November 18, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:What he said
From James Joyner:
While I sympathize with the ACLU on many issues, I continue to be baffled at some of the causes they champion. One would think that there are sufficient significant threats to our civil liberties to focus on without making, quite literally, a federal case out of such things as the Pledge of Allegiance and the Boy Scouts. By focusing on the trivial, they undermine their own cause.
I'd add only that this particular secular humanist New Yorker does feels that America will survive just fine even if the apparent epidemic of nativity scenes in small town public squares is allowed to grow unchecked.
Posted by Jane Galt at November 18, 2004 12:21 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI left the ACLU when they failed to oppose racial preferences, asset forfeiture and property right infringement. They now just play gotcha.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on November 18, 2004 12:31 PMI 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.)
Posted by: Jeff on November 18, 2004 12:40 PMA 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.
Posted by: dubious on November 18, 2004 12:49 PMI 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.
Posted by: Manish on November 18, 2004 01:12 PMManish: 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.
Posted by: denise on November 18, 2004 01:23 PMI 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.
Posted by: John on November 18, 2004 01:24 PMFull 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.
Posted by: John on November 18, 2004 01:29 PMMore Disclosure (I lied): We were Boy Scouts in Madison, Alabama.
Posted by: John on November 18, 2004 01:32 PMI'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.
Posted by: Sigivald on November 18, 2004 01:36 PMFor 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.
Posted by: DRB on November 18, 2004 01:41 PMI'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? :)
Posted by: Boonton on November 18, 2004 02:01 PMMy 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.
Posted by: Cathy on November 18, 2004 02:21 PMCathy
"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.
Posted by: mike on November 18, 2004 02:29 PM"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.
Posted by: Les Jones on November 18, 2004 02:30 PMTell 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.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 18, 2004 02:33 PMBut 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."
Posted by: Jeff on November 18, 2004 02:40 PMCathy,
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.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 18, 2004 02:53 PMThe 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.
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on November 18, 2004 03:08 PMCathy, 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.
Posted by: qetzal on November 18, 2004 03:20 PM"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.
Posted by: lindenen on November 18, 2004 03:45 PMThe 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.
Posted by: John on November 18, 2004 03:49 PMMy 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 18, 2004 04:29 PMActually, 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.
Posted by: Jane Galt on November 18, 2004 04:32 PMThe 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.
Posted by: Jamie on November 18, 2004 04:48 PMYou're a secular humanist?
*removes AI from blog roll*
Just kidding.
Posted by: Jeremy on November 18, 2004 04:57 PM>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?
Posted by: rvman on November 18, 2004 04:59 PMThe 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 18, 2004 05:24 PMA 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.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on November 18, 2004 05:25 PMThe 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.
Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson on November 18, 2004 05:42 PMBoonton:
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??
Posted by: Jamie on November 18, 2004 06:03 PMI'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.
Posted by: RMc on November 18, 2004 06:49 PMI 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.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 18, 2004 08:16 PMAs 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.
Posted by: Jamie on November 18, 2004 10:37 PMTwo 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.
Posted by: David Walser on November 18, 2004 10:53 PMWhen 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.
Posted by: Cathy on November 19, 2004 12:07 AMThe 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.
Posted by: Brennan on November 19, 2004 12:13 AMDavid 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.
Posted by: Thorley Winston on November 19, 2004 01:23 AMBrennan:
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.
Posted by: Jamie on November 19, 2004 08:19 AMHas 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.
Posted by: Tom T. on November 19, 2004 08:23 AMSeveral 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.
Posted by: Jeff on November 19, 2004 09:30 AMWow - 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.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on November 19, 2004 10:08 AMSo 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 19, 2004 10:13 AMAnyone 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.
Posted by: Jane Galt on November 19, 2004 10:32 AMI 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.
Posted by: Eamon O'Brolchain on November 19, 2004 10:52 AMJane 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?
Posted by: Jason Ligon on November 19, 2004 11:35 AMJane,
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.
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on November 19, 2004 11:45 AMFrom 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.
Posted by: Thorley Winston on November 19, 2004 11:51 AMJane:
"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."
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on November 19, 2004 12:07 PMThe 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.
Posted by: cb on November 19, 2004 12:23 PMTim: "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.)
Posted by: Sigivald on November 19, 2004 01:27 PMSomeone (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.
Posted by: Bob on November 19, 2004 01:31 PMThe 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.
Posted by: cb on November 19, 2004 01:55 PMAnyone 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.
Posted by: Jamie on November 19, 2004 02:05 PMBeing 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.
Posted by: Manish on November 19, 2004 04:47 PMManish, 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?
Posted by: David Walser on November 19, 2004 06:22 PMI'm confused. Where does the government subsidize pornography these days?
Posted by: M.S. on November 19, 2004 07:20 PMDavid:
"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).
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on November 19, 2004 08:00 PMSigivald, 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!
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on November 19, 2004 08:23 PMAnd 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.
Posted by: lindenen on November 19, 2004 09:07 PM"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?
Posted by: lindenen on November 19, 2004 09:14 PMI meant to point out that not all gay men are pedophiles OBVIOUSLY, but a significant number of pedophiles are attracted to young boys.
Posted by: lindenen on November 19, 2004 09:36 PMAdding 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?
Posted by: Jamie on November 19, 2004 10:21 PMThe 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.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2004 10:33 AMI 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.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2004 02:56 PMThe "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?
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on November 20, 2004 04:51 PMLindenen,
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.
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on November 21, 2004 12:05 AMExactly 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 21, 2004 02:26 PMWhat 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?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 21, 2004 03:33 PMAndy,
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?
Posted by: Lisa on November 21, 2004 04:33 PM"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.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on November 21, 2004 05:19 PM> 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?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 21, 2004 06:51 PM> 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.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 21, 2004 07:07 PMTim'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
Posted by: fub on November 21, 2004 10:26 PMLisa, 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".)
Posted by: David Walser on November 21, 2004 11:05 PM> 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.
Posted by: David Perry on November 22, 2004 02:43 AMDavid, 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.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 22, 2004 08:01 AMLisa, 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 22, 2004 09:23 AM> 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.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 22, 2004 10:16 AMDavid 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.
Posted by: David Walser on November 22, 2004 11:20 AMYou 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 22, 2004 11:24 AMThat'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.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 22, 2004 11:36 AMBoonton - 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?
Posted by: Jeff on November 22, 2004 12:12 PMI 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.
Posted by: Jeff on November 22, 2004 12:15 PMDavid 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?
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on November 22, 2004 12:19 PMDavid,
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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 22, 2004 12:31 PMThe 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"!
Posted by: Boonton on November 22, 2004 12:36 PMAndy 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.
Posted by: fub on November 22, 2004 12:46 PMMatthew - 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.
Posted by: David Walser on November 22, 2004 01:41 PMBoonton - 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.
Posted by: David Walser on November 22, 2004 01:46 PMIf 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 22, 2004 01:59 PMFor 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 22, 2004 02:12 PM"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?
Posted by: John on November 22, 2004 04:48 PMBoonton - 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.
Posted by: David Walser on November 22, 2004 05:30 PMBoonton - "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.
Posted by: David Walser on November 22, 2004 05:48 PM> 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.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 22, 2004 05:51 PM> 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?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 22, 2004 05:53 PM> 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...
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 22, 2004 05:56 PM> 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.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 22, 2004 06:02 PM> 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?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on November 22, 2004 06:06 PMTo 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.
Posted by: Boonton on November 22, 2004 08:57 PMShow 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.
Posted by: fub on November 22, 2004 10:07 PM"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...nop