I am an active member of The American Legion, whose motto is, “For God and Country.” The membership requirements are only that you served honorably in the US military during a declared war – no one asks if you believe in God. Every meeting opens with an invocation and ends with a benediction – both of which are to be as inclusive to all beliefs as possible. Yet, I would not, for a moment, classify The American Legion as a religious organization, even in part. It is a service organization that encourages it’s members to participate and express their individual beliefs.

A sample invocation, “As we come together this night, we ask You to help us remember that we work for a common purpose. Let us deliberate with open minds and open hearts, for the good of the Legion. To You we pray. Amen.”

My point is, to classify a group as a religious organization implies that all members must be of ONE religion. So, the Catholic Church can be both a service organization and a religious one. Yet the Boy Scouts do not share a single religion – it is open to all.

I was using “can’t be anything but” in the sense of “can’t not be”. But you’re right, that phrasing is just unclear enough that someone might mistake my intent.

As in your example, the Catholic Church is a social service organization, but not only that. The Scouts likewise are a religious organization, though not only a religious organization.

“As to the Scouts, an organization that requires its members to be religious can’t be anything but a religious organization.”

From this statement we could conclude the Catholic Church “can’t be anything but” a social service organization because it requires its members to perform social service work such as, “feed the hungry”, “clothe the naked”, and “care for the sick.”

As to the Scouts, an organization that requires its members to be religious can’t be anything but a religious organization. There are even (relatively minimal) doctrinal requirements – polytheists need not apply to be Scouts, from what I can determine. (I’m also not sure the Mafioso analogy is correct – first, how do you know that ‘most’ believe in God, and second, is that a requirement for membership?)

“On the other hand, that [NAMBLA] manual doesn’t seem to have been relevant to the kidnapping at the heart of the legal case – that appears to be a manual for doing unspeakable acts clandestinely.”

I disagree. I’m not an attorney, but I think a very good case can be made that NAMBLA’s sales of such manuals is a conspiracy to commit a crime: “You want to commit a crime? Come. For $X, we’ll teach you how.” Obviously, the more successful the manuals are at enabling child molesters / murderers to succeed, the more manuals they will sell and therefore profit more from the crimes.

“What the evidence in the [conspiracy] case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or ‘overt acts’) described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such ‘overt act’ was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.” http://www.rense.com/general9/cons.htm

In addition, “Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights, … makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).” http://miami.fbi.gov/statutes/title_18/section241.htm

That the murdered boy was deprived of his right to life and liberty shouldn’t even be a question.

“The Scouts are definitely a religious organization…”

I guess that all depends on your definition of “religious organization.” The Catholic Church is a “religious organization.” Is the Boy Scouts like the Catholic Church? I know its creed mentions God, but does the organization’s literature describe God’s nature or what you have to believe about God? Is the mission of the Scouts a religious one, or a civic one? Most Mafiosos believe in God, but we would hardly call the Mafia a religious organization.

“I like a lot of what the Scouts do. But that doesn’t mean I think the BSA is entitled to sweetheart deals from the government.”

And you are free to think that, but it is not the determining factor in whether the Scouts get “sweetheart deals” from the government. The Scouts should be accorded the same deals as any other non-profit organization. To say that one group can have them but not the Scouts is discrimination based on message content.

The presentation of the NAMBLA and BSA issues in the article you linked is slanted a bit. I have to agree with him that the manual he describes is over the line between advocacy and ‘aiding & abetting’. On the other hand, that manual doesn’t seem to have been relevant to the kidnapping at the heart of the legal case – that appears to be a manual for doing unspeakable acts clandestinely.

And if NAMBLA members truly “distribute child pornography and trade live children”, then prosecuting them for publications ought to be far lower on the list of priorities. I’m not aware of any ACLU chapter defending anyone charged with that.

Obviously I find NAMBLA repellent in word and deed, even when their deeds are legal. (I have four children, and however cliched it may sound, I literally cannot imagine how horrifying it’d be if one of them suffered what poor Jeffrey Curley did.) But I can understand the thought processes that would lead someone to want to protect even them from being prosecuted for their words, even when in this case I have to agree that it’s wrong.

The actions of the other ACLU chapter, with respect to the Boy Scouts, are of quite a different nature. The Scouts are definitely a religious organization (more so now than ever). I have a certain amount of experience here – I’ve never been a religious adherent, and I made Eagle Scout… but that was a couple decades ago when things weren’t quite as polarized as now. My eldest son wanted to join the Scouts, and I’ve supported him in that, just as I’ll be there for his first Communion on Sunday. Mention of God has ramped up dramatically from when I was a scout.

I like a lot of what the Scouts do. But that doesn’t mean I think the BSA is entitled to sweetheart deals from the government, and that doesn’t mean I agree with all their policies.

This is probably one of the best sites that describes the NAMBLA/ACLU case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

There are plenty of cases of Christian persecution in our school systems, both K-12 and colleges. Most of it seems to center around Christian teachings about human sexuality. A favorite tactic of a university is to deny funding for campus Christian clubs because they “discriminate” against non-Christians for membership and office-holding.
Such policies have given birth to a virtual cottage industry of legal defense organizations that combat these policies. Page down to “Allies” under http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/ReligiousFreedom/UniversityLife.aspx.

