Merlyn_LeRoy

In a word, no. Title 36 organizations include other organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. However, BSA councils that issue charters to public schools are being dishonest, because the council expects those public schools to exclude atheists, and they know public schools can't do that.

TheScout, the BSA's charter from the federal government is not the same as a charter a scout council grants to a school; they both use the word "charter", but they mean different things. The BSA's national charter means it's a Title 36 organization.

Well, real lawyers advising the school sure seem to think this is a problem: lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070609/NEWS02/706090353/1018/NEWS02 ... 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. As a result, the district yesterday announced it is searching for a parent organization or community group to take over the program. The district pays for the program's faculty advisers and the Boy Scouts of America pays for the insurance and publicity. School officials do not anticipate any changes in the implementation of the program if another group steps up to run it. "If you have a family -even if it's one family - that feels uncomfortable signing this pledge, and it bars their child from participating, and they have a legal right not to sign it, then their legal right has to be respected just like that of the majority," Lichtenfeld said. "Whether we like it or not, minorities do have legal rights in the country under the Constitution." ... Like he says, atheists have rights whether you like it or not.

No, I don't. The BSA does not explicitly state on their membership for that gays can't join, right? Now, you can interpret that to mean the BSA implicitly says so, but I still haven't said that. In fact, all I've said is that the BSA does not explicitly state that gays can't join. They also don't explicitly state that Jews can't join -- yet Jews CAN join.

TheScout, the BSA does not explicitly say gays can't join on their membership forms. Mr. Diaz is wrong to say that the BSA forms "overtly" state it; it's implicit, which means the BSA could decide at some point in the future that Jews or Hindus or Democrats don't meet their admission requirements.

You'll have to explain how my view is "warped"; public schools can't own, operate, and pay for a school program that excludes atheists, agreed? The BSA agreed to stop chartering public schools and other government agencies over two years ago. The ACLU threatened to sue if they continued: www.aclu-il.org/news/press/2005/03/national_boy_scout_organizatio.shtml

The agreement was illegal, and even against official BSA requirements. I've said before that I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization, and this story is a good example of why. It's clearly a school program paid for with public funds, and atheists cannot be excluded. Yet the local council continued to renew the charter every year. It's fine until you get caught, I guess.

Of course, the BSA still doesn't explicitly say anywhere in its membership forms that gays can't join; they only mention it in press releases and legal documents. From what I've read, the BSA built the building but gave it to the city as part of the original deal to build on public property. Permanent improvements to a rented property generally belong to the owner when a lease ends unless an agreement says otherwise, if I remember correctly.

"Sticking up for their principles" by dishonestly chartering a discriminatory program to a public school? You realize both the school and the BSA could be sued over this, right? By the way, the council wasn't even following the BSA's own rules: http://www.scouting.org/relationships/34196/01.html ... Public schools and government organizations do not serve as chartered organizations ...

Please note that the BSA refused to allow an atheist to join this program run & paid for by a public school, even when the school superintendent specifically requested that the student be admitted. http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/lewisboro/19159.shtml After 23 years, the future of John Jay High School's SafeRides program is in doubt. Because a parent complained several months ago that SafeRides members were required to sign a "declaration of religious principles," Superintendent of Schools Dr. Robert Lichtenfeld has been examining a new way to run the program without the school's financial backing. Since 1984, it has been a joint project with the Boy Scouts of America. ... The SafeRides program is owned by the Venturers, a coeducational branch of the Boy Scouts of America, and chartered by the school district. The Scouts provide secondary insurance for the program, insuring the vehicles and the drivers in case of accidents. The district provides the space for the group to meet and a dedicated telephone line, and pays the stipends for the two teachers who act as faculty advisers, who received $1,226.50 each this year. Because the Scouts could provide insurance only for members, all SafeRides volunteers were required to join the Venturers. Included in the application was the Boy Scouts of America's Declaration of Religious Principle, which the organization requires all members to sign. The declaration, without endorsing any specific religion, states, in part, "The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God." For the complete text of the declaration, see sidebar. "Even though the activity is extracurricular, it is supported by public funds," said Dr. Lichtenfeld. "It's a nondenominational statement, but nevertheless they objected." Dr. Lichtenfeld told The Ledger that he had tried to obtain a waiver from the Scouts for the one student who objected, but that the Scouts had refused, and so the district is now looking into finding a sponsor organization to replace the district as the program's chartering organization. "At worst, what's ending might be the district sponsorship, not the program," said Dr. Lichtenfeld. He said that the district would probably be looking for the new sponsor over the summer. Should a new sponsor be found, it would pay for costs such as the teacher stipends that had previously been borne by the district. But the group would remain a club and would still be allowed to meet at the school and use school facilities, said Dr. Lichtenfeld. According to the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the school is legally required to allow groups affiliated with the Scouts to meet in school facilities. ...

