[tahiti]

"Boy Scout troops posed a constitutional conflict because Scouts must pledge "to do my duty to God."

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. . . ."

[MattGarrett]

Man, we have to take this fight to the ACLU. I am SO tired of this crap.

[SpyGuy]

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.

[Logical me]

What is so sad is that here is an organization that builds character in Boys. Guess it would be better to scrap the Boy Scouts and ask them to join gangs. What fool we have in this Country. Where did this garbage come from? Oh, I forgot, liberal schools. Right?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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."

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.

[Zeppo]

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."

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...

[Clintonfatigued]

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?

[Polybius]

"Boy Scout troops posed a constitutional conflict because Scouts must pledge "to do my duty to God."

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.