, you really have to question these decisions. From the standpoint of ideological predisposition, you have to wonder what it means that they consistently go after nativity scenes and largely historical uses of religious language instead of protecting property from seizure or persuing rights violations under current drug laws. As a matter of civil liberties, what is the criteria being used to pick these fights?

Jane,

What the Boy Scouts are doing is wrong. They are excluding people they shouldn't exclude. They have no reason to exclude atheists.

The Boy Scouts have freedom of association, so in this instance they have a legally protected right to do the wrong thing. But the ACLU is determined to challenge the Scouts' freedom of association by kicking them off various state and federal facilities, and denying them certain government subsidies.

In this instance, the ACLU is doing the right thing.

The Boy Scouts are using their freedom of association as a metaphorical club to smack good kids who happen to be atheists. So the ACLU is using the issue of government support of the Boy Scouts as a club to pressure the group's leaders. If the Boy Scouts can arbitrarily withhold the many important benefits of scouting from deserving youths, then why shouldn't the government tell them to shape up or ship out?

Eamon O'Brolchain and others have raised the point that atheist kids could just tell a white lie and not sweat it. Maybe that is a prudent thing to do for an individual atheist. But the Boy Scouts should not be putting kids into this situation, and then kicking them out when they find out a kid is an atheist. It is a deeply shameful policy.

And that does not address what the ACLU should do about it. Should they say to themselves, "Oh yeah, freedom of association, let's just forget about this one", or should they try to force the Boy Scouts to do the right thing. I'm happy they've decided to stand up for individual kids' rights as opposed to the institution's rights.

From the standpoint of organizational effectiveness, you really have to question these decisions. From the standpoint of ideological predisposition, you have to wonder what it means that they consistently go after nativity scenes and largely historical uses of religious language instead of protecting property from seizure or persuing rights violations under current drug laws. As a matter of civil liberties, what is the criteria being used to pick these fights?

Considering that while the ACLU has litigated against government schools letting Christian student groups hold bible studies on site after-hours as a supposed government endorsement of religion while at the same time, they do not seem to have a problem with Muslim students* having separate rooms on site to pray in school during hours, the criteria would seem to be whether the religion bring practiced is Christianity (against) or Islam (for).

* FTR as a non-evangelical atheist, I don’t have a problem with either and frankly think that this almost pathological obsession on the part of radical secularists with removing any symbol or expression of Judeo-Christianity from the public sphere is absurd.

Jane:

"You're missing my point, Tim."

Not really, Jane. I'm just twitting you. What with "Torture Memo" about to be confirmed as AG, I figure I've only got a few weeks of this left. They say the last breath of freedom is the sweetest.

"And I think their stance on the Boy Scouts is fundamentally inimical to a basic civil right, which is freedom of association."

I don't know enough about the Boy Scout case; I don't really care, as I find the little buggers officious and annoying. It's worth noting that there are very good arguments that desegregation violates freedom of association; I'd still be deeply uncomfortable with an organization devoted to overturning Brown. As I've said before, I don't think the law is comprehensible (or anything but Kafka-esque, to steal from Slate) without a basic consensus about what is "fair."

The comments regarding the decentralization of the ACLU are interesting. There is no doubt in my mind that some of their weirder positions has an impact on people's perceptions. I would give money to them if it weren't for some of their lawsuits, but I don't. (anybody know another group that defends civil liberties more even-handed?)

As a follow-up to the recent post by the guy in Boy Scouts, I have a similar story. I was in Boy Scouts at about the same time, achieved Eagle Scout, 60 some odd merit badges, and various leadership positions in my troop. I can assure you, the last thing boys that age think about is religion. Anybody that age that has come to a conclusion that there exists/doesn't exist a god, blah, blah, blah has probably got their opinion from their parents. We're talking about 13 year old boys. No adults at my troop ever talked about religion. I was in what we considered one of the more laid back troops, so I would imagine there were/are some that do. I would point out that you can leave and join any other troop you want. The point is that troops are self-contained, there personality is based purely by the leaders of each specific troop. Those leaders first and foremost care about the development of the kids, some, I would guess, might incorporate religion, I don't know. But if the child and parents are uncomfortable they can join another troop or organization.

Regarding allowing homosexuals, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think they could get into some legal problems (not to mention marketing problems) having homosexuals on camping trips with young boys. I know for a fact they're are homosexuals in Boy Scouts now, but making it explicit I would think open up the organization to lawsuits in our sue-happy society.

Tim: "Regulations" are not "laws".

While you're right at the base level that the idea is somewhat worrying (though, unfortunately, worrying things are often necessary and unavoidable), pray don't confuse the two. After all, the heroine in your story was not put in legal jeopardy because of her perfectly legal and reasonable refusal to be searched. She just couldn't get on the plane.

PS, Tim: I read the "torture memo". I see nothing scandalous or shameful about reviewing the treaties and law on the subject. (And I certainly don't recall a section of it saying "hey, torture people!" no matter what you wish me to interpret the memo as saying.)That you do see that as bad reflects, I think, on you more than on Gonzales.

Matthew: Is it "right" for a civil liberties organisation to use government power to prevent an organisation that it dislikes for the way it uses its civil liberty of association from being able to use any public property? (Subsidies are another matter, but public property access strikes me as fundamentally different.)

I mean, why is it correct for the ACLU to attack the Boy Scouts for making what you call the "wrong", but still "right" in that it does not violate liberties, decision to choose not to associate with atheists, while (and here I make an assumption, but one I'm reasonably sure is correct) it would be wrong for the ACLU to attack or not support an organisation making the "wrong" decisions about how to use its right of free speech? (Such as the prototypical Illinois Nazi case.)

Honestly, I don't see the distinction. Maybe it's just me, but I've got this crazy idea that a Civil Liberties organisation should defend civil liberties even when they don't like how they're used, rather than trying to pressure groups into toeing whatever political line the group likes.

(Full disclosure: I've never been a Scout, and I'm an atheist. But I think the ACLU is Smokin' Rocks on this one.)

Someone (not sure whom) commented above that the incorporation doctrine is "non-crazy". I think otherwise. Some of the Bill of Rights is not "incorporated". Yet an amendment that starts out "Congress shall not" is "incorporated". Seems either crazy or stupid. Especially when the establishment part of the amendment was intended to protect states from federal interference. Now, it does the opposite.

The ACLU's behavior makes them look like a group that is helping only certain people, as opposed to an organization that defends all civil liberties.

Anyone read Flying Blind in here? I haven't forced myself to do so yet because I was scared of flying before 9/11, but I understand its premise is that the legal barriers to "profiling" in searching airline passengers leads to silliness like the story SCMTim cites. The "wrong" people being searched is the price we pay for elevating personal liberties over security, a decision we as a society have apparently, if somewhat reluctantly, made, so I think we ought to consider the cost carefully before we throw it out. I do think the TSA could have been more diplomatic toward the former Representative, and I read (between the lines of) one report that they may have misinterpreted her desire to see the governing statute as a desire to see the search criteria, which I think they were correct to withhold.

SCMTim, please don't assume that "Bush-backers" are also brownshirts. Like Jane, my problem with the ACLU herein is that they should be focusing on potentially egregious deprivations of civil liberty rather than wounded sensibilities.

Please see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29798 for one Arab-American's take on airport security. Practical, but politically untenable, I'd guess.

Being a card-carrying member of the ACLU, let me chime in with a few points:

1)There is a difference between what actions the ACLU takes which are covered by the media and what they actually do outside of the media spotlight. The media dispenses a disproportionate amount of attention to separation of church and state issues. The communications I get from the ACLU deal with criminal issues, privacy, the war on terror, reproductive rights, gay rights, etc. Little ink is used on separation of church and state.

2)If you like certain cases that the ACLU takes and not others, you have the option of joining and directing where your money goes. Its that simple. No one is going to like all of their stances. They take too many positions on too many issues for that to be the case. But they are effective at what they do.

3)The issue with the Boy Scouts as I understand it is mainly due to the discrimination based on religion and thus the 1st Amendment issues that entails. (There is also the gay issue, but there isn't much the ACLU can do about that other than rely on certain state statutes.). It doesn't mean that the government should be actively working for the death of the organization. Its a private organization and can do whatever they want to, as long as they aren't using public property or public funds in that quest.

I was a boy scout too and religion didn't play any part in my tenure there. However, the BSA should then take the next step and not kick kids out because they declare themselves as being atheiests. And the world isn't going to end if the Boy Scouts have gay scoutmasters.

Manish, and all those who make similar arguments, it's surprising how easily you dismiss the objections of those who disagree with you. You were a scout and in your troop religion was not a big deal. So? My troop was sponsored by our church. Religion was a very big deal in my troop. Regardless of how much emphasis each troop puts on faith in god, a basic tenant of scouting is that boys acquire virtues best when those virtues are taught within a frame work of duty to god, country, and self. [The scoutmaster might ask, "John, how is being friendly (one of the 12 points of the scout law) one of the ways in which we fulfill our duty to god?"] These are the three points of the scout oath and asking scouting to give up the first of these points is a fundamental change. You may not have been influenced by appeals to a duty to god, many boys are not. Many are. I've sponsored a friend in AA. That organization, and all other 12 step programs I am aware of, require an acceptance of a power greater for the exact same reason the scouts require do. Will the ACLU be coming after AA next?

Lastly, you say all the ACLU is doing is trying to pressure the scouts to do the right thing. Sure, you say, the scouts have a legal right (what we might call a "civil liberty"!) to do what they are doing, ALL the ACLU is doing is trying to use government power to "persuade" (or intimidate) the scouts from doing what they have a right to do. Does that mean that it's okay for another organization to use governmental power to persuade women not to have an abortion? After all, few argue that abortion is moral, only that it is legal. Fine. Have your abortion, just not at a publicly subsidized hospital, or using the services of a doctor whose education was subsidized by the public, or etc. How about pornography? Maybe we should persuade people to "do the right thing" and consume less of the stuff.

