Merlyn_LeRoy

Sorry Ed, I'll go with the opinion of real lawyers: "Schools Superintendent Robert Lichtenfeld said the district's lawyers had advised him that the school's support of any religious pledge runs contrary to the requirement for separation of church and state in public education."

So Ed, does this mean you think that public schools should ignore their ethics (and the law, too)?

John-in-KC writes: Merlyn, Beavah tried to bottom-line your position in his last sentence. It seems to me he deserves a coherent response, not an ad hominem attack. It's the same-old same-old. If public schools aren't actively supporting the BSA's discriminatory program, they are somehow being "even more discriminatory" than the BSA. That's ridiculous. Public schools don't run private, whites-only groups for the KKK, either. Beavah is equating "equal access" with "the government should be paying for my private, discriminatory program". They aren't even close to each other. If the government pays for free public schools that don't promote a religion, it isn't equal access to insist that the government also pay for schools that DO promote a religion. It's hardly difficult to understand that public schools can't discriminate against atheists. If a public school owns & operates a private club that excludes atheists, that school is discriminating against atheists.

PeteM, you need to read the 14th amendment too, and how state governments (and their agents, like public school officials) can't infringe on the first amendment. Beavah, when people are trying to take away the civil rights of atheists, it IS a battle, not just a polite discussion.

Beavah writes: Is it OK for the government to give subsidies only to religious groups? No, not at least since Everson Would it still be OK if the government controlled 100% of the GDP for it to only give money to areligious groups... eliminating institutional religion entirely? How would that be possible? For that, the government would either have to have a 100% tax rate, or those not subject to 100% tax earn no money. And like History sanitized of religious viewpoints, literature selected to exclude religious expression, philosophy courses that only presented areligious or anti-religious worldviews, school assemblies that belittle, critique, or simply censor religious perspectives. Well, it might look that way to someone who's paranoid. Is it OK to provide a captive audience of young people in government-supported school with only religious messages? Of course not. We have religious freedom in this country, not government indoctrination of religion. Yah, perhaps that atheist perspective doesn't include "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," eh? Why not? That's a very old intuitive ethical stance that predates Christianity, by the way. Your argument would have more merit if you supported equal access everywhere - includin' to government resources and government sponsored environments. As it is, it seems to me you are just tryin' to be more exclusive and discriminatory than you claim da BSA is. Only from your warped perspective.

Hunt writes: See, Merlyn, this is just another example of how you don't get it. This is a sad story, not a victory for fairness and justice. These kids were volunteering to provide safe rides--that's a good thing. Don't you agree? Sure. It's too bad that the particular arrangement created a problem for the school and the Crew, and a reasonable person would hope they can work it out They can. The BSA could stop discriminating in their Venture program, for just one way. But it delights you that the evil Scouts were dealt another blow--and you came here to gloat about it. That's just sad, honestly. And to show how the BSA's stupidity and discrimination still continue to create problems. By the way, the school system's lawyers may be right that the school district shouldn't actually charter the Crew, but if they advise the school that there's a problem with providing the phone line and even the stipend for the faculty advisors, they're overly cautious, because that would probably be approved by the courts as permissible expenditures given the secular purpose. I disagree. If you're offering to fund a test lawsuit, go ahead. It's also possible that the school wouldn't want to deal with the BSA any more, given that the school was needlessly exposed to a discrimination lawsuit because the local council acted against BSA policy. But they probably don't want the aggravation of dealing with litigious atheists, even if they have a reasonable argument. Your "reasonable arguments" always seem to come out with atheists being discriminated against. And if you want to see litigious atheists, keep trying to get public schools to run discriminatory BSA programs.

Beavah writes: Is it OK for the government, which controls 40% of the GDP, to give subsidies only to areligious groups? Of course. Why wouldn't it be? To provide a captive audience of young people only with areligious messages? Like reading, writing, and arithmetic? Sure. Isn't that the identical choice to sanction particular speech and quash rights that you're complainin' about? Whose rights are being quashed when public schools teach kids how to add?

Well you'd better email the school superintendent and tell him to ignore his lawyers' advice, and that everything is hunky-dory. They're still under the delusion that there's a problem.

It isn't a private club, it's a school program. When it has a private chartering partner, it'll be a private club, but not until then.

Beavah, the religious folks would have been content if people hadn't raised a ruckus over official prayers in school, but some people thought that public schools shouldn't tell kids what, how, when, or if to pray. Funny how religious neutrality looks like excluding religion to some people.

Fortunately, the school administrators realize that this IS a problem, since they've asked real lawyers about it.

evmori writes: What right was violated? The student's first amendment right; public schools can't discriminate against students because they happen to be atheists. At least the school suprintendent knows this; I know you'll never be able to learn it.

Just like the way Jews excluded themselves from Restricted clubs. Doesn't wash.

Now if only one court in the US agreed with your reasoning, you might have something. But since every public school could use the same bizarre reasoning to exclude students of any religion, I won't hold my breath.

