Religious fundamentalists are hardly new, you know.  You may be uncomfortable with this sort of thing, but even from a purely utilitarian perspective it's wrong to deny a community the social capital and communitarian trust that comes from a healthy sense of God in the public sphere.

All communities with high levels of social capital and trust will have quirks like theses.

Come on; by that standard, cliques are unavoidable and we should stop caring altogether. 

You do understand that it's fairly common for young boys in their early teens to sexually experiment if left unsupervised (which, by the way, has no bearing on their future sexual orientation)?

There is no protection—read, none—to restricting the sexual orientation of scouts, especially since sexual orientation can be hard to define at that age.  Supervision—and lots of it—is what does the trick.

I remember being frustrated with the high level of supervision when I was in an upper-middle-class scout troop, but given the sheer number of former scouts I've met as an adult who were less supervised (especially around the 11-13 years old range) and who, um, "experimented," I realized that supervision is a good thing.

I don't think that's how most troops viewed the matter.

Who said anything about silencing free speech?  Also, I disagree that civil prayer necessarily leads to sectarian bias; it hasn't where Congress is concerned.

And it isn't "establishing religion" if a governing body engages in civil prayer.  Like I said, Congress does it, and last I heard America hadn't turned into a theocracy.

You should write a full post on this stuff.

I'd never thought of it in quite those terms.  Is this the difference between self-government and democracy?  In a self-governing society, people form new customs all the time, some of which the courts recognize as law (especially when it comes to commerce); compare that with a democracy, where citizens only involve themselves in the governing process during an election campaign.

I agree with that.  What I was objecting to was the way federal courts seem to feel comfortable banning civil prayer among small government entities, but not Congress.  If the courts were more evenhanded, then Congressmen would have an incentive to protect the smaller entities.

Exactly.  People always go too far.

There is no right to not be offended by public civil ceremonies.  This sort of attitude is why I think America's upper-middle-class elite has made such a mess of things. [edit: not sure that's quite the right link; I thought I'd written something more specific about the American upper middle class's aggrieved sense of entitlement where this sort of thing is concerned, but I can't seem to find it].

Well then, why don't we start with Congress?  Why does it always have to start with weaker institutions that have trouble defending themselves?

Does anyone know what the Supreme Court is likely to do?  This sounds just wrong, to me.  Either every public institution in America should be prohibited from praying (including Congress), or none of them should be.

It seems rather easy to reconcile: the word "knowing" is the key.  In my religion, people who know the truth of God but betray that knowledge go to hell; but people who merely lack such truth do not.

I seem to be rather late to this thread.

Anyway, the red-state solution to this is civil unions, no?  The divorce clause is an attempt to ensure parents set a good example for their children, and civil unions would seem to address the "don't be promiscuous in front of your children" concern.  If people still want a "don't be gay in front of your children" clause, they could always add it separately (as much as I loathe the idea of such a clause, it does seem legal; it is a contract, after all).

I've not seen him for a while; I hope he's okay.

I don't understand what Mike is talking about either.  I've never heard of a woman skimping on prenatal nutrition in an attempt to sabotage her own pregnancy; if nothing else, the fear that she might instead bear a disabled child should be enough to keep such a foolish thing from happening.

Homophobia is odd on several levels; like you said, the grammatically literal meaning is "fear of things that are the same," but now it means "hatred of gay people" (oddly enough, it doesn't seem to mean "fear of gay people" either, even though I'd say there are more people who fear homosexuals—as a threat to male social trust and solidarity, an attack on masculinity, etc—than genuinely hate them).