No, you would be right to say, such actions would have a "chilling effect" on the exercise of a constitutionally protected liberty. If governmental power cannot be used to "chill" the abortion and pornography industries, it shouldn't be used to "chill" the scouts. Otherwise, we don't have constitutionally protected liberties, do we?

I'm confused. Where does the government subsidize pornography these days?

David:

"Does that mean that it's okay for another organization to use governmental power to persuade women not to have an abortion? After all, few argue that abortion is moral, only that it is legal. Fine. Have your abortion, just not at a publicly subsidized hospital, or using the services of a doctor whose education was subsidized by the public, or etc."

There have been many, many attempts to do just that with abortions. The counter-argument, generally, is that abortion is considered a valid medical treatment (and presumably not an elective one, like a breast augmentation), and therefore the state should either provide a full complement of medical services or not. (I'm roughing it out a lot).

Sigivald, David Walser, and others who disagree with the ACLU's campaign for religious tolerance in the BSA:

Thank you for thoughtful objections.

Is it really that ironic, though, that a civil liberties group is seeking to use the power of government to curtail a private group's exercise of it's right of association?

The government, after all, has a monopoly on the use of force in our society to uphold the law, enforce contracts, and protect the rights of various minorities. It is not illogical to seek their help in fighting the discrimination of the Boy Scouts, especially when the ACLU's tactics are focused only on the special privileges the BSA has accrued through the decades due to its special status as an all-American civic group open to boys of all backgrounds.

Here is a letter you can read online at the Puget Sound Business Journal that gives a good summary of the situation at BSA:

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2002/11/25/editorial4.html

Choice for Scouts

I am pleased that the Business Journal is taking the time to address the issue of the Boy Scouts of America's position on religious beliefs.

The Scouts' pointed exclusion of nonbelievers along with its position on gays has received a great deal of attention in the local and national media. The common retort by supporters of exclusion is that the Scouts are a private organization that has obtained a court opinion that it may be selective in such a manner.

While this may be true, this does not imply it is proper, nor representative of the true diversity of many of the boys and families of high character and potential who would be excluded by such policies.

History is full of many examples of beliefs and policies that are deeply felt, which have changed with positive consequences for all. Desegregation is but one of these. But these changes are often hard-fought and time-consuming.

Each troop should be free to choose its members based upon its own standards that are consistent with the true tasks and goals of Scouting. But private beliefs should be just that, and a troop that wishes to welcome those who behave and conduct themselves in an exemplary manner consistent with a good Scout must be free to do so. Belief in God is not required for character, nor is a heterosexual orientation.

Until the Scouts were politicized on these issues, it was a place where boys of very diverse backgrounds could come together on a national and international level, find common ground and have fun together. No longer is this the case in the United States and this is a loss to all involved in the organization, as well as to those boys and families who have opted out on principle.

Those who defend the decision as one of choice fail to acknowledge that the Scouts control billions of dollars of assets in the form of world-class facilities donated and paid for by decades of supporters, many of whom would be chagrined at these recent events. These assets can't be replicated, nor should they have to be, any more than one would claim that a person of a given belief or persuasion can be legitimately excluded from employment at one business because there are others that they may apply to. The national scouting board and local management have taken positions that are unreflective of the whole of society and in so doing, have seized control of a public good, for the benefit of only a select group.

It is difficult to understand why those leaders of the business and nonprofit community and local governments, who would not tolerate such policies in their own organizations, will lend support to an organization that remains resolute in their will to intimidate, and exclude and extrude. Silence on the matter is acquiescence. If you wish to learn more about the issue on a national basis, two Web sites of interest are http://www.inclusivescouting.net and http://www.scoutingforall.org.

Brian L. Grant, M.D., Seattle

© 2002 American City Business Journals Inc.

Perhaps a good analogy would be if the leadership of the BSA were replaced by folks who thought that only white people would make good Boy Scouts. Surely, the new leadership would be entitled to enact such a policy under the principle of free association. But just as surely, you, I, Jane Galt, James Joyner, and James Lileks would be quite appalled by the new policy and would not hesitate to boot the new and improved BSA off of any federal or state property, and would not hesitate to cut off any governmental subsidies.

Well, folks, atheist kids and parents should have just as much rights in the BSA as non-white kids and parents, and God bless the ACLU for looking after them!

And nothing is stopping the godless sons of bitches from setting up their own organization. I just love to say "godless sons of bitches". It's fun!

Matthew, I think that your local church should be required to allow Muslims to attend with you. Afterall, it is not fair that religious organizations should be able to exclude members of other faiths if they so choose.

"And the world isn't going to end if the Boy Scouts have gay scoutmasters."

No, but at some point a lawsuit will be filed against the Boy Scouts because they let gay men go off into the woods with little boys and someone got molested. Molesters target organizations that work with young children.

I don't want my daughter to go on camping trips with older men and lesbians, so why would I want my son to go on camping trips with gay men and, yes, even women?

I meant to point out that not all gay men are pedophiles OBVIOUSLY, but a significant number of pedophiles are attracted to young boys.

Adding to lindenen's comments: Tammy Bruce, in The Death of Right & Wrong clarifies the difference between "ephebophilia" (attraction of an adult to an adolescent) and "pedophilia" (attraction of an adult to a child of 12 or younger), and notes that attraction of an adult male to an adolescent female is "called 'heterosexuality,' while adult men being attracted to male adolescents is called - surprise! - 'homosexuality.'" Elsewhere, she claims, "Frankly, the reason for keeping gay men out of the Boy Scouts is the same reason men are not allowed to participate in the Girl Scouts."

In plain language, the Boy Scouts organization chooses to place the safety of its youthful members ahead of the civil liberties of its leaders - all of them, not just the gay ones. They, as well as the Girl Scouts, screen carefully for adults who have what appears to be an unusually strong interest in or record of working with young people, and even though no doubt some innocent dolphins (porpoises? whatever) are going to be caught in this net, the kids are better protected for it, under circumstances in which they are very vulnerable. We can look at the Catholic Church's very different approach to the problem of adults in positions of trust who are attracted to the young to see the consequences of a different choice.

How this impacts the atheist-Scout debate - eh, I don't think it does. The two get lumped together as "groups the BSA discriminates against," since they're (AFAIK) the only two groups that could even float such a claim. But the organization's policy toward each group exists obviously for very distinct reasons. I think they probably ought to be de-lumped, so they can be addressed by those who disagree on the correct grounds. (I'm not saying I think the BSA should capitulate, only that their opponents should not create a set of "victims of discrimination" who share no characteristics other than the fact that BSA policy excludes them.) This is where we get back to the ACLU. Do they address these questions separately?

The most dishonest aspect of the Boy Scouts debate is the way it is framed around 40 year old gay men suddenly deciding they want to be scoutmasters, when the reality is that the policy hurts teenagers who have dedicated themselves to the Boy Scouts, come out as gay, and then been drummed out despite having lived up to the highest standards of integrity and honesty set by the organization.

I also think it gives people a false sense of security to presume that married or ostensibly "straight" men would never, ever abuse a male child, while an openly gay man whose every move would be watched for the slightest transgression poses the only threat.

I don't want my daughter to go on camping trips with older men and lesbians,

I hope she's not in the Girl Scouts, then, because the Girl Scouts don't expel lesbian scouts or parents (or atheists for that matter) and have somehow escaped any serious problems.

The "gay guys will sodomize my son" argument is tripe.

I assume the bar to homosexual men being a part of the Scouts applies to "out" gay men, and not just people who fit a certain stereotype. I also suspect that people who prey on the young are secretive about most things sexual. Furthermore, if one were going to use the Scouts for sex, you'd think he'd be as secretive about his sexuality as possible (whether he was gay or straight or whatever). As a result , I suspect that "out" gay men are less likely to prey on scouts charges than the complementing set of men (straight, or in the closet, or whatever). So the bar seems to make no sense on its own grounds.

But you'd think there would be some empirical data to back this up, one way or the other - heaven knows that we've had a lot of young men come forward to accuse their abusers recently. Were an extranormal number of these abusers "out" gay men?

Lindenen,

Small confession: I am a godless fellow myself, so I don't belong to a local church. I typed "God bless the ACLU" because I thought it would be fun, and also because if there a God, She would be smiling at the ACLU's efforts to protect the rights of Her godless children.

I have tried participating in my neighborhood's branch of the New York Society of Ethical Culture, which is a church-like group that is open to persons of any denomination or no denomination. But they have been too anti-war, too anti-Republican, and too pro-ACLU (!) and pro-UN for my tastes. But they are good people, so maybe someday I'll stop by again.

As for your analogy of a local church being forced to accept Muslims: if a local church was sponsored by an Army base, or received government subsidies for its operations, than it should be open to Muslims.

How about the Boy Scouts of America? Should they be allowed to exclude Muslims? To exclude Jews? Catholics? Should they be allowed to exclude agnostics who lean towards believing in God but aren't quite sure?

One final point: Jane Galt's original objection to the ACLU wasn't even that it was necessarily wrong to go after the BSA. She considered it more a mistaken priority, a frivolous crusade inspired by run-away secularism.

That might well be true if there were no victims. I don't see how anyone is seriously victimized by having the Pledge of Allegiance recited in a public school, for example.

But some Boy Scout troops, and the national leadership of the BSA itself, have turned this atheism business into a witch hunt. They are the ones who have blown this out of proportion and put a big "Sue Me" sign on their backsides. Hopefully they will find some face-saving way to compromise before the BSA is damaged beyond repair.

Exactly how has the ACLU 'pressured' the Scouts to change their policy by use of the gov't? Do not include in this answer anything that involves the Scouts using gov't resources.

What with "Torture Memo" about to be confirmed as AG, I figure I've only got a few weeks of this left. They say the last breath of freedom is the sweetest.

*Deep sigh*
Yes, Dim, it's all true.
The Bad Guys are coming for you, you know. Just you.
All because you dared to type something uncomplimentary to George Bush on a weblog.
Run, you fool! They're right behind you...!!