I’m glad you brought up the issue of prayer in public schools: “Decide for yourself if religion is being established by the government via their school. According to the [Thomas More] Law Center, ‘for three weeks, impressionable 12-year-old students were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to Remember Allah always so that you may prosper; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the Bismillah or In the name of … [Allah], the Merciful, the Compassionate, which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls. Students also played jihad games during the course, which was part of the school’s world history and geography program.

“…In December 2003, the San Francisco court determined the school district had not violated the Constitution. In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.” (Emphasis added.)

Now, c’mon. “What would happen if students were [required] to adopt Christian names and pray to the Lord Jesus Christ? Would that practice be seen as mere teaching about Christianity or would it be seen as indoctrination and therefore a violation of the Constitution? It is a sad day when the truth comes out. Not only is Christianity being marginalized in this country (a prelude to ban), but the Constitution really means nothing. It is simply used, when convenient, to bash Christians.” http://www.callingfortruth.org/cft/content/view/17/9

However, snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.asp has another perspective that appears less emotional. I say “appears” because the editors of the site dismiss the requirement to pray to Allah as insignificant. To both Christians and Jews this act of worship is no trivial matter – it is a violation of the First Commandment. One could understand why: I know some Christians who don’t realize that prayer is an act of worship; how could one expect our secular society to know it?

Snopes goes on. “Assist Ministries is addressing the wrong issue: This controversy shouldn’t be about Islam vs. Christianity or “our religion” vs. “their religion,” but rather about the appropriateness of any religious teachings in public schools.”

If this is true, snopes should wonder, as I do, where the ACLU is. Too busy defending NAMBLA, perhaps?

A Christian is also tempted to wonder if a student would get a zero for the assignment if he refused to participate in such activities based on religious grounds. I bet he would. Any takers?

(BTW, do you have a link to the NAMBLA case you referenced? I’m curious to read the details.)

Consider what the school has done. The constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor restricting the free exercise thereof.” In this case, the student, A.P., has turned the school into “Congress”, and the “law” he force it to “make” and the “religion” he force it to “establish” is his drawing with a cross on it. Talk about the theatre of the absurd.

All this could be avoided if school administrators spent only half as much time learning about court cases that cover the “establishment” clause as they do about diversity, multiculturalism, affirmative action, and all rest of the liberal mumbo-jumbo.

For example, the school in question might have learned about ACLU v. Mercer Co., KY, (a “Ten Commandments” case) that would seem to apply here. The Sixth Circuit ruled, “Under the endorsement test, the government violates the Establishment Clause when it acts in a manner that a reasonable person would view as an endorsement of religion. This is an objective standard, similar to the judicially-created ‘reasonable person’ standard of tort law: Accordingly, we do not ask whether there is any person who could find an endorsement of religion, whether some people may be offended by the display, or whether some reasonable person might think the government endorses religion. Rather, the inquiry here is whether the reasonable person would conclude that Mercer County’s display has the effect of endorsing religion.” (emphasis added).

Notice the legal test in Mercer is NOT whether any person, or persons, is/are “offended”, but whether the reasonable person would look at the item in question (in this case, A.P.’s assignment) and see government endorsement of religion. Clearly, a reasonable person would not, any more than he would if little Mohammed drew a crescent moon on his.

And really, this is all that Christians are asking for – to be given the same accommodation that atheists, agnostics, Satan-worshipers, witches, heretics, counter-culturalists, Muslims, etc. are accorded, and not be singled out for unique persecution based on some pretense of the First Amendment.

Not only that, but they might also learn that once the government opens a “public forum” to members of one group, the government has to open it to members of other groups as well on a content neutral basis. Any restrictions on speech in a government forum must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum. So, for example, if little Mohammed would not bear any adverse consequences (such as a grade of zero) for drawing a crescent moon on his class assignment, then they can’t punish A.P. when he draws a cross on his.

Forcing students to sign away their constitutional rights and agreeing with the restrictions on expressing religious beliefs in class artwork probably is an unreasonable restriction on free speech, especially when you consider the courts are considering such weighty issues as First Amendment protection for NAMBLA’s literature instructing adult men on how to kidnap, rape, and murder young boys without being caught.

Which brings me to the following observation about a pattern seemingly at work in the educational establishment that reveals several items in their true agenda. There are organizations successfully fighting unconstitutional speech codes on public campuses across the nation. One would think that when one code is found unconstitutional, similar ones would fall like dominoes, or at least be modified to be compliant. But no. Each one has to be fought in court on its own, sorta like having to dismantle The Great Pyramid one block at a time. So the first thing on their agenda is self-righteousness manifested by defiance of the law. That they do not take the trouble to become better informed tells me second on their agenda is they are not interested in ceasing their persecution of Christians.

It is a bad day in “Black Rock” when you consider that Christians have fought and died for 2,000 years to obtain religious freedom for themselves and succeeded in getting it only for the aforementioned atheists, agnostics, Satan-worshipers, witches, heretics, counter-culturalists, Muslims, etc., while obtaining only more persecution for themselves.