Here Ends The Lesson
As many of our readers know, I love the law. I have read as much of it as I can, I have thrown myself into its study, and I love to comment on it. I can sit at the computer for hours reading Supreme Court decisions, and never get bored. I love, more than anything, to challenge the court on some of it’s more inept decisions. (Kelo was the most recent case I eviscerated.) I have tackled Roe more times than I can count, and for the most part—despite my lay-persons status—I’m pretty good at handing the Court it’s head when it screws up.
Today, I’m not dealing with the Supreme Court. No, today I’m on top of a federal district court, and a brain-dead judge named Blanche Manning. Judge Manning’s recent decision in the case of Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board Trustees leaves me scratching my head. Never heard of it? I’m not surprised as the MSM barely paid a whit of attention to it. This case involved the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, and the Boy Scouts of America. Does it ring a bell now?
Winkler, the plaintiff in the case (with the ACLU in his corner) contends that the DoD and the Pentagon can’t support the Boy Scouts Jamboree; an event that they have helped sponsor since the 1930s. Why? Winkler contends that the Boy Scouts affirmation of God violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, therefore, no branch of the government may be involved in the Jamboree. Not only is this a completely asinine assertion, as the Boy Scouts aren’t a religion, but the sheer fact that the DoD cannot do something that lies within the traditions of this nation is reprehensible. Yes, I said the traditions of the nation. Since the 1930s, the DoD has supported the Jamborees, and in their words, the Boy Scouts represent the best this nation has to offer in terms of an organization that upholds moral traditions and patriotism.
The religious principles of the Boy Scouts have been under assault since the ACLU tried to sue them over the organizations refusal to allow gay scout leaders into their ranks. Then, the Supreme Court stated that as a private organization, they had the right to refuse such people from its ranks. The same goes for those that refuse to affirm their belief in God. But just because this is within the Scout oath, and the BSA Religious Principle doesn’t mean the BSA is a "religion." That is the key to this whole case.
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That’s the first sentence of the amendment, and it is the key piece to the whole case. Winkler’s contention is this unity between the BSA and the Pentagon directly violates that first clause, known as the Establishment Clause. Were the BSA strictly Catholic, or Methodist, or Muslim, or Mormon, a case could, in effect be made. But they’re not. They’re a non-sectarian group. They subscribe to no religion. They do believe in God, which means they subscribe to Judeo-Christian beliefs, but the adherence to a set of beliefs doesn’t constitute a religion.
The beliefs the Scouts adhere to are no different than what we, as a society, have subscribed to for thousands of years. In fact, the very nature of our laws and our morals are derived from the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments don’t establish a religion. If you believe that, I challenge you to point to the religion they solely belong to. What religion do they promote. Likewise, I can ask the same of the Scouts. Private organizations have been allowed to discriminate for years. For the longest time, VMI wouldn’t allow women. A screwed-up Supreme Court decision demanded they do so. Granted the overall argument made by the Court was that:
1) No other university in Virginia, open to women, could give the quality of education that VMI did, and that women desired.
2) That even if the state of Virginia were to create a "female" version of VMI, it still would not give the same level of education that the original VMI did.
OK, I get that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. (For those who want a real laugh, read Scalia’s dissent in the case of United States v. Virginia. He was the lone dissenter in the case.)
But organizations have been allowed to discriminate. We have women’s health spas that don’t allow men. Boys cannot join the Girl Scouts. Universities like Bryn Mawr don’t allow men. That is discrimination based on gender. What about beliefs? Can the Boy Scouts discriminate because you refuse to affirm your belief in God? You bet they can. They have in the past, and they’ll continue to do so.
But this case isn’t about discrimination. It’s about whether or not the Pentagon is violating the Establishment Clause by supporting the Boy Scouts’ Jamboree. To destroy this argument, which I’m surprised Judge Manning didn’t approach the case this way, is to ask two simple questions.
First, is the Pentagon "respecting an establishment of religion" in their support of the Scouts? Second, are they prohibiting the "free exercise thereof?"
To answer both, the Scouts must be determined to be a "religion." They aren’t a religion. They are a faith-based organization, that many of their scout troops are accepted by many churches. But they’re not a religion. We can agree that there are doctrinal differences between Mormons and Catholics, but the overall morals are intact. That is what the Scouts adhere to. They are not proselytizing on what you should and shouldn’t believe. They are adhering to the basic tenets of their organization. One of those tenets is a belief in God.
A belief in God doesn’t make a religion. I could proclaim that I believe in God, but I’m not proclaiming that my religion—my beliefs—trump or supersede—anyone else’s. Neither are the Scouts. The Jamboree attracts countless tens of thousands of Scouts from across the country. They go their to meet with one another, share good times, and broaden a deeper brotherhood with one another. (I don’t know all the specifics of a Jamboree as I was never a Boy Scout.) Point being is that I don’t think a priest is going to roll his old bones out there to conduct a Catholic service. I doubt I’ll see an Elder go out there and proclaim the truth according to Joseph Smith. I’m sure there will be clergy there, conducting prayers and blessings in a non-sectarian way, much in the way that clergy do in Congress. To date, the ACLU hasn’t challenged those clergymen, so why challenge the Scouts?
My theory is that because the Scouts kicked their butt a couple of years back over the gay troop leaders, and the ACLU wanted a bit of payback. Fine. Whatever. The ACLU is about to learn the mistake of this folly. This was a district court decision. An appeal was already filed to the 7th Circuit Court, I believe, and should it fail, an appeal will be sent to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, provided all the justices remember their teeth and their brains that day, will rule against the ACLU again. For the sole reasons that I have stated. The BSA isn’t a religion. It’s a faith-based organization. Therefore, the Establishment Clause is a moot point, and the case has no merit.