> They are the ones who have blown this out of proportion and put a big "Sue Me" sign on their backsides.

On what basis? You're allowed to choose your friends, why aren't they?

> Do not include in this answer anything that involves the Scouts using gov't resources.

Why not? Lots of private, exclusionary organizations use govt resources. Why should the BSA be treated any differently?

Andy,

What private, exclusionary groups use government resources on anything like the level of the Boy Scouts? Perhaps you are not aware of the rent-free use of space in cities like Philadelphia that the Boy Scouts has had for decades, specifically because it was an organization open to ALL BOYS.

I have no problem with the Boy Scouts being an exclusionary institution as long as it ceases to have these excessively cosy relationships with government institutions. If the government is going to give money and resources to boy groups to benefit all boys, it should give to groups that do not disciminate. Period.

Also, for those of you who used to be Boy Scouts long ago, my understanding is that the Boy Scouts have changed significantly. The Far Right made it a priority to take over the administration of the Boy's Scouts, and have had great success. I heard from the President of the Philadelphia Free Thinkers Society, which spoke at my Unitarian Universalist (UU) church, that they are now taking steps to exclude UUers as well, as we do not state in our creed that we believe in God. So now it's the UUers. Who will it be next? When should the government cease subsidizing this institution? When it only allows born-again biblical literalists? Or never? Why is the government giving any funds to this institution, why?

"At the request of Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Oklahoma),[Congress] passed a law giving Appropriations Committee chairmen the right to look at anyone's tax returns without regard to privacy rights. When caught by Democrats, they said it was all just a big mistake and promised they'd never actually use this authority." (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005200.php)

Oh, yeah, concerns about Red State assaults on individual rights (rt. to counsel, rt. to a hearing, rt. to equal protection, rt. to privacy, etc.) - that's just crazy talk. Let me be the first to congratulate our new Bush-Backer overlords on birthing this New America.

Jeebus.

> What private, exclusionary groups use government resources on anything like the level of the Boy Scouts?

That's relevant only if you're claiming that govt has been discriminating against other groups. If that's your claim, your beef is with govt, not the Boy Scouts.

Govt makes resources available. Some people and organizations use them. Others don't. So what?

If you're going to argue that govt shouldn't make as many resources available, that's fine. But that argument also has nothing to do with the Boy Scouts.

You've yet to bring up anything that distinguishes the Boy Scouts, yet you want to treat them differently.

You want a Boy Scout organization that is different, you build it. Why should someone be discriminated against because they don't do it for you?

> If the government is going to give money and resources to boy groups to benefit all boys

Govt doesn't do that, and never has.

There's always some type of discrimination.

> Also, for those of you who used to be Boy Scouts long ago, my understanding is that the Boy Scouts have changed significantly.

I love urban myths.

My grandmother believed to her dying day that her minister had talked to someone who heard the missing section of the watergate tapes.

But, let's assume that it's true. So what? Would you be as offended if the Boy Scouts had been taken over by leftists? (If you answer yes, I'm going to ask what you've done about actual viewpoint discrimination by govt in favor of leftists.)

If you want a boys organization more friendly to folks who believe in potlucks, build it. If you're denied equal access to govt resources, you'll have a beef (and my support), but it will be with govt.

Tim's outrage would have been more convincing if he'd linked it to his rants about the use of FBI files by the Clinton administration.

He did object, right?

Lisa wrote:

> I heard from the President of the Philadelphia Free Thinkers
> Society, which spoke at my Unitarian Universalist (UU) church,
> that they are now taking steps to exclude UUers as well, as we
> do not state in our creed that we believe in God.

This appears to be substantially true.

See: http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/scouts_to_uua.html

Lisa, Boonton, et al - The ACLU tried to pressure the scouts into admitting gays and atheists by filing suit in court. Had the ACLU won, the government would have used its power to REQUIRE the scouts to change their policies. The Supreme Court said the government does not have that power -- a pesky little thing called the Constitution got in the way of the ACLU's desired outcome. (Ponder for a moment the irony of a civil rights organization trying to force another organization to give up its constitutional rights.)

Having failed in its frontal attack, the ACLU is now trying to accomplish its goal by seeking to deny the scouts access to government property. For those of you in the East, that may not sound like a big deal. In the West, where most of the land (90%+, depending on the state) is owned by the government, you can't go camping except on government land. For many troops, it's difficult to hold a meeting without access to a school cafeteria or firehouse. In short, the ACLU is trying to make it impossible for the scouts to conduct their program.

Many of you are saying, "Too bad! Mend your ways and we'll let you use governmental resources." Awfully big of you, but you see the scouts have not been granted exclusive use of these resources. Other groups are granted equal access with the scouts. Want to hold a meeting at the local High School? If the school is not using it, you can. (At least you can in Arizona and most of the other places I've lived.) Want your group to tour an aircraft carrier, those arrangements can be made.

Barring legitimate concerns about public safety, parks and such should be open to all. (Remember the ire many expressed when the city of New York refused to grant some groups permission to protest in Central Park?) Any group should be able to use the public's resources on an equal basis. That's all the scouts are asking for. The ACLU now argues that an ideological test must be administered before a group can be granted access to public property: Either think like we want you to or you can't exist in the public square. That's a strange position for the organization that fought to allow the KKK access to public streets. The ACLU was right then. It's wrong now.

(Before any of you cite the "sweetheart deals" the scouts have received in the past, you'd better check the details. In San Diego, for example, the scouts were granted use of part of a public park for a minimal rent. The scouts also, at their own expense, built and maintained the campgrounds, trails, swimming pools, and other improvements in that part of the park. In addition, the scouts administered the park, providing life guards at the pool, trash pick up, and scheduling the use of the facilities by other non-scouting groups and individuals, etc. In all, the scouts provided goods and services to the city worth millions of dollars over the decades that they have used the park. You may call that a sweetheart deal, but it's hard to say the scouts were using the facility "rent free".)

> This appears to be substantially true.

And it's still irrelevant.

"Taken over by rightists" isn't actually an argument that helps your case, even if it's your boogie man. (And, you might want to check out the "Boy who cried wolf.")

One of the issues with the Boy Scouts is that the national organization is quite different from the local councils. For whatever reason, the national organization has become much more conservative in recent years. Also, from what I understand, the two biggest sponsors of Scout troops in the US are the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches. Obviously, there is some concern from the national people over doing anything on either the atheist or gay issues that would offend those churches.
Having said that, I still don't see why the ACLU insists on persecuting these people to the extent that they do.

>>"At the request of Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Oklahoma),[Congress] passed a law giving Appropriations Committee chairmen the right to look at anyone's tax returns without regard to privacy rights. When caught by Democrats, they said it was all just a big mistake and promised they'd never actually use this authority." (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005200.php)

Oh, yeah, concerns about Red State assaults on individual rights (rt. to counsel, rt. to a hearing, rt. to equal protection, rt. to privacy, etc.) - that's just crazy talk. Let me be the first to congratulate our new Bush-Backer overlords on birthing this New America.

Jeebus.

David, do you have a cite that shows that the Federal Government is excluding the Boy Scouts from National Parks? That's quite an accusation.

Also, you're misrepresenting the case against the Boy Scouts' anti-discrimination policy. The ACLU didn't sue to let gays in; the head plaintiff, James Dale, was a highly-accomplished Eagle Scout with years of service who was kicked out. They were suing to have him reinstated.

Lisa, Boonton, et al - The ACLU tried to pressure the scouts into admitting gays and atheists by filing suit in court. Had the ACLU won, the government would have used its power to REQUIRE the scouts to change their policies. The Supreme Court said the government does not have that power -- a pesky little thing called the Constitution got in the way of the ACLU's desired outcome. (Ponder for a moment the irony of a civil rights organization trying to force another organization to give up its constitutional rights.)

Really? Or did they want the Scouts simply to be denied access to taxpayer funds and property? I'm curious to hear the reasoning that the ACLU supposedly used to require non-discrimination by the Scouts but not, say, by the KKK.

Having failed in its frontal attack, the ACLU is now trying to accomplish its goal by seeking to deny the scouts access to government property. For those of you in the East, that may not sound like a big deal. In the West, where most of the land (90%+, depending on the state) is owned by the government, you can't go camping except on government land. For many troops, it's difficult to hold a meeting without access to a school cafeteria or firehouse. In short, the ACLU is trying to make it impossible for the scouts to conduct their program.

Doubtful, very doubtful. There's a distinction between land that is an 'open forum' and land that is closed to exclusive use. As long as the gov't makes camp sites open to any group (such as a Jewish group, a Muslim group) I don't think that they object to the BS using it.

I wonder what do other groups do in the West? Are there no parks, Churches or other places for people to meet...just school cafeterias? Out here in the East, I admit, we are pretty advanced but even the cheapest hotels here have meeting rooms that can be rented.

Many of you are saying, "Too bad! Mend your ways and we'll let you use governmental resources." Awfully big of you, but you see the scouts have not been granted exclusive use of these resources. Other groups are granted equal access with the scouts. Want to hold a meeting at the local High School? If the school is not using it, you can. (At least you can in Arizona and most of the other places I've lived.) Want your group to tour an aircraft carrier, those arrangements can be made.

I have no problem with an open forum policy. If the local athiest society or KKK is also free to book access to a school room then go ahead let the Scouts be.

> Let me be the first to congratulate our new Bush-Backer overlords on birthing this New America.

Yup, an actual law, voted on and everything, is horrendously worse than illegal activity like FileGate.

I don't have any sympathy for the "they snuck it in" argument. If you're voting on something that you haven't read, that's your problem, and "we do it all the time" isn't a defense.

David Perry, Andy Freeman, (and Jane Galt):

I'm glad you're upset about the ACLU's persecuting the BSA. The ACLU's campaign is forcing the Boy Scouts to lose privileges, resouces, funding, and good will. These losses are squeezing troops and affecting boys all over the country.