I judge people by what they say here. A number have said that the civil rights of atheists can or ought to be ignored by having a public school exclude them from a public school program.

John-in-KC writes: The objecting parents, imo, should have been told "If you can underwrite the insurance at the same level BSA is, we'll be glad to make you the new sponsors of this program. If not, well, I guess you have a problem." Ah, the school should have told the atheist family that their civil rights don't count, and it's their fault. Boy, you must really want this school to lose a lawsuit. As the principal, I think I'd have next called a local church and ask if they were willing to pick up the charter. You'd still have a lawsuit for your hypothetical earlier remark. Merlyn, do you even care about the service rendered by these young people that is now gone? As someone who has a brother who's been paralyzed for 20 years by a drunk driver, probably more than you. You, on the other hand, obviously do not care at all for the civil rights of atheists. They have none.

fgoodwin writes: As best as I can tell, the SafeRide program didn't discriminate in the service it provided; but it did have membership requirements for its drivers, and apparently that was too much for one atheist family to live with. Yes Fred, it's too bad that damn atheist didn't just roll over and ignore his or her own public school violating their first amendment rights in order to avoid inconveniencing an organization that denegrates atheists. Why, I'm sure if a safe ride program that excluded Catholics was started, no Catholic would ever think of telling a public school to stop discriminating against Catholics. This strikes me as just another example of an atheist with a chip on his shoulder, actively seeking cases where they can complain about discrimination, and creating problems for others whenever he can. Yes, it's the ATHEIST'S fault for having civil rights! You got that right! How impossibly arrogant of this cowardly, anonymous atheist to complain about a public school excluding atheists! Why, it's almost as bad as when your own cub scout pack had to recharter because it was chartered by a public school, and you even admitted in this forum that you wouldn't allow atheists into your pack, even though it was the school's youth group. So, instead of finding something else to volunteer for (a more constructive approach), this family threatens a lawsuit and basically kills a service of benefit to the greater school community. Yes, instead of ignoring civil rights violations, they should have just taken it, right? Just like blacks should have stayed in their place. Yes, they proved their point, and the rest of the school is worse off for it. Typical "if I can't join, then no one can" attitude. No Fred, the school superintendent specifically requested that the BSA allow the student to join while being an atheist, and THE BSA SAID NO. *THAT'S* what killed the arrangement. The BSA's insistence on excluding atheists while dishonestly continuing to issue charters to public schools will keep on creating situations like this. And I'll keep making sure that public schools don't discriminate against atheists. It's the BSA's fault. They're a private organization that doesn't act like one.

TheScout writes: Notice I never stated I KNEW the policy, like you always claim you know what is right. But earlier you stated: Merlyn, local councils were not told to do so! Here, you're making a definite statement, even though nobody has produced the text of the actual letter that National sent out to the councils. And I don't always claim to know what is right, but I sure know more about the first amendment than you do.

TheScout writes: Well I guess some schools still charter units. Yep, but you'll notice the school superintendent realizes they can't. I am not sure, but it seems like the words you get from the website are policy guidelines, not rules. But a letter from the BSA to the ACLU merely *describing* what the BSA would tell councils is a solid rule? And you say that *I* only pay attention to opinions that agree with mine? Here's what the St. Louis Council says about it: www.stlbsa.org/NR/rdonlyres/E267A75E-62F0-41A6-A1B0-6BD703A6DEE8/0/DuffleBag_MayJuneJulyAugust2005.pdf ... "The National Council of the BSA in March directed local councils to begin transferring sponsorship of Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops and Venture crews from public schools and government entities to private organizations." ... National directed councils to do this. Here's how a United Methodist letter described it: www.praypub.org/pdf_docs/BSA_UMC_Letter.pdf ... "The Registration Service of the Boy Scouts of America has instructed local councils to immediately terminate all charter agreements with public schools and government agencies that charter traditional scouting units and to transfer these units to nongovernmental entities." ...

I haven't told them what they need to do, but what they need to realize; that not everyone considers homosexuality to be incompatible with "morally straight".

And do public schools serve as chartering organizations? No, they "do not". Now, even granting your rather narrow view that "advise" in a letter to the ACLU describing what National told local councils means that rechartering is somehow optional, you can't get around the fact that, on the official BSA website today, it says public schools do not serve as chartering organizations.

When they issue charters to Unitarian Universalist churches that marry gays, the BSA needs to realize that not everyone agrees that being gay isn't "morally straight".

"Public schools and government organizations do not serve as chartered organizations" Not "should not"; not "ought not"; "do not". http://www.scouting.org/relationships/34196/01.html

WE know, but not everyone knows, and the BSA still does not spell this out on their applications. James Dale didn't realize that gays weren't admitted until he was thrown out.

Why is the BSA blameless? The local council didn't stop this charter when the national BSA told all their councils to do so.