Publius II
As many of our readers know, I love the law. I have read as much of it as I can, I have thrown myself into its study, and I love to comment on it. I can sit at the computer for hours reading Supreme Court decisions, and never get bored. I love, more than anything, to challenge the court on some of it’s more inept decisions. (Kelo was the most recent case I eviscerated.) I have tackled Roe more times than I can count, and for the most part—despite my lay-persons status—I’m pretty good at handing the Court it’s head when it screws up.
Today, I’m not dealing with the Supreme Court. No, today I’m on top of a federal district court, and a brain-dead judge named Blanche Manning. Judge Manning’s recent decision in the case of Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board Trustees leaves me scratching my head. Never heard of it? I’m not surprised as the MSM barely paid a whit of attention to it. This case involved the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, and the Boy Scouts of America. Does it ring a bell now?
Winkler, the plaintiff in the case (with the ACLU in his corner) contends that the DoD and the Pentagon can’t support the Boy Scouts Jamboree; an event that they have helped sponsor since the 1930s. Why? Winkler contends that the Boy Scouts affirmation of God violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, therefore, no branch of the government may be involved in the Jamboree. Not only is this a completely asinine assertion, as the Boy Scouts aren’t a religion, but the sheer fact that the DoD cannot do something that lies within the traditions of this nation is reprehensible. Yes, I said the traditions of the nation. Since the 1930s, the DoD has supported the Jamborees, and in their words, the Boy Scouts represent the best this nation has to offer in terms of an organization that upholds moral traditions and patriotism.
The religious principles of the Boy Scouts have been under assault since the ACLU tried to sue them over the organizations refusal to allow gay scout leaders into their ranks. Then, the Supreme Court stated that as a private organization, they had the right to refuse such people from its ranks. The same goes for those that refuse to affirm their belief in God. But just because this is within the Scout oath, and the BSA Religious Principle doesn’t mean the BSA is a "religion." That is the key to this whole case.
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That’s the first sentence of the amendment, and it is the key piece to the whole case. Winkler’s contention is this unity between the BSA and the Pentagon directly violates that first clause, known as the Establishment Clause. Were the BSA strictly Catholic, or Methodist, or Muslim, or Mormon, a case could, in effect be made. But they’re not. They’re a non-sectarian group. They subscribe to no religion. They do believe in God, which means they subscribe to Judeo-Christian beliefs, but the adherence to a set of beliefs doesn’t constitute a religion.
The beliefs the Scouts adhere to are no different than what we, as a society, have subscribed to for thousands of years. In fact, the very nature of our laws and our morals are derived from the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments don’t establish a religion. If you believe that, I challenge you to point to the religion they solely belong to. What religion do they promote. Likewise, I can ask the same of the Scouts. Private organizations have been allowed to discriminate for years. For the longest time, VMI wouldn’t allow women. A screwed-up Supreme Court decision demanded they do so. Granted the overall argument made by the Court was that:
1) No other university in Virginia, open to women, could give the quality of education that VMI did, and that women desired.
2) That even if the state of Virginia were to create a "female" version of VMI, it still would not give the same level of education that the original VMI did.
OK, I get that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. (For those who want a real laugh, read Scalia’s dissent in the case of United States v. Virginia. He was the lone dissenter in the case.)
But organizations have been allowed to discriminate. We have women’s health spas that don’t allow men. Boys cannot join the Girl Scouts. Universities like Bryn Mawr don’t allow men. That is discrimination based on gender. What about beliefs? Can the Boy Scouts discriminate because you refuse to affirm your belief in God? You bet they can. They have in the past, and they’ll continue to do so.
But this case isn’t about discrimination. It’s about whether or not the Pentagon is violating the Establishment Clause by supporting the Boy Scouts’ Jamboree. To destroy this argument, which I’m surprised Judge Manning didn’t approach the case this way, is to ask two simple questions.
First, is the Pentagon "respecting an establishment of religion" in their support of the Scouts? Second, are they prohibiting the "free exercise thereof?"
To answer both, the Scouts must be determined to be a "religion." They aren’t a religion. They are a faith-based organization, that many of their scout troops are accepted by many churches. But they’re not a religion. We can agree that there are doctrinal differences between Mormons and Catholics, but the overall morals are intact. That is what the Scouts adhere to. They are not proselytizing on what you should and shouldn’t believe. They are adhering to the basic tenets of their organization. One of those tenets is a belief in God.
A belief in God doesn’t make a religion. I could proclaim that I believe in God, but I’m not proclaiming that my religion—my beliefs—trump or supersede—anyone else’s. Neither are the Scouts. The Jamboree attracts countless tens of thousands of Scouts from across the country. They go their to meet with one another, share good times, and broaden a deeper brotherhood with one another. (I don’t know all the specifics of a Jamboree as I was never a Boy Scout.) Point being is that I don’t think a priest is going to roll his old bones out there to conduct a Catholic service. I doubt I’ll see an Elder go out there and proclaim the truth according to Joseph Smith. I’m sure there will be clergy there, conducting prayers and blessings in a non-sectarian way, much in the way that clergy do in Congress. To date, the ACLU hasn’t challenged those clergymen, so why challenge the Scouts?
My theory is that because the Scouts kicked their butt a couple of years back over the gay troop leaders, and the ACLU wanted a bit of payback. Fine. Whatever. The ACLU is about to learn the mistake of this folly. This was a district court decision. An appeal was already filed to the 7th Circuit Court, I believe, and should it fail, an appeal will be sent to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, provided all the justices remember their teeth and their brains that day, will rule against the ACLU again. For the sole reasons that I have stated. The BSA isn’t a religion. It’s a faith-based organization. Therefore, the Establishment Clause is a moot point, and the case has no merit.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home