Monday, December 13, 2004

The Boy Scouts of America — a respected all-American, private organization — continues to be attacked by the ACLU. The latest example is the Pentagon’s cave-in to settle a 1999 lawsuit by not allowing military bases to sponsor Boy Scout troops.

The name — American Civil Liberties Union — is at best a misnomer. More accurately, ACLU means Assault Christian Liberties Unmercifully.

The suit against the Defense Department by the ACLU is based on the Boy Scout oath, which states: “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.” ACLU attorney Adam Schwartz said, “If our Constitution’s promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based on religious beliefs.” Mr. Schwartz is wrong. The Constitution’s First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof.” The original intent of the First Amendment was to prevent Congress from establishing a federal religion and to prevent it from restricting the freedom of practicing one’s religion. The Department of Defense is not establishing a religion by sponsoring Boy Scout troops, but is allowing the free exercise thereof. If a boy believes in the Boy Scout oath, then he has the freedom to join the Scouts. If he does not believe in the oath then he has the freedom not to join this private organization.

Mr. Schwartz is wrong because he bases his comment on an unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court opinion — one, in fact, which the ACLU instigated. In 1947 the ACLU was responsible for Everson v. Board of Education coming before the high court. One of its lawyers, Leo Pheffer, wrote the draft of the opinion which resulted in the so-called “separation of church and state.” This was the first time in history that the Supreme Court did not use precedent in its opinion. It ignored precedent. In at least two previous rulings America was declared to be a Christian nation, a Christian people. These cases were the Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. in 1892 and the U.S. v. Macintosh in 1931.

Although the ACLU was successful in turning the First Amendment upside down, that does not make it right. The Supreme Court’s pro-slavery Dred Scott decision was reversed because it was unconstitutional. The same needs to be done with the Everson v. Board of Education ruling. That would be a good start in just saying no to the ACLU.

Dennis Prager’s article, “A Jew Defends the Cross” published recently on, eloquently states why he led a fight against the ACLU to keep the cross on the Los Angeles County seal.

First, he said he fears those who rewrite history. Second, he said he fears intolerance. “I have found over and over that most Christians who preach faith are more tolerant than most leftists who preach tolerance.” Third, and most important, he states: “I fear the removal of the Judeo-Christian foundation of our society. This is the real battle of our time, indeed the civil war of our time.” “The left,” Mr. Prager continues, “wants America to become secular like Western Europe, not remain the Judeo-Christian country that it has always been. But unlike the left, I do not admire France, Belgium and Sweden. And that is what the battle over the seal of America’s most populous county (and the Boy Scout oath) is all about. It is not about separation of church and state. It is about separation of a county (and a country) from its history. And it is about separation of America from its moral foundation.” That is what Mr. Prager believes is at stake in the ACLU’s attempt to eradicate God from our nation. The ACLU works consistently, and all too often successfully, to rewrite America’s history. As Karl Marx said, “If I can steal their history I can steal their country.” The ACLU is attempting to steal our Judeo-Christian history so it can steal our country. Citizen pressure needs to be applied to force Congress to use every weapon at its disposal — including its Article III power to define jurisdiction of federal courts, a constitutional amendment, regulations to enforce existing laws, and the withholding of taxpayers’ money from counties or states that try undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Phil Kent is an Atlanta-based author and media consultant.

Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide