Posted on 04/10/2005 8:35:09 AM PDT by tahiti
Scouting councils in Missouri, Illinois and across the nation are scrambling to find new sponsors for thousands of Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs whose charters are held by taxpayer-funded institutions, including public schools.
The Boy Scouts of America notified local councils last month that they would have to find private sponsors for troops that currently have formal relationships with public schools and other governmental entities. The directive followed an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which said that the direct public sponsorship of Boy Scout troops posed a constitutional conflict because Scouts must pledge "to do my duty to God."
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
There's the "constitutional conflict."
So, the Boy Scouts should continue using "public" facilities and if anyone tries to stop them, cite the following:
U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)
Federal law 42 U.S.C. 1983 states:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."
Man, we have to take this fight to the ACLU. I am SO tired of this crap.
As much as I am disgusted and appalled by these ongoing attacks against the Boy Scouts, I can't help but think that being forced to break their ties with the corrupt, Leftist-controlled, public school system, will ultimately be a good thing for the scouts.
I tend to agree with you. I would extend this idea to the churches. Acceptance of tax breaks make them beholden to the government. Clergy/churches probably would do well to choose their subjects carefully, and need not feel compelled to speak out on all or even most issues, but to give up the right to speak, when neccessary and appropriate, in exchange for a tax break is not good.
This is bullcrap. The BSA should tell the ACLU to go pound sand. There is no Constitutional conflict.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof."
How does the Boy Scout pledge run afoul of that?
As a matter of fact, this agreement with the ACLU is unconstitutional as it restricts the free exercise of religion of many Boy Scouts.
And the same MUST be said of ANY who believe in or pledge
to do their best for God,and Country.If the Infidel and
atheist choose to live like animals and reject God I have
no claim to any power over them to force them change. YOU can lead the sinner to the Truth -but you can't make him
accept it. Sometimes God just has to prepare the ground
before we can plant the good seed.
On the other hand, the ACLU would apparently have no problem whatsoever with direct public sponsorship of the Young Communists League, the Hitler Youth, or similar, because there would be no conflict caused by that inconvenient "God" thing...
I think I know what you mean, but this is a fight that our politicos need to get involved with.
These A$$holes are too busy thinking about baseball while they're screwing us!
If the Boy Scouts want to avoid frivolous lawsuits by the ACLU and their ilk, they must change. They must become the Unisex Athiest Gay Politically Correct Scouts.
Isn't it interesting that people who preach inclusiveness never want to include people of faith?
I question this comment, I believe that the "strings" come attached to government money itself, and not from tax breaks. The ability to accept contributions that the donor can deduct from their tax is really a break passed through the institution to the donor. I don't believe this conveys any governmental say except that the institution not engage in politics. The Boy Scouts are not being accused of playing politics and with the exception of doing flag ceremonies at political conventions I don't believe the Scouts play in politics at all. (Although I am always pleased to see Scouts in uniform at Bush functions.
This whole suit by the ACLU is serving two purposes. (1) It thrills their base in that it looks like they are making progress in defeating the Boy Scouts. and (2) In highly liberal (blue counties) area, the Scouts will not be able to go to PTAs and Churches/Synogogues because the population may have enough leftist support to deny the Scouts.
I know at my old Temple, the group working for open acceptance of homosexuality was miffed that the Temple also sponcered a Scout troop for over 40 years. But the Rabbi told them that the Scouts could stay and that was that. BTW, the Rabbi was as leftist as the rest, but he also thought the Scouts were a force for good. Plus he was a former Scout himself.
Are atheists allowed to have commissions in the U.S. Army Chaplain Corps?
Is not the U.S. Army Chaplain Corps tax-payer funded?
Activist Courts have perverted the meaning of what the Framers of the Bill of Rights meant by "establishment of religion".
When the First Amendment was written, "establishment" meant that no one religion could be declared the official state religion as the Church of England is the state religion of Great Britain.
All the fuss about how Prince William can never marry a Catholic woman without losing his right to the British Crown............that is an example of "establishment of religion".
The "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause was inserted to prohibit the very actions that the ACLU now advocates.
I'm all for 'loser pays' tort reform.
Not only that, but the prohibition is on Congress, not on state or local governments. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". How does an agreement between local school officials and the Boy Scouts concerning access to school property have anything to do with Congress making a law?
For that matter, how does an AL state judge violate a Constitutional limitation on Congress' power by posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom? If Congress had passed a law requiring the Commandments to be posted, an argument could reasonably be made that such a law violates the establishment clause. (I would argue to the contrary on grounds that such a law by Congress would not establish a state religion, which was what the author's intended to prohibit) But in as much as the establishment clause only limits congress' power to make law, it's not possible that an act by a state judge, or by any local, state, or federal government body other than Congress, could violate that clause.
Of course my argument presupposes that words actually have meaning, and that the the intent of a statement or a document can be determined by it's wording. That quaint notion seems to be a thing of the past as far as our courts are concerned.
Firstly, The donor (me and my fellow churchmembers) are at least as much a part of the church as the pastor. Secondly, yes the break is passed through to the donor, but the result is the church tends to get more money than if there were no tax break. Thirdly, and most importantly, I'd say that "the institution not engage in politics" is a pretty big say! My analogy to the Boy Scouts may be strained, but the common factor is dependence on "government" for a benefit: sponsorship and/or a convenient place to hold meeting in the case of the scouts or an incentive for members to give a larger offering (church). In either case, the government's favors come with strings.
There may be a way to have the ACLU made to pay the price for their "BS."
From U.S. Supreme Court case HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991), the court was asked for judicial review of federal statute 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Quoting from the majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, federal statute 42 U.S.C. 1983, states:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."
The ACLU individual members are advancing and advocating, under the color "usage" the "deprivation of...rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution,"and thus are damaging and injuring the Boy Scouts in which the individuals of the ACLU are liable to pay for the damages and injuries they have caused.
Amendment I
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Not being a Boy Scout or a member of that organization, I have no jurisdiction to file a federal law suit agains the ACLU using 42 U.S.C. 1983 as the basis for the suit.
Maybe a Boy Scout member who is a member of the forum could take up the cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.