Merlyn_LeRoy

Coming in third is probably copyright infringement.

Ed, I'm not the only one concerned about public schools violating the rights of atheists, but I am one of the few people who actually did something about it. And I know you cannot learn things, because I've told you many of these same things before: 1) The military doesn't hire Chaplins unless they want baggy-pants silent comedians 2) Military chaplains have to serve ALL soldiers, not just the ones whose religious views they approve of 3) There is never a requirement to swear on a bible in US law 4) Public schools can't sponsor clubs that have religious requirements for membership, and I've never seen you even attempt to name an example (apart from BSA units, of course) 5) attendance at congressional or other legislative prayers are never mandatory, although in the few cases I know about where a legislator walked out, it was always a Christian protesting some prayer given by a non-Christian

Hunt, I've seen you and other people mischaracterize the ACLU as acting that they are getting revenge because they "lost" the Dale case, but I've never seen you nor anyone else suggest why the ACLU should ignore the issues that are raised by the BSA being a private, discriminatory, religious organization considering all the government entanglement with this supposedly private club. You were not at all concerned that the BSA's largest unit sponsor (public schools) could no way legally charter ANY units of a private, discriminatory religious club, yet you were quick enough to criticize efforts to simply have public schools obey the law. All of this is fallout from the Dale decision.

Beavah writes: Yah, Lisa'bob, your council should consider joining with other groups in the area and droppin' a dime on this. Either with their own challenge or with a complaint to the federal civil rights office. The civil rights office will say that public schools aren't required to create a limited public forum.

That could happen; the Salt Lake City school district banned all student clubs for about four years trying to keep a gay-straight alliance out.

Yes Hunt, YOUR money will be wasted on court costs; I note you aren't concerned about MY money being spent on an organization that excludes atheists, being paid for by all taxpayers, including atheists. I doubt all the litigation would exceed what the DoD spends on one jamboree.

Hunt, the BSA didn't spend any money on this case (unless it wanted to); it was against the Dept. of Defense. And Lambert would only be allowed to watch, he wouldn't gain the full benefits of attending as a scout.

Which other cases, Ed? This was dismissed on standing, that doesn't affect any other case. Hunt, this was a 3-judge review, I'm pretty sure any appeal would go to the full 7th circuit, not the supreme court. As it was dismissed as not meeting taxpayer standing, it might be possible to pursue a new lawsuit by someone directly affected, such as Darryl Lambert applying to attend and being turned down.

Neither article IV or the 10th amendment talk about states having rights. The 10th amendment refers to "powers" -- the federal and state governments have POWERS, not rights. When the constitution refers to "rights", they are always rights held by the people, not states. Compare the 9th and 10th amendments; the 9th refers to rights, the 10th to powers. That's why individual rights cannot conflict with states' rights. States don't have rights. There may be some conflict between a person's rights and a state's powers, but it won't be "my rights vs. my state's rights". They are apples and oranges.

Like the supreme court said, it violated the equal protection clause and was "invidious discrimination", and one of the concurring opinions said that no law that made an act legal or illegal simply on the basis of the race of the actor could be constitutional. And you seem to have missed the part that pointed out the law wasn't even racially equal, since it only prohibited interracial marriage if one of the two people involved were white -- it didn't outlaw marriage between two people of different (but both non-white) races. It was crafted to promote just white supremacy, not racial "purity". And as for this remark of yours: Who are you to decide that the rights of Individals trump the rights of States or vice versa? Under US law, states don't have rights, only individuals have rights. Individuals have e.g. freedom of religious expression, but states sure don't, and sure shouldn't.

TheScout writes: Merlyn, the Supreme Court did not say that people were not being treated equally Yes, they did. They said it violated the equal protection clause. They termed it "invidious discrimination": Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [388 U.S. 1, 8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. ... We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. ... There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." ... Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense." ... There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. 11 We have consistently denied [388 U.S. 1, 12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

TheScout writes: Thats not what the SCOTUS said in Loving. It struck down the Virginia statute based on the what it considere not a valid legislative purpose in making a racial classification and an interference on and individual rights to marry. How is that different from what I wrote?