It's a bad situation, but there is something that could be done.

The BSA could, for example, announce a new policy of non-discrimination on the basis of religion. This would pull the plug on the most onerous lawsuits, and restore a lot of the reputation for tolerance and inclusiveness that the organization once enjoyed.

Do you think this would be a good move?

Andy Freeman wrote:
Yup, an actual law, voted on and everything, is horrendously worse than illegal activity like FileGate.

Ah, so privacy matters don't matter, so long as it is voted on. I get it now. The majority can simply trample over our rights. Also, while you have no sympathy for the argument that they snuck it argument, you also apparently have no knowledge of our legislative process. These spending bills are thousands of pages long and there hasn't been enough time for anyone other than Evelyn Wood to read them. It wasn't humanly possible to read the entire bill from the time it was available in its final printed form and the time the vote was taken. Whoever inserted this material into the bill knew this full well and didn't intend on it being read prior to the vote.

Brittain33 "The ACLU didn't sue to let gays in; the head plaintiff, James Dale, was a highly-accomplished Eagle Scout with years of service who was kicked out. They were suing to have him reinstated."

That's a distinction without a difference. The result of Mr. Dale's suit would have been a requirement that the scouts change their policy barring gays from serving. I doubt the court would have limited its application to just those gays seeking reinstatement. Nor would the effect of the similar suits brought by atheists have been limited to reinstatement. Instead, the result would have been a requirement that the scouts admit gays and atheists into their ranks.

As for your request that I cite an example of the federal government barring scouts from national parks, that's something that I cannot do. (I also do not recall making such an accusation.) I have simply pointed out what the ACLU is trying to require the government to do, not what the government has done.

You can read the ACLU's argument as presented to the courts on http://archive.aclu.org/court/boyscouts_v_dale.html

Basically the ACLU argued that the BS were not a private organization but a 'place of public accomodation' such as McDonalds or a bowling ally. If that's what they are, then they do not have the right to discriminate that a truely private organization has.

I think most people agree that discrimination is rightly illegal in 'places of public accomodation', hence the argument is one over facts. Is the BS such an organization or is it a private organization?

I'll accept that they are private but I don't think arguing the other side is fairly called 'persecution'. As for the BS 'losing gov't resources', if they want to be a private organization then they should use their own resources like every other private organization.

That's a distinction without a difference.

On the contrary, it is all about how you frame this issue. Ditto for the claim you made about banning Boy Scouts from National Parks--which doesn't follow at all, based on the distinction between different forms of access, the special nature of DoD facilities, etc.

The ACLU was not suing to let gays into the Boy Scouts; it sued to stop the Boy Scouts from expelling their members who come out as gay, often after years of service and accomplishment, in states where the Boy Scouts made use of government resources AND the states had laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This is why the lawsuit was centered in New Jersey, and not Texas, where Boy Scouts can ostacize and ridicule any teenager they want if he doesn't fit in.

As on the gay marriage thread, you have a large, socially popular institution practicing discrimination against a small, unpopular group. When they are criticized for it, you can defend them on the merits, or you can reframe this discussion into "how the small group COULD be persecuting the large institution" by coming up with absurd examples of stuff the small, unpopular group could do if it were led by maniacs with Asperger's. It's intellectually dishonest. It's the kind of victimhood argument I thought conservatives wanted to drive out of the public square.

Boys are being kicked out of the Boy Scouts for being gay or for their atheism. The Department of Defense is providing special accommodations for the Boy Scouts even while the Boy Scouts discriminates against the children of servicemen and women who are not religious. (The DoD is always free to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation under current law, so that's not an issue.)

David, do you think this is fair to the brave men and women in uniform who are not religious? The Boy Scouts are the only game in town for what they do on military bases, that's the reality. Military bases are not the Free Market of ideas. It's bad policy and unAmerican to exclude these children.

Boonton - Did we end up agreeing? If so, that may be a first. All I am asking for is equal access for the scouts on the same basis with other not-for-profits. The ACLU and its friends are asking for an end to the "subsidies" for the scouts. At first blush, that doesn't sound too different than equal access. The devil is in the details. An example; Soon after the Supreme Court made its ruling affirming the scouts' right to exclude gays, the mayor of Tempe, Arizona (close to where I live) announced the city would no longer contribute to the United Way unless the United Way agreed not to fund the scouts. The mayor said the city would not support an organization that discriminated, whether that discrimination was legal or not. Of course, it was not the city's money that was going to the United Way; the money was from the voluntary contributions of city employees. When this was pointed out to the good mayor, it didn't matter. By allowing the employees to make voluntary contributions to the United Way through payroll deductions, the city's resources (a/k/a its payroll department) would be used to "subsidize" the scouts.

This is the kind of "subsidy" the ACLU is trying to prevent the scouts from receiving. By this logic, the city of Tempe was subsidizing every organization the United Way helped to fund -- meaning the city was subsidizing abortions (Planned Parenthood) and religion (the local Catholic run food bank).

How exactly was the mayor proposing to stop private contributions?

I think most people agree that discrimination is rightly illegal in 'places of public accomodation'

It's not a consensus among the libertarians, as far as I'm aware. There's quite a few who argue that there should be *no* 'places of public accomodation' and that any institution willing to take the economic hit from discriminatory policies should be allowed to do so.

David Walser,

Here's a proposal: I'll agree to write a letter to the mayor of Tempe requesting that he back off from boycotting the United Way, if you write a letter to the BSA requesting that they back off from excluding atheists.

If enough reasonable people can get motivated to work out this stand-off, maybe this problem can actually be pushed to a solution. Are you game?

David,

Boonton - Did we end up agreeing? If so, that may be a first. All I am asking for is equal access for the scouts on the same basis with other not-for-profits. The ACLU and its friends are asking for an end to the "subsidies" for the scouts.

Actually I think we both missed the essence of the ACLU's argument. The ACLU argued that the Scouts were not a private organization but a public one...like McDonalds or Hilton Hotels. As such they cannot practice discrimination because they would qualify as a 'place of public accomodation' under discrimination law. The Boy Scouts argued that opposite, that they were a private group albeit very large....like the Catholic Church or the KKK (BTW, don't think I consider those groups equal in terms of morality. They clearly are not! I'm just illustrating that under the law both private groups are equal before the courts).

I think the ACLU's argument was fair. That doesn't mean they should have won but it was an argument that deserved a fair hearing. I think the Scouts claim of falling on the side of being a private as opposed to public organization is fuzzy. Unlike the Catholic Church, I don't see the Scouts as having a consistent ideology in terms of religion or morals. Like I said, when you embrace literally every religion from Christianity to Hinduism it's pretty hard to seriously exclude a particular group like gays or atheists.

The devil is in the details. An example; Soon after the Supreme Court made its ruling affirming the scouts' right to exclude gays, the mayor of Tempe, Arizona (close to where I live) announced the city would no longer contribute to the United Way unless the United Way agreed not to fund the scouts.

Indeed, why is the city of Tempe contributing to the United Way? If it is payment for a specific service (such as operating shelters in the city) then the United Way has 'earned' the money and is free to do with it what it wants. If it is just a contribution then the Mayor should reduce taxes by the amount of that contribution and let the individual taxpayers choose to give to the United Way on their own!

Otherwise alarm bells should be ringing like crazy. Imagine I casually wrote "the Mayor of X was sued over the city making contributions to the Catholic Church/Islamic Mosque/Jewish Temple/Libertarian Party/Neo-Nazi group/Nation of Islam"!

Andy Freeman wrote:

[quoting me:]
>> This appears to be substantially true.
>
>And it's still irrelevant.
>
>"Taken over by rightists" isn't actually an argument
> that helps your case, even if it's your boogie man.
> (And, you might want to check out the "Boy who cried wolf.")

Neither in my statement quoted above, nor in the words of Lisa that I quoted and said were "substantially true" did the words "taken over by rightists" appear.

Neither did I make any argument involving "taken over by rightists".

I said that Lisa's statement appears substantially true that the BSA has taken steps expressly to exclude Unitarian Universalist churches from participation in Scouting.

If you have evidence that such is not true, or that the letter from the BSA I cited is not true, please indicate it.

Please read for comprehension.

Matthew - As much as I'd like to be counted among the reasonable people, I'm not game. For the first time in nearly 20 years, I am not currently involved as a scouting leader (other than as a merit badge counselor). While acting as a leader, I found it frequently useful to appeal to our shared acknowledgement of a power greater than self (a/k/a, god) in teaching the young men I was working with. Whether working with the boys from my own troop or those from another, there was a common understanding -- our mutual duty to god -- that gave context to the instruction I was giving.

For those who have not been a scout or did not have scout leaders who ran the program properly, it may be hard to understand why the scouts' premise of a faith in god is so important. If scouting were divorced from its moral foundation, it would be nothing more than a youth activity program -- like little league or youth soccer. Scouting, properly understood, is much more than that. The be all and end all of scouting is to instill in the hearts of young men the virtues contained in the 12 points of the Scout Law. The camping and other activities, while good in and of them selves, are designed to accomplish the larger purpose of teaching moral character.

A primary purpose of going on a campout is to give the leaders a chance, while under the stars, to discuss things of eternal importance with their boys. It's a chance to ask and answer the question of why we serve our fellow man. Answer: Because it's one of the ways we fulfill our duty to god. It's one way of thanking Him for the beautiful world we live in.

I know it's possible, in theory, to inculcate these same values without bringing god into the conversation. I don't know that those methods would be as effective. So, you see, my personal reasons for supporting the scouts' requirement for a belief in god are not based on mere prejudice. It's based on a belief that an acknowledgement of a power greater than self is essential to furthering the mission of scouting.

Boonton - The mayor was arguing that, by allowing its employees to make voluntary contributions to the United Way via payrool deductions, the city was supporting the United Way. No city dollars went the the charity, it was the employees' money -- taken out of their paychecks at the employees' request -- that went to the United Way. Even this tenuous a subsidy was too much for the mayor.

