posted
My father-in-law and brothers-in-law and I all went to a Nationals game on Friday night, and saw the hordes of Boy Scouts in DC, making their way down to AP Hill. They took up a whole section of the upper deck in RFK stadium-- it was something to see, all those brown and olive-drab uniforms. I was suprised to see so many kids wearing the uniform, honestly; you would have been hard pressed to get me to wear something like that out in public.
It was an impressive show of discipline. I don't imagine all the scouts who are going to AP Hill will wear their colors as proudly, but these kids did. And it wasn't like they were all from the same place either.
I have problems with the scouting program, especially where it intersects with the functions of my religion's youth programs. But every scout that has the opportunity should attend a function like the jamboree, if only to see a token of solidarity.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange comment from the sheriff when he said "the incident appeared to be an accident." Well, on second thought, I suppose law enforcement personnel have to remain somewhat skeptical and open for any possibility.
Posts: 216 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was suprised to see so many kids wearing the uniform, honestly; you would have been hard pressed to get me to wear something like that out in public.
You know, even when I was a Scout, I didn't know a single Scout who had a problem with wearing the uniform in public. Why do you imagine some might?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, there's a big difference between being in Scouts at least partly from your own choice, and doing it because your parents make you.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never had a problem wearing my uniform in public. I actually find that people are more friendly towards me when I'm strolling through Wal-Mart (after an event) with my full Class A on.
quote: A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois contends that the Defense Department's sponsorship violates the First Amendment because the Scouts require members to swear an oath of duty to God.
I have some serious issues with this one. You see, the scout oath has a youth promise to do ones "Duty to God and country". The BSA never specifies what god is. They encourage youth to find their own version of god and be reverent to the basic principles of religion. The BSA offers many different religious awards . They have one for every thing from Catholics to Buddhist... I just don't get how the ACL can think the BSA is doing wrong, or that the Pentagon is doing wrong by supporting National Jamboree.
Another thing, The 1st amendment does not require that there be a separation on religion and state. It only requires that the US has no state sponsored religion and thus can't prosecute any religion. They can say god all they want, they can have the 10 commandments up where ever they want, they just can't discriminate.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bill Frist is introducing a bill called "Support Our Scouts" that says it is okay. Things are being done about this.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know things are being done, I just have lost total faith in the ACLU because of this one. I mean they just keep fighting for so many "civil injustices" that they are now starting to oppress more than liberate.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have some serious issues with this one. You see, the scout oath has a youth promise to do ones "Duty to God and country". The BSA never specifies what god is.
The BSA is chartered by the United States Congress, recieves (or rather has received) significant funding from the United States (and free access to government property, such as AP Hill), and the President of the United States is given the honorary position of President of the Boy Scouts of America. But BSA kicks atheists out of their organization.
By the way this is new. The BSA used to contain this language in their handbook (under the definition of "reverent"):
quote:The United States Constitution gives each of us complete freedom to believe and worship as we wish without fear of punishment. All your life, you will encounter people who hold different religious beliefs, of even none at all. It is your duty to respect and defend the rights of others whose beliefs may differ from yours.
This wording has been changed within the last ten years. There was no official discrimination against atheists prior to 1985.
quote:Another thing, The 1st amendment does not require that there be a separation on religion and state. It only requires that the US has no state sponsored religion and thus can't prosecute any religion. They can say god all they want, they can have the 10 commandments up where ever they want, they just can't discriminate.
This is your opinion, and one that is being perpetrated by religious fundamentalists, such as David Barton, author of "The Myth of Separation," who has been caught lying repeatedly by creating numerous "quotes" from the founding fathers, which in many cases are complete fabrications and in other cases twist the words of the founder so completely as to leave no question of Barton's dishonesty.
The Constitution forbids religious tests for offices of public trust. The constitution give the government absolutely no power to enact religious requirements.
The Annals of Congress do not support your position, as the process of developing the 1st amendment was recorded, and the inclusion of a "national religion" was discarded specifically because it could be interpreted too narrowly.
Some quotes from the Annals of Congress:
quote:Mr. Livermore was not satisfied with that amendment [the proposal to add "national" before "religion"]. He thought it would be better if it were was altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
.... the question was taken on Mr. Livermore's motion, and passed in the affirmative, thirty-one for, and twenty against.
quote:On motion of Mr Ames, the fourth amendment was altered so as to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe on rights of conscience." This being adopted, the proposition was agreed to.
quote:On motion to amend article the third, to read as follows: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion,
And the final version:
quote:Art. III. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Note that prohibiting a "national religion" was rejected in favor of increasingly broad terms, such as "no law touching religion," and "establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship."
The phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is broadly worded, specifically to avoid the narrow interpretation prohibiting only the establishment of a national church.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: They can say god all they want, they can have the 10 commandments up where ever they want, they just can't discriminate.
The question becomes whether it should be legal to promote a given religion above all others, and whether posting the Ten Commandments -- or requiring Scouts to swear an oath to God -- does so. The Scouts have become increasingly religious for political reasons -- frankly, I blame the Mormons -- and should face the consequences of that choice.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
AP Hill is the least of it. Scout troops have been given rides on nuclear submarines, West Point holds (or held, I'm not sure) a yearly invitational camporee, etc. Scouts are given special priviledges on all kinds of government property.
These are not national parks we're talking about, and no, they aren't available to "any group of law abiding citizens."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know! The blatant corruption of giving tours of submarines to groups of 12-year-old boys in uniform is just horrifying.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn-- do you know of any groups SIMILAR to the Scouts that have been discriminated against?
By 'similar,' I'm talking, range of ages, purpose of organization, and social regard.
Do you see the benefits inherent in providing such a group special services?
I'm opposed to restricting the Scout's access to the services they've historically enjoyed; rather, I think it would be more effective to allow those services to reach other groups of children as well.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I know! The blatant corruption of giving tours of submarines to groups of 12-year-old boys in uniform is just horrifying."
Not tours. Rides, including emergency submerging, surfacing and other drills. These ended when a submarine took out a fishing boat a few years ago while performing an emergency surfacing for a group of military relatives. Other than relatives of the submarine crew and the BSA, no other civilians were allowed aboard an active military submarine. And in the aftermath of the fishing boat disaster, it was determined that none of this had ever been allowed by law. Submarine commanders just made exceptions for relatives and scouts.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
The West Point Camporee was invitational, arranged by the Army itself. But they never thought to invite the girl scouts to a similar function.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I checked it out, and found a reference to Girl Scouts attending the 2004 West Point Camporee.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