TheScout, the supreme court rejected Virginia's argument that the law treated people equally on the basis of race; if white man A can marry white woman B, but black man C can't marry the same white woman B, the law isn't treating A and C equally, and C is treated differently only due to his race.

That's a press release -- where is it in "the rules"? You know, the membership form that you sign, and presumably read to make sure you meet the membership requirements? This press release is from 2002 -- where was it in "the rules" from 1978 (when it was a nonpublic internal memo) up to 2002?

Where exactly in "the rules" is that part about N O G A Y S ?

TheScout, laws aren't the same as contracts, because people enter into contracts, while laws are applied to everyone, even people who fought and voted against those laws. However, to use your contract analogy, the constitution would be a master contract under which all subcontracts must follow, and any contract that contradicts it is invalid. As one of the justices pointed out in Loving v. Virginia, laws against interracial marriage made an act legal or illegal solely based on the race of the actor, and in his opinion no valid law could do so.

TheScout writes: I suppose I am just a believer in judical restraint. That controversial issues should be decided be elected legislatures, not judges. So, when the courts declared that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional, they shouldn't have done that, and just deferred to whatever each state wanted? Same question for segregated public schools? If the courts aren't supposed to strike down laws, what tasks are left for the supreme court to do? All they do is review laws for constitutionality, they don't conduct e.g. criminal trials (well, the chief justice presides over impeachments).

Suing in court is certainly part of the democratic process; all that does is trigger judicial review to decide if the law was properly followed.

Anyone else want to take over explaining what religious freedom is? This is seriously cutting into my teaching-pigs-to-sing time.

Ed, it is my understanding that you have no understanding of civil rights. Minors definitely have first amendment rights. Using your increasingly bizarre concept that public schools have first amendment rights and that the students do not, there's nothing stopping public schools from, say, having mandatory prayers to satan, right? Perfectly legal in your cube-shaped world?

Ed, students in the school ARE individuals with first amendment rights, and if the public school discriminates among them on the basis of their religious views, that's a violation of the students' first amendment rights. And no, the voters can't vote to violate the rights of the students. And to answer your question to Dan, the courts at this time have made the (rather nonsensical, in my opinion) decision that menorahs and christmas trees are not religious symbols, but crosses and creches are.

SSScout, I still disagree on calling religious belief a "choice". I don't "choose" to believe the earth is round, I'm convinced of it; I couldn't choose to believe it's flat without evidence -- convincing evidence. And atheism is not a religion, just as theism is not a religion. Yes, Ethical societies are religions, but I'm not a member. Atheists who are members are atheists who also have a religion. But atheism per se is not a religion, it is merely the absence of the creed "god(s) exist".

Ed, public schools aren't citizens; public schools HAVE no first amendment rights. School administrators have first amendment rights, but only as individuals; they cannot misuse their authority to have public schools follow their religious precepts. If public schools DID have first amendment rights, that includes freedom of association, right Ed? And that would mean that public schools could decide not to associate with Catholics and expel them, right Ed?

Here's an article on the Newsweek poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ Although one in ten (10 percent) of Americans identify themselves as having "no religion," only six percent said they dont believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. So the Newsweek poll shows 6% who don't believe in a god; about half shy away from the term "atheist", but that doesn't make them theists. Of course, if people would stop demonizing and ostracizing atheists, maybe that would change. Start when they're young, maybe a youth group that encouraged respecting other people's beliefs. Nothing like that here, of course.

Gonzo1, you seem to have no idea how public schools can and can't discriminate. You can't just make up things. LongHaul, states can no longer have official state religions. As Lisabob pointed out, check into the 14th amendment and incorporation. Lisabob, Newdow is currently representing a number of atheist families in a new lawsuit over the pledge of allegiance. There's also talk about the equal rights amendment again, for that matter.