By
Rob Boston
I
wish to respond to Mathew Goldstein’s recent criticisms of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on this blog.
I
have worked at Americans United for 26 years. In that time, I have observed the
organization work repeatedly to protect the rights of all Americans – religious
and non-religious – to be free from government-sponsored theology. I resent my
organization and the good people who work there being called
"hypocrites." Such a characterization is not only untrue, it is
offensive.
There
are many non-believers among AU’s membership, and over the years we have, time
and again, stood up for the civil rights and equality of humanists, atheists,
agnostics and non-believers. Non-believers have been plaintiffs in just about all
of our major cases, among them the challenge to “Ten Commandments” Judge Roy
Moore in Alabama, the fight against “intelligent design” in Dover, Pa., and
most, recently, our lawsuit against official prayers before municipal meetings
in Greece, N.Y.
Americans
United is a coalition. Some of our members are religious and some are not. All
are dedicated to the principle that government must never impose religion onto
the unwilling nor treat anyone as second-class citizen based on what they
believe, or don’t believe, about god. We frequently work with religious and
secular groups to achieve this goal.
Mr.
Goldstein is disappointed in the way that AU dealt with a matter he brought to
our attention. Rather than assume that Americans United had abandoned its
commitment to protecting the rights of non-believers, perhaps he should have
asked if the situation he raised was a strong church-state violation. As it
turns out, it may not be.
According
to his complaint, Mr. Goldstein is upset because he believes the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources is sponsoring a Boy Scout troop. AU’s intake attorney did
investigate the matter and was unable to find strong evidence that the
department does in fact sponsor the troop. However, after Mr. Goldstein
provided some additional information, the attorney referred the matter to AU’s full
Legal Department for further review.
That
process is ongoing. While things may not be proceeding at the pace Mr. Goldstein
would like, it’s important to remember that Americans United receives
complaints concerning church-state violations every day. We examine each one,
and this can occasionally create a backlog. The file on this matter remains
open.
I
share the frustration many humanists feel over issues related to the Boy
Scouts. Last year, the BSA changed its policies and now allows gay Scouts, but
it hasn’t budged on atheists. The BSA’s policy of excluding non-believers is
reprehensible, but it has proven a difficult issue to challenge in court. In 1999,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boy
Scouts of America vs. Dale that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is a
private organization that may legally deny membership to gays and atheists.
After
that ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue public
schools and other units of government that sponsored Boy Scout troops. In 2005,
the BSA recommended that government entities stop sponsoring Boy Scout troops.
The BSA was worried that public schools and other arms of government might get
sued. Many schools and government offices, worried about the time and expense
of a lawsuit, did indeed end sponsorship of Boy Scout troops.
No
court ordered them to do this. Thus, there is no case law explicitly stating
that units of government may not sponsor BSA troops. From a legal perspective,
this is a murky situation.
I
am sorry Mr. Goldstein is disappointed, but I want to assure him and others
that Americans United has not deviated from its willingness to assist freethinkers.
In reality, we’re more than willing to help non-believers and do it all of the
time.
For
more information about Americans United and the work that we do, please visit
www.au.org or email me directly at boston@au.org.
2 comments:
The way I see it, this not about the Scouting program, it is about government. If legal precedents say that state governments cannot take ownership of, and operate, a membership based group that refuses membership to Baptists or Christians or monotheists then those are the relevant precedents. To get from those contexts to this context while changing the status from illegal to legal would require asserting an exception based on irrelevancies or double standards. I understand that non-profits want to win back legal expenses and there are some nasty decisions exhibiting complete disrespect for equality before the law for atheist citizens as advocated by Scalia.
Note, there is a longer response to this posting at:
http://secularhumanist.blogspot.com/2014/09/boy-scouts-can-denyrevoke-membership-at.html
Post a Comment