If city employees are donating portions of their own paychecks to the United Way then I would consider that a private donation. But it is a special favor to the U.W. for the city to arrange payroll deductions for those who want to donate. Why shouldn't the mayor come out against discrimination and cease doing favors for the U.W. if they disagree? The U.W. remains free to donate to the Boy Scouts and the individual employees remain free to donate to the U.W. or B.S.

For those who have not been a scout or did not have scout leaders who ran the program properly, it may be hard to understand why the scouts' premise of a faith in god is so important. If scouting were divorced from its moral foundation, it would be nothing more than a youth activity program -- like little league or youth soccer.

Let's leave aside the error you made, that not believing in God divorces one from 'moral foundation'. It doesn't, in fact a huge part Catholic theology revolved around efforts to prove that God's laws were logical and rational even to someone ignorant of God himself.

I'd say your statement is fine if you were talking about the Catholic Church or some other religious group. But you are not. The Scouts requirement that people believe in some type of fuzzy God that covers everything from the monthestic God of Judism to the multiple gods of Hinduism to the abstract God of Zen Buddhism is to dilute belief to the point of being nearly meaningless. I accept a Church refusing to have an alter boy who says he doesn't believe in God but I think the B.S. are stretching credibility.

"But it is a special favor to the U.W. for the city to arrange payroll deductions for those who want to donate."

No, it is (or at least, should be) a special favor to those employees who wish to have money automatically donated from their paychecks to U.W.

The decision on which charities should be given this "favor" should be left up to the employees who are doing the donating, or the entire practice should be scrapped.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Boonton - While I have undoubtedly made many errors, I did NOT make the error you indict me for: "Let's leave aside the error you made, that not believing in God divorces one from 'moral foundation'." I said that divorcing the scouts from their moral foundation would strip them of the factor that makes scouting so powerful in the lives of many young men. Without its moral teaching, scouting would simply be another after school activity, no better or worse than soccer or the chess club. I did NOT say that one needs to believe in god in order to be a moral person or in order to learn virtues. Indeed, I said it was in theory possible to teach the values scouting espouses without making an appeal to faith in god. I also expressed doubt that a "god free" approach was likely to be as effective, but I am willing to consider evidence to the contrary.

To your larger point that, from your view, scouting's acceptance of such a variety of gods reduces its requirement of faith into something that stretches credulity, you are missing the forest by concentrating too much on the trees. Scouting does not focus on building faith in god. That is not its purpose. It seeks to use faith to help a young men develop additional virtues. It matters little what the young man's theology is as long as he accepts that he has a duty to god and that duty requires him to serve others and to develop the virtues of being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Boonton - "But it is a special favor to the U.W. for the city to arrange payroll deductions for those who want to donate. Why shouldn't the mayor come out against discrimination and cease doing favors for the U.W. if they disagree?"

As John pointed out, I think this more properly viewed as an accommodation for the employees. I can see how someone could argue that this is an accommodation on behalf of the United Way. Still, I don't think it wise for the mayor to raise the argument because it violates the unwritten agreement upon which the United Way is based: I won't complain about the United Way's funding your charity if you won't complain about its funding mine.

The genius of the United Way is that each charity's fund raising costs are reduced, more money (in total) is raised, more "good work" gets done in the community, and each charity is better off than it would be without the program. For this to work, we all have to ignore that there are some organizations funded by the United Way whose work we do not approve of. (I think no individual person would approve of ALL the programs of each United Way agency.) We all agree to ignore that some of our money goes to the Planned Parenthood chapter and some of it goes to the rescue mission working with pregnant teens. Start trying to kick a charity out of the United Way, particularly one with broad based support like the Boy Scouts of America, and you risk the entire structure.

> Neither in my statement quoted above, nor in the words of Lisa that I quoted and said were "substantially true" did the words "taken over by rightists" appear.

No, but the following did, and sneer quotes around "taken over by rightists" accurately captures its essence.

>> Also, for those of you who used to be Boy Scouts long ago, my understanding is that the Boy Scouts have changed significantly. The Far Right made it a priority to take over the administration of the Boy's Scouts, and have had great success.

> Please read for comprehension.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Feel free to argue that you'd be upset if you thought that the Boy Scouts were being taken over by leftists. Or, explain why rightists are worse.

And, when you're done, the basic irrelevance is still there, unless you're going to argue for view point discrimination, discrimination that no other organization is subject to.

> As for the BS 'losing gov't resources', if they want to be a private organization then they should use their own resources like every other private organization.

Every other private organization has access to govt resources. Why should the BS be treated differently?

> Do you think this would be a good move?

In America, people have the right to do dumb things, so the question doesn't make sense.

The left used to quote Voltaire...

> Ah, so privacy matters don't matter, so long as it is voted on.

Nope, just pointing out that it isn't much of a principle if it only gets invoked when the wrong people do less.

> The majority can simply trample over our rights.

Did you really think otherwise?

> Also, while you have no sympathy for the argument that they snuck it argument, you also apparently have no knowledge of our legislative process.

Actually I do. The fact that they don't take the time to read the bills is a dumb choice that they've made. This sort of thing happens all the time.

> The Boy Scouts are the only game in town for what they do on military bases, that's the reality.

And that's whose fault?

> Military bases are not the Free Market of ideas.

Actually, they are. Show up, and you can run an organization for boys. But, you do have to show up. The evil Boy Scouts do. Meanwhile, "good people" sit around whining.

Why do the Boy Scouts have an obligation to run their organization according to your beliefs?

To your larger point that, from your view, scouting's acceptance of such a variety of gods reduces its requirement of faith into something that stretches credulity, you are missing the forest by concentrating too much on the trees. Scouting does not focus on building faith in god. That is not its purpose. It seeks to use faith to help a young men develop additional virtues.

This type of faith that you are describing, a faith inspires a:

duty requires him to serve others and to develop the virtues of being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Is available to all rational human beigns. It simply does not require a belief in God. If you take God seriously then at some point you will make an exclusionary statement. If you are Catholic for example, there are going to be some things that just flat out contradict your faith and cannot be reconcilied with warm and fuzzy talk. The Scouts are not a religious organization, their religious statements are secondary to their mission and that is obvious on its face. They can't justify their discrimination against either gays or atheists on religious grounds, though they are free to be irrational in the US....just as we all are ;)

Every other private organization has access to govt resources. Why should the BS be treated differently?

They shouldn't. They should have the same access to schools, parks, camp grounds etc. that the KKK, Knights of Columbus, Mason Society etc. have. It turns out the ACLU case was not about access but about whether or not the B.S. are providing a public accomodation or a private organization.

Show up, and you can run an organization for boys.




Given that the DoD has given approval for the BS to operate on their property, there does appear to be a process beyond "showing up."

On November 22, 2004 05:51 PM
Andy Freeman wrote

[quoting me, fub:]
>> Neither in my statement quoted above, nor in the words of Lisa that I quoted and said were "substantially true" did the words "taken
over by rightists" appear.

>No, but the following did, and sneer quotes around "taken over by rightists" accurately captures its essence.

>>> Also, for those of you who used to be Boy Scouts long ago, my understanding is that the Boy Scouts have changed significantly.
>>>The Far Right made it a priority to take over the administration of the Boy's Scouts, and have had great success.

>> Please read for comprehension.

>Pot, Kettle, Black.

Except that I did not write the line you cite, nor did I quote it -- until now, and I am quoting it from you.

That line was origninally written by Lisa, November 21, 2004 04:33 PM,

Should you choose to comment on the truth or falsity of the assertion that the BSA is taking steps to exclude the UU Church from participation, you would at least be addressing the sole issue I raised.

"Yup, an actual law, voted on and everything, is horrendously worse than illegal activity like FileGate."

Andy:

Does every Republican mistake or outrage require the deployment of the Clenis? Cripes, no wonder you guys can't seem to even move towards competence - you have no sense of accountability whatsoever.

Let's assume that Filegate is as simply wrong as you suggest. See if you can follow the bouncing ball here. It is bad for a government official to do X, it is worse for the government to claim the right to do X. For example,...

- It is bad for a government official to throw a US citizen in jail indefinitely, without access to lawyer or a hearing; it is worse for the government to claim it as a...nope, Bushbackers won't get that one.

- It is bad for a government official to torture another human being; it is worse for the government to claim the right...no, you were OK with that, too.

- It is bad for a government official to rape a citizen; it is worse if the government claims it has the right to rape its citizens. (I am, of course, assuming that droit de seigneur isn't a Red State value; if it is, I'm going to have to think some more).

Less caustically and more seriously, this is a pretty good example of why strong federalism now makes sense. Blue staters,generally speaking, believe it is legitimate to be concerned about "tyranny of the majority"; that's really at the heart of most Blue arguments about "judicial activism" or civil rights (African Americans, women, homosexuals, etc.). Red Staters apparently don't (to be clear, I'm not saying that Red Staters are antagonistic to the groups above). That's really the heart of Andy's argument - it was passed by Congress (and assuming no veto by Bush), it is therefore de facto OK. I don't know if Jane (who is clearly non-crazy) would go that far, but she expressed something very similar in her post on civil liberties (or in one of the comments about it) - I think she said she worried more about which party would have an effect on civil liberties that would effect all of us (or most of us; I don't remember), and less concerned about civil liberty abuses that happened to a minority (in std usuage, not racial, or ethnic, or whatever) of us.

That's just a very large, very basic difference in understanding about what the core pieces of American democracy are. (It's also a probably a rough explanation for why Blues like the ACLU and Red Staters don't). I had thought this was a long-settled argument (or at least by the end of the 90s); I was wrong. And it's just wasteful to keep arguing about it like this. Federalism - and the stronger the better - would let us (sort of) stop fighting this seemingly endless battle. You want straight majority rules, and believe the administrative efficiencies of such a bright line rule will pay off - great; you'll have a Red state to live in. You worry about "tyranny of the majority" and are willing to pay the cost (and I willingly admit there are lots of costs) of sorting out in which circs. we should worry and which circs. we shouldn't - fine; there'll be Blue states for you.