TheScout writes: In this context we were not talking about constitutional rights. I was, but you weren't. That was part of the problem.

Now you seem to be conflating two different uses of the word "right", since we were talking about rights under US law, and there isn't a right under US law to overthrow the US government. People can and should overthrow repressive governments, which is nearly always an illegal act, so I usually try to avoid calling it a "right", because that's used as a legal term, and I think it gets very arbitrary and confusing to use the term interchangably. The US government is expected to respect e.g. first amendment rights, but I don't expect it to respect a supposed right to overthrow the government.

I'm talking about a "right" as a social/legal construct; currently, under US law, neither one of us has a right to overthrow the US government and install a new one. You're talking about "rights" in a sense of you get to do whatever you think is right, including, ironically, removing the rights of other people. As for your harping on wanting to know my entire constitutional philosphy, I'll quote Wesley from The Princess Bride: "Learn to live with disappointment"

TheScout writes: Maybe I interpreted the substance of your point wrong. Probably. Governments generally do not consider their own citizens to have a right to overthrow it and create a new one, whether the government is tyrannical or benevolent. The US government during the civil war did not regard the confederate government as legitimate, and it considered the states to be in rebellion. You and/or I might consider the formation of a new government in defiance of an existing government to be the right thing to do, but I doubt that the existing government says that its citizens have an actual right to overthrow it. How then do you determine what side you agree with? I think about it. And I still wonder, if you were the a SCOTUS justice on a case, how would you go about interpreting constitutional clauses Well, I don't wonder about such things.

TheScout writes: It is interesting that you do believe in the fundamental right of self-government If you'll read what I wrote, you'll notice I didn't say that. I do wonder though Merlyn, how can you disagree with the decisions of the Supreme Court I disagree a fair amount of time. So if you base your interpretation on that of the Court, how can you "disagree" with its decisions Since most verdicts are not unanimous, there are usually conflicting opinions on every case. Some wag pointed out that, in the two 10 commandments cases that were decided a couple of years back (both by 5-4), only one justice out of the nine agreed with both opinions.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed, it isn't just atheists who consider e.g. 10 commandments on courthouses to be violations of the first amendment. Lots of people of various religions agree. Now, if you're in favor of real equal treatment, establish a public forum where everyone can put up displays. TheScout writes: So is it a "right" people have to "get together and create governemnts?" Almost never; typically, there is a previous government that has to be fought off first. In the case of the start of the US, a revolution had to be won first. In the case of the civil war, the confederate states were unsuccessful in maintaining their new government. In a similar vein, if someone attempted to form a new government in an existing US jurisdiction (without e.g. congressional consent), it wouldn't be recognized by the US. The supreme court is the final arbiter of what the constitution means. In that sense, yes, the supreme court IS never "wrong," though I and many other people can disagree with their opinions (where they typically aren't termed "wrong," but "bad," or "contradictory," or "confusing," etc), and even the court reverses itself every now & then.

TheScout writes: The powers of government. Authority can not spring from no where. I don't agree. People really do just get together and create governments. There's no magical power or authority. what is "necesary and proper?" Misspelled, for one thing. And it's pretty much up to the supreme court to decide. This really doesn't have anything to do with scouting, and I don't see any point in continuing this digression further.

TheScout writes: True, the people consent to delegate some of their powers to the government. But where do the people get the powers from that they are delegating? What "powers"? A bunch of people got together and created a system of government. What kind of "power" needs to be present to do that? X-ray vision? "You seem to want a label. I don't have one. Deal with it." I do not need a label. I would just like a small insight into your thought process in how you interpret a phrase of the constitution. There must be some way! Generally, I read it and read court opinions based on it.