But seriously folks - we will always, always be one nation, but these are really, really basic disagreements that we're having. Federalism looks like at least a reasonable solution.

> Given that the DoD has given approval for the BS to operate on their property, there does appear to be a process beyond "showing up."

Only if you think that the approval process requires more than committment. The Boy Scouts commit.

> Except that I did not write the line you cite, nor did I quote it -- until now, and I am quoting it from you.

Try again. You offered a cite in support of Lisa's statement, a statement that I accurately, albeit snidely, summarized.

I'm still waiting for you to argue that you'd object to hijacking by leftists.

And, as folks discover that rightists don't actually eat babies, the bleatings about "take over" are going to backfire.

> Does every Republican mistake or outrage require the deployment of the Clenis? Cripes, no wonder you guys can't seem to even move towards competence - you have no sense of accountability whatsoever.

Not at all. I'm merely demonstrating the principle involved - Repubs bad, Dems good. It doesn't sound as good as "privacy", but it has the virtue of being accurate.

I'm confused why SCMT thinks that blantant law violations are better than bad law. Bad law we can repeal. Bad law can even be voted against. You remember - democracy.

> Federalism looks like at least a reasonable solution.

Leftists weren't so keen on Federalism when they thought that they could win at the national level. They didn't give a damn about minority rights when they thought that they had the majority.

Like I wrote above, the principle involved here is partisan.

> Should you choose to comment on the truth or falsity of the assertion that the BSA is taking steps to exclude the UU Church from participation, you would at least be addressing the sole issue I raised.

I've pointed out that even if we assume that it's true, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that you want.

You want a Boy Scout-like organization devoted to potlucks, you do the work. Why do you insist that the current Boy Scouts are obligated to create the organization that you'd prefer over the one that they prefer?

The careful reader will notice that I haven't said what I'd like in a boys organization.

David Walser,

Matthew Goggins, here.

You are definitely among the reasonable people, not to worry. If you are convinced that scouts cannot be atheists without undermining the scouting mission, then you have a duty to oppose the admission of atheists.

To yield to the outside pressure of groups like the ACLU is not an acceptable option if it means compromising the character development of scouts. I strongly agree with your desire to promote and protect scouting.

Let me give you a somewhat different perspective on all this, though.

I don’t have as much experience with scouting as you. I was a Webelo and a Tenderfoot for a few years, I went to scout camp once.

It’s true that shared religious beliefs and a faith in God provide a handy context for talking about morals, character, and service to others.

Our scout troop was a bunch of mostly Catholic working-class kids that met in a church basement. Our scoutmaster was a kindly Jewish man who worked as a mid-level executive at a Manhattan bank. He supervised me when I received my religious emblem, which is now called “Ad Altare Dei”, but back then I think it was called “Opus Dei”. (Back then, I was a skeptical Catholic, but I had a tentative deference to my elders and their religious traditions).

But the real moral instruction came from our leader’s personal values and example. As Baden-Powell, the founder of scouting, said in 1917, “The religion of a man is not the creed he professes but his life - what he acts upon, and knows of life, and his duty in it.” Our scoutmaster’s commitment to us was his most important influence. He was a role model not through theological disquisitions, but as an exemplar of quiet, civilizing dignity.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume you are correct in believing and standing firmly beside your belief that an acknowledgement of a power greater than self is essential to furthering the mission of scouting.

But now that you have clearly made such an acknowledgement, how do you instill your reverence for a higher power in your charges? Well, the answer is right there in the Scout Law:

"A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."

That respect for the beliefs of others has always been in the Scout Law. And it is key to turning the hearts of others in a direction you would like to see them go. Why should an atheist or agnostic kid listen to a Christian scoutmaster? Out of respect for the beliefs of others. Out of respect for the fact that even if you think the other guy’s beliefs are “wrong”, you should also realize that no one has a monopoly on the truth.

I can appreciate why you would be reluctant to let avowed atheists come along on your star-lit campouts. It’s hard to stay on message if one or two of your scouts don’t understand where you’re coming from. But avoiding this arkwardness by keeping or kicking atheists out is not the answer. If your faith cannot speak for itself in a mixed group, then you cannot be very confident of its appeal.

I salute your service and your dedication. I know you have done well by your boys, and that that is the most important thing. But I can’t help be sad that you, and your leaders in the national organization, feel so threatened by kids and parents who are or could be just as good scouts as you are.

"I'm confused why SCMT thinks that blantant law violations are better than bad law. Bad law we can repeal. Bad law can even be voted against. You remember - democracy."

You cannot be serious. Do me a favor. Below are two sentences that reflect the different ordering of bad/worse results. Pick the one that best reflects your opinion, and repost it with the quotation marks removed and your nom de web affixed. I think I know what you are saying, but I'm reluctant to not let you self-categorize. Here are the sentences for you to choose from:

(a) "It would be bad if government made discrimination based on race legal, but it would be worse if such discrimination was illegal and an individual did it anyway."

(b) "It would be bad if discrimination based on race were illegal and an individual did it anyway, but it would be worse if the government made discrimination on the basis of race legal."

Just pick your view, affix your "Andy" to it. I just want to be sure. (And, to the extent your willing to do so, let us know if (a) you live in a Red State, and (b) you live in the South - no particular judgment, I'm honestly curious).

To Matthew Goggins:

A gentlemanly post - thank you, I enjoyed reading it. But I want to point out one or two things (and forgive me if I'm getting in the middle of an essentially private discussion):

I don't think the point is so much that David Walser asserts the importance of God in the Scouting mission of building young men's character, but that the organization asserts that importance. Does it or doesn't it have that right? Whether or not everyone agrees that faith in a higher power is the most effective backdrop against which to project and teach values important to our society and to the lives of boys individually, is the BSA a private organization that has the right to assert it, or a public accommodation that discriminates by doing so?

Second, and this is kind of a niggling point, the Scout Law clause that "A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others" does not require that he "realize that no one has a monopoly on the truth." Many sects believe they have a monopoly on the truth. American pluralism, as practiced by the Scouts as well, only requires that we be tolerant and respectful of others' beliefs, not that we take this next step of actually thinking they're "just as right as we are." (FWIW, I do believe that no one has a monopoly on the truth. But I think this perspective can get out of hand.)

I don't think the point is so much that David Walser asserts the importance of God in the Scouting mission of building young men's character, but that the organization asserts that importance. Does it or doesn't it have that right?

It does have that right but the scope changes when you go from a private organization to a public one. A few weeks ago the NY Times had an interesting article on a Christian Bank. The owner and employees were all dedicated Christians, they will offer to prey for their customers. So far most people are happy and the bank is doing better than average for a small one branch bank.

However being a place of public accomodation, the bank cannot and will not engage in discrimination. If the local athiest society wanted to open their account there they could. Additionally, religion is not a requirement for either employment or advancement there.

In contrast, a nearby Temple is a private organization. When they need a new Rabbi they are free to refuse to consider non-Jews.

Which is the Boy Scouts? The courts have ruled they are private but it is fair to argue that their extensive relationships with local gov'ts (esp. schools which often invite them in to recruit & adjust their schedules to accomodate them...at least they did when I was little) push them over that line. I don't think it was an outrageous argument to make, even if it eventually lost.

SCMT continues to miss the point.

You can affect the behavior of a govt that follows the rules by changing the rules. It's much harder to affect the behavior of a govt that doesn't follow the rules.

You remember, rule of law, democracy and all that. It doesn't always produce the right results, but it's better than the alternatives, alternatives that SCMT seems to prefer.

I note that he's much more excited about privacy violations that didn't occur than he is about ones that did occur. I've suggested that privacy is only an issue when he can use it to attack Repubs, but maybe he's just a fan of illegal acts.

The accomodation question (for Boy Scouts, for United Way, etc.) is a tricky one and I think it's the source of most of the bickering that goes on.

On the one hand, if you've got a lot of folks involved with an organization, it's more efficient to streamline the interactions with the organization (e.g., adjusting school schedules for Boy Scouts, allowing direct payroll deductions for United Way, allowing the Salvation Army to solicit donations, etc.).

On the other hand, that streamlined interaction can privilege the organization over other competing organizations. It's not always feasible to offer the same level of accomodation for all organizations, so the question becomes whether to (i) retain preferential treatment of larger, more established organizations in the interest of efficiency, or (ii) remove those accomodations in the interest of equity.

Option (i) is seen as unfair to people who are excluded by the organization and can't take advantage of the benefits being offered; option (ii) is seen as unfair by members of the organization who are used to the accomodations. It's a no-win situation.

I also think it's important to distinguish priveleged treatment from network effects. If little Billy joins the BSA rather than the Secular Scouts because all his friends are Boy Scouts too, that's a network effect. If he joins because the school lets Boy Scouts hold meetings during school hours while the Secular Scouts have to meet after school, that's privileged treatment.

Network effects should *not*, in my opinion, turn a private organization into a public accomodation subject to anti-discrimination laws (with a few notable exceptions that mainly involve bad faith and using the organization as an end-run around the anti-discrimination laws), but privileged treatment by government or governmental institutions probably should.

Andy:

Again, I am substantially more comfortable saying that, where X is bad, if a government official does X, that is bad, but where a government makes X (or the allowance of X) its official policy, that's worse. I think it's pretty clear where I'm coming down - if Clinton did as accused, he was wrong; if he had made it gov't policy, he would have been worse.

So pick an ordering, or point to the ordering that I missed but that reflects your feelings. Surely that's not too much to ask. Or, you know, whine about how you are misunderstood.

Probably someone else can do a nice summary of the legal doctrines involved but clearly just having large network effects does not change a private organization into a public one. The Catholic Church, for example, is larger than the Boy Scouts both in terms of members, money and size. Nevertheless, the Church would be a private organization under the law so Jackie Mason cannot sue for discrimination 'cause the Pople won't take his application to become a Bishop!

I would imagine, though, that certain activities will make an organization public rather than private. For example, holding yourself out as a business (like McDonalds or a Hotel) would probably be one element that would make you something other than a private club that can do as it pleases.

I'm sure the Boy Scouts, when they approach public schools, advertise themselves as an organization open to all boys. That would be very much like little league and other groups that seem to have a 'deal' with the public schools that allow them to recruit from inside the schools and the school will accomodate their members. In contrast, we know the KKK will not and should not be allowed into a public school to recruit junior members.

This is why I find the BS's defense rather annoying. They seem like they want to be an open to all when access to public schools (financed by athiest and gay taxpayers as well as everyone else) but suddenly become a private club when the issue of discrimination is raised. While they may have the law on their side I find it a shame they would discriminate against such a tiny minority when they do indeed do a lot of good.

Andy Freeman wrote:

[fub wrote:]
>> Should you choose to comment on the truth or falsity of the assertion that the BSA is taking steps to exclude the UU Church from
participation, you would at least be addressing the sole issue I raised.

>I've pointed out that even if we assume that it's true, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that you want.

I've never written anything about any conclusion, or about any "conclusion [I] want" here, except the conclusion that the BSA appears to have begun excluding UU churches from BSA participation. I said that appears to be substantially true.

>You want a Boy Scout-like organization devoted to potlucks, you do the work. Why do you insist that the current Boy Scouts are
obligated to create the organization that you'd prefer over the one that they prefer?

Please cite the post in this thread in which I said I "wanted", "preferred" or "insisted" that, or anything else.

>The careful reader will notice that I haven't said what I'd like in a boys organization.

Nor have I. Nor have I attributed to you any statement of "what [you'd] like".

You apparently have mistaken me for someone else in this thread.

On the UW debate - I consider it an imposition that, in my company, we're expected to achieve "100% participation" in the UW - this means logging in to the UW site and declaring whether or not I want to donate money. The issue? I am expected to log in to the UW site with my social security number and birthday, provided to them by my employer. *sigh*. That's special treatment and a violation of my privacy, and certainly no favor to me!

On a slightly different note, I'm amused and somewhat irritated that when one presents evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Republicans, the first thing they do is talk about how Bill Clinton must be worse; and that anytime I point out wrongdoing on the part of the Dems, they trot out claims of Republican malfeasance. Were you guys all out sick the day they taught us, in Kindegarten, that "two wrongs don't make a right, even if three lefts do"? I mean, come on.

Speaking of which, who was ever convicted of breaking any law in regards to 'filegate'?

online gambling

online poker

texas holdem

party poker

poker games

online sportsbook betting

What part of "I prefer a govt that obeys the rule of law" confuses SCMT?

You folks sure did lose faith in democracy fast. After you complete the about-face on states rights, what's the next pillar of modern liberalism to fall?

It really was all about power for you folks.

> I'm sure the Boy Scouts, when they approach public schools, advertise themselves as an organization open to all boys.

Except that they don't. They advertise themselves as being open to all boys who want to satisfy the membership criteria.

There's nothing stopping you from building a boys organization along the lines that you prefer.

Jamie,

Thanks for the compliment. All positive feedback is gratefully accepted.

And thank you for your two points.

Does the BSA have the right to assert the importance of God for its mission of forming the character of boys and young men?

If it is a private organization, yes. If it is a public accomodation, yes, as long as it allows kids and parents who don't believe in God to participate as well. In other words, than can have their God cake and eat it, too, as long as they are willing to service non-religious or atheist families alongside the religious families.

That is what is so disturbing to me about this conflict. The BSA policy of discriminating against atheists is shameful, but it is also unnecessary. The BSA has a long history of going out its way to accomodate all kinds of religious traditions.

Take a look at this page:

http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=xx&c=su

It's a summary page on the official BSA website that directs community groups or religious groups in how to start up their own scout troop. It lists all manner of special programs geared specifically to Catholic churches, Lutheran churches, Churches of Christ, Presbyterian congregations, Islamic mosques, Jewish synagogues, Buddhist temples, and so on. Troops can even be started by municipal parks and public schools!

Click on the heading for "Scouting in the Buddhist Community". This page is quite astonishing if you are assuming that Judeo-Christian values are supposed to be the traditional core of the American Scouting mission.

For these troops, Buddhist practices are the moral and spiritual focus. Scouts are expected to learn the Four Noble Truths, including the Noble Eightfold Path of Rights Views, Right Thoughts, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Meditation. No mention of Jehovah, Jesus, or Allah in these scouts' programs!

Of course, the BSA has the right to pick and choose whomever they want to be members. But as you (Jamie) point out, our country has a tradition of religious pluralism, which the BSA has always embraced, with the exception of atheists in the last 20 years. And even that exception is not an exception to the extent that many troops that accept atheists on a "Don't ask, Don't tell" basis.

Here's another weird twist: there exist special troops to accommodate the needs of various handicapped kids, such as blind boys or paralyzed boys. You can even set up a troop for boys with emotional or other mental disorders. But apparently atheists are so spiritually handicapped that there is no way the BSA could figure out a way to deal with them...

Your second point is that many sects believe they have a monopoly on the truth. That many, if not most, religious folk would not believe that a different religion is "just as right" as their own.

I agree with you. My point in saying that no one has a monopoly on the truth is that everyone can learn something from someone else's religious experiences. And scouting not only admits this, but has emphasized this from the very beginning, some 95 years ago.

So should the ACLU be hitting the BSA over the head over this? Well, where I live, in the Bronx, there are about 90 Boy Scout troops. About twenty are sponsored by some public school (!) and about a half dozen are sponsored by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. In theory (I don't know what the practice actually is), an atheist boy could show up at a troop meeting and be turned away solely on the basis of his religious beliefs (with Sir Robert Baden-Powell doing gymnastics in his grave, I should add).

So you tell me what the ACLU should do about this!

Andy:

"What part of "I prefer a govt that obeys the rule of law" confuses SCMT?"

Jeez, Andy, I'm really not sure what is confusing you. I'm asking about an ordering of bad results - that is, both things I reference fall into the category "bad", but I'm wondering if one might be more bad than another. Again, I think we are both working under the assumption that a govt. that violates the law is a bad thing. So let's not worry abou that.

But either I'm missing something about the hypotheticals or you are. From what you've said, you prefer that a government obey the law enjoining something bad (X) (who doesn't?) to a government that makes a something bad (X) its policy. I'm assuming that you aren't suggesting some third condition - that laws are inoperable and unenforceable in the first circumstances.

So, as I understand what you are saying, you think that

(1) Y number of years of Jim Crow laws were bad, but

(2) Watergate (including the investigation and the various prosecutions) was worse. (You could substitute "an instances of a violation of the Voting Rights Act in 2000" to make it more analogous; I was trying to be non-antiBush in this comment, that's all).

Less heat on my part than before; I'm honestly confused by the fact that you seem genuinely unaware that anyone might find the above ordering controversial. Am I understanding what you are saying correctly? In this situation, the proper ordering for you, from bad to worse, is Jim Crow laws (bad), then Watergate violations (worse). This is what you mean, correct?

I really think this must be what you mean, and I really that's a pretty good reason for both of us to support federalism. To the extent that Dems are Johnny-Come-Latelys to federalism, it's because until this election I would have thought that the reverse ordering (Watergate - bad, Jim Crow laws - worse) was fairly well accepted. Now that we realize it's not, federalism make sense to us - too much of what Blues now believe rests, in some way, on that distinction, and we really don't want to give it all up. Presumably, Red Staters have a mirrored situation - from the 60's on, there have been any number of things that the some of the red states have wanted to do which were blocked by the federal government; now they won't be.

It sure seems like win-win to me.

OK, it's late and I'm tired, but I think one of my paragraphs above is hash.

Starting with, "But either I'm missing something about the hypotheticals or you are."

replace with,

But.... From what you've said, you think a government that violates the law enjoining bad thing (X) is worse than a government that actually takes bad thing (X) and makes it policy. I'm assuming that you aren't suggesting some third condition - that laws are inoperable and unenforceable in the first set of circumstances.

Sorry about that.

Matthew - You have evidently spent some time in composing your thoughtful responses. Thank you for the tone and evident care. (And thanks to Jane and Mindles for creating this forum!)

To answer the question you put to Jamie, the ACLU should do nothing about this. You keep pointing out that the rules would change if the scouts were viewed to be a public accommodation rather than a private organization. The Supreme Court has determined that the scouts are NOT a public accommodation, so it would seem prudent for the ACLU to quit trying to treat the scouts as if they were. Even if I were to grant you your belief that the scouts would be just as good, if not better, if they were to change their policies, I would still oppose the manner in which the ACLU and others have sought to change the scouts.

You are correct that the scouts are very inclusive. The organization does not require adherence to ANY formal religious code or doctrine. All that is required is an acceptance of a power greater than self -- whatever form the individual may believe that power to be.

You have made it clear that you do not think a belief in god (as defined above) is either necessary or helpful to furthering the scouts' mission. Fine, form your own youth organization and build it on the principles you think are important. If, after 20 years or so, your program has proven to be as effective as scouting in molding youth, then I'll agree with you.

It is very hard to give up drinking, even with the help of AA. Yet, AA has an admirable record of helping people cope with their addiction. Despite this success, over the years, some have had concerns about AA's requirement that its members acknowledge a power greater than self. (AA's requirement and the scouts' requirement are virtually identical.) In response to these concerns, 12 step programs (11 step?) have been formed that do NOT require a belief in god (small "g"). These programs have had some success -- just not as much success as AA.

Is AA's better track record due to the intervention of the Divine, is it something about belief in god that makes it easier for someone to change, or is it simply random chance (or some other factor)? I don't know nor do I think we need answer the question here. The scouts' requirement of a belief in god may not be necessary or even rational, but, as Jamie said much better than me, the question should be left up to the scouts and the ACLU should but out.