TheScout writes: Ok then, where do governed get their ability to give consent from? It seems to me all people capable of thinking can give or withhold consent. I would still like to know how you interpret clauses of the constitution then? You seem to want a label. I don't have one. Deal with it.

TheScout writes: Ok Merlyn, then were do the powers of government come from? "The consent of the governed" works for me. Seems a literalist would say the only thing Congress can not do in regards to the 1st Amendment would be to establish a state religion. I don't think a literalist would say that, partly because the first amendment says "establishment of religion", not "establishment of a religion".

Well Fred, you'll have to point out who has both: 1) advocated that COs should have the power to decide if gays/atheists/girls can join their pack/troop, and 2) said that this CO does not or should not have the power to make the decisions as stated in the article (criticism of their decision is not such a statement). I can't seem to find anyone who fits.

TheScout writes: The people don't have a right to make rules for their society, interesting. Because powers aren't rights. You can't seem to understand the distinction. "Can you give me an example of what you consider a right that cannot be taken away?" Yes. You have missed a fundamental distinction of my argument. There is a great differcnce in what: 1. What a state is constitutionally authorized to do under our system, and 2. What rights are inalienable and endowed to us by God Example. For abortion. I think a state has a right to allow abortion in all cases. I also believe however that this violation of an individals inalienable right to life. Well, I asked you for a right that "cannot be taken away" -- above, you seem to be saying that the state DOES have the right to take away an individual's right to life. So that wouldn't be an example of a right that cannot be taken away. Care to take another swing at naming a right that can't be taken away? And I don't really care if you can't understand how I view the constitution. I certainly can't understand your bizarre view that people have the "right" to legislate away other people's rights. Ed writes: If the posting of the Ten Commandments is for historical purposes & other religions allowed to post something similar, then there is no violation. But that wasn't the hypothetical situation Ed. At least you're catching on equal treatment instead of majortarianism.

TheScout writes: "Legislation isn't a right" So you are saying the people do not have a right to make rules for their society. No, I'm saying "Legislation isn't a right". It's a power, and it's limited. I think we both agree rights can not be taken away. We do? You don't seem to. As far as I can tell, every right can be eliminated by passing a law in your view. So they can be taken away. Can you give me an example of what you consider a right that cannot be taken away? Using your previous reasoning, if X is such a right, suddenly everyone else has lost the "right" to outlaw X through legislation. So who then takes away the right of a society to create rules to govern itself? The rules that the US uses to govern itself do not allow for any and every law to be passed; unconstitutional laws are thrown out, for example. Hypothetical question then. If any state, say Montana for instance holds a referendum on whether to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted to schools, and 100% of the people vote yes, should that not be allowed. No. It's a violation of the first amendment. That seems an awful horrible intrusion of the central government if that is struck down. Such a law is a horrible intrusion by the state government. I still wonder? What is school of constitutional interpretation do you subscribe to? It seems to subscribe to several. I don't subscribe to one.

TheScout writes: Rights can conflict. We all know that. I find it interesting that while I place a higher standing on the right of the people to legislate, you place a higher standing in the whims of one individual. I do not think it is a question of either of us not believing in either of the "rights" or whatever you wish to call them. I think it does; in your above example, there aren't any conflicting rights, because legislation isn't a right, it's a power. It seems like you are the only one trying to impose a view upon other people. From my point of view, it seems like you're the only one trying to remove the rights of other people (in that you would allow legislation to remove or abridge their rights). I am simply arguing for the courtesy of a local government option. That isn't a "courtesy", that's a power. I don't consider allowing local governments to infringe on civil rights to be courteous, I consider it an abuse of power.

Personally I think a local government should be able to decide either way if it wishes. You don't. I support local self determination. I support religious freedom, which includes keeping the government out of business of promoting or supporting it. Other question. In your logic, is there a right to freedom of religion? Yes. As I said in what you quoted, sometimes the constitution says what rights citizens have, and other times it says what powers the government has. Kind of like two sides of the same coin. Ed, I agree with what Churchill said about governments. If you want someone who has made favorable remarks about dictatorship, try President Bush: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."