The ACLU should back off, if for no other reason, because their approach (and those of its allies) are not winning them too many friends among those who receive their kind attentions.

A few years ago, our troop quit encouraging our young men to wear their scout uniforms in public. Too many people think it their civic duty to express their displeasure with the scouts' policy to 13 year-olds in uniform. I had one "lady" follow two scouts in her car, shouting obscenities at them, as the two scouts went door-to-door collecting food for the poor. I'm sure, Matthew, you do not approve of this good woman's tactics; kids should not be made to feel shame for their involvement in scouting. Yet, by declaring that the scouts' policy is based in nothing more than bigotry, the ACLU has helped create the climate that makes it permissible for people to routinely treat young scouts as the woman in my example did.

I know it shouldn't, but it bothers me that after 20 years of spending time away from my family helping others raise their boys, my thanks is to be thought a bigot (or, at best, a misguided fool) by many of my countrymen. I wasn't serving to garner praise, but I don't feel I've earned the ire directed at me by the civic-minded-left. Next time the ACLU wishes to raise my awareness of some ill, just how receptive do you think I'll be?

You are correct that the scouts are very inclusive. The organization does not require adherence to ANY formal religious code or doctrine. All that is required is an acceptance of a power greater than self -- whatever form the individual may believe that power to be.

How about gravity? Or the Efficient Markets Model?\

It is very hard to give up drinking, even with the help of AA. Yet, AA has an admirable record of helping people cope with their addiction.

Actually AA's record is horrible.

In response to these concerns, 12 step programs (11 step?) have been formed that do NOT require a belief in god (small "g"). These programs have had some success -- just not as much success as AA.

Are you speaking with any specific knowledge or are you just saying this because it sounds right? Each addiction is different but I can tell you from research on and personal observation NA is horrible. The huge portion of its members use the meetings as hook ups for drugs and to later excuse themselves for failing. Another huge portion wallows in self-pity and hopelessnesss.

The ACLU should back off, if for no other reason, because their approach (and those of its allies) are not winning them too many friends among those who receive their kind attentions.

The ACLU's job is to take unpopular causes. In a democracy there is always great temptation for the gov't to abuse civil liberties on behalf of the majority. Hence, the mayor of a supposedly liberal NY tries to keep the KKK from marching in a demonstration even though nearly every other political group under the sun is allowed to march in various parades, demonstrations and protests. The ACLU isn't going to win friends fighting for the KKK but its a job someone should do.

A few years ago, our troop quit encouraging our young men to wear their scout uniforms in public. Too many people think it their civic duty to express their displeasure with the scouts' policy to 13 year-olds in uniform. I had one "lady" follow two scouts in her car, shouting obscenities at them, as the two scouts went door-to-door collecting food for the poor. I'm sure, Matthew, you do not approve of this good woman's tactics; kids should not be made to feel shame for their involvement in scouting. Yet, by declaring that the scouts' policy is based in nothing more than bigotry, the ACLU has helped create the climate that makes it permissible for people to routinely treat young scouts as the woman in my example did.

I don't think a woman should yell obscentities at kids but what would the reaction be if the KKK had a youth group and its members wore their uniform in public? YOu cry that the scouts are a private organization and should be free to do what they wish yet you then get upset that the ACLU has criticized them and other people agree with the criticism! Grow a thicker skin if you really like living in a free country my friend.

> So you tell me what the ACLU should do about this!

Start a boys organization that works the way it wants.

> (1) Y number of years of Jim Crow laws were bad, but

> (2) Watergate (including the investigation and the various prosecutions) was worse.

Clue - when trying to make comparisions on a given point, one should not use examples which are wildly different on other points.

As I've written repeatedly, I prefer a govt which the rule of law to one that doesn't because the law can be changed. SCMT prefers a govt that doesn't obey the law, but has yet to explain how he's going to bring it to heel when need be.

Then again, my preference for democracy doesn't depend on who's winning. SCMT's does.

Andy -

Again, there is a misunderstanding here, and I'm really trying to assume it's not willful.

Let's take a look:

1. Your first complaint - "Clue - when trying to make comparisions on a given point, one should not use examples which are wildly different on other points."

I think I anticipated and addressed this possibility in the post to which you are replying: "(You could substitute "an instances of a violation of the Voting Rights Act in 2000" to make it more analogous; I was trying to be non-antiBush in this comment, that's all)."

Apparently that wasn't sufficiently analogous - offer your own examples of bad act X as against the law, and bad act X as official govt. policy. (You might also read a history book and see if you can come up with any examples of a majority willingly abusing a minority).

2. "As I've written repeatedly, I prefer a govt which the rule of law to one that doesn't because the law can be changed. SCMT prefers a govt that doesn't obey the law, but has yet to explain how he's going to bring it to heel when need be."

Again, I think I anticipated and addressed the italicized part in the post to which you are replying. Specifically, I said,"I'm assuming that you aren't suggesting some third condition - that laws are inoperable and unenforceable in the first circumstances." I also suggested that the example of Watergate include the prosecutions. So it doesn't seem much of a stretch to argue that its clear I believe you could bring the offending govt. officials to heel by actually applying and enforcing the law. (Recall Ken Starr, for example). If you mean that govt. won't police itself, then it looks a lot more like policy (my example) than instance of law violation (your example).

[I should also note, as I didn't before, that it isn't clear why a majority that decided to abuse a minority would change its mind and vote the law out of existence. Is it because you believe in some form of natural law - what is good also ultimately leads to good results? Or is it that you think people are inherently good, and once they realized they were abusing other people, they would stop?]

The fact that you are making complaints of a post that anticipated and tried to respond to those complaints...well, you seem to be doing all you can to avoid answering the question directly. I'm trying to figure out why. The only answers to this I can think of (I'm sure there are more) are:

1. I've understood your position, but while you are uncomfortable with some of the places it leads, you don't think it invalidates the argument but are unwilling to admit the position's flaws.

2. I've understood your position, and you are comfortable with the places it leads, but you are unwilling to admit it publically.

Come on, Andy. I'm really not trying to be cruel; I admit that my first few posts directed to you were caustic, but in this and the prior one I've bent over backwards to excise all of the snark I could see. I'm just looking for a straight answer, Andy.

(Maybe you are trying to give me one, and I'm not understanding it - perhaps you could clarify it with examples. There really are times in the past when a majority has abused a minority, so those could be the basis of an example you might use. I suggested the Jim Crow laws b/c they are obvious; there are others, if you prefer).

David Walser,

Thank you for kind words and for your thoughtful and respectful reply.

I am sorry your scouts have been harassed. That foul-mouthed woman needed some courtesy training from the Boy Scouts.

I'm not a huge fan of the ACLU. Our society, like any society, needs aggressive watchdogs of our civil and human rights. But when the California affiliate of the ACLU sued to remove a small cross from the seal of the County of Los Angeles, they only succeeded in squandering the public trust and good will that watchdogs need to be strong and effective advocates. The ACLU needs to be a lot more judicious in picking its fights.

But I still think that the BSA is a very appropriate target for their litigation.

The U.S Supreme Court did not decide in Boy Scouts of America vs. James Dale that the BSA should be considered a private organization as opposed to a public accommodation. The court ruled that since the State of New Jersey's definition of public accommodations included some private organizations that teach values, such as the Boy Scouts, then any suit brought under that statute had to respect the first amendment rights enjoyed by said private organizations, including the important right of free expression through free association. In other words, the BSA may or may not be a public accommodation in the State of New Jersey, but it still has the right to express its values by not hiring a homosexual rights advocate as a scoutmaster.

But would the Supremes decide a kid showing up at a troop sponsored in an inner-city public school in the Bronx can be shown the door solely on the basis of the kid's religious beliefs? I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet they wouldn't.

You wrote:

You have made it clear that you do not think a belief in god (as defined above) is either necessary or helpful to furthering the scouts' mission. Fine, form your own youth organization and build it on the principles you think are important. If, after 20 years or so, your program has proven to be as effective as scouting in molding youth, then I'll agree with you.

I don't have to, Ernest Thompson Seton beat me to it.

Who's he? He's the naturalist who was the chairman of the Founding Committee of the Boy Scouts of America. He also wrote the first Boy Scout Manual and served as the very first Chief Scout of the Boy Scouts of America, from 1910 to 1915.

And he was an atheist, or pretty damn close to one.

See for yourself if you agree with me. I've cut and pasted an amusing and revealing anecdote from his autobiography, Trail of an Artist-Naturalist:

[Archbishop Corrigan said] ... "To what church, may I ask, do you belong?"

I replied: "I was brought up in the worship of Moloch."

"What!" he exclaimed in loud horror.

"Yes," I answered, "the demon-god of fire -- burn your children -- the more of them you burn alive, the greater your merit and likelihood of favor from the grim fire-god."

For a moment he gazed in astonishment; then his expression changed to one of understanding and amusement, as he said: "I see. You mean Scottish Calvinism."

I nodded. Then he went on: "I wish I could bring you into the True Church."

"There's no reason why you should not try," I responded.

"What would you give me for a starting point?" he asked.

"Well," I said slowly, "I will grant you that I exist, because I think. I will grant you that you exist, because we are here facing each other, and exchanging ideas; and we must postulate the reliability of our senses."

"I will grant that the universe exists, because if we exist, we must exist somewhere. That is all I will grant."

"Will you," he said, "grant that this universe whose existence you admit, must have a first cause?"

"Yes, as a necessity of debate, not as a proven fact."

"Will you let me go another step, and call that first cause by the name of `God'? "

"Merely as a polite, but dangerous, concession to one's respect for terminology."

"Since you grant that the first cause is God, will you further concede that God is a personal God?"

"No, I will not," I said firmly. "And I see no reason in logic, biology, or dynamics to justify any such assumption."

"Oh, brother," laughed His Grace, "let's have another glass of wine."

Comments are Closed.