Merlyn_LeRoy

I think this whole thread is a good illustration why public schools can't charter scout units any more. Plus, if you look at the real world, a lot of units deliberately ignore the BSA's discrimination. There are a few Venture Crews on the east coast that were formed for medival fantasy role-playing, run by college-age kids, and you'd better believe they ignore the no gays or atheists rules.

And not only that, government entities like public schools are prohibited from treating people differently based on their religious views, but some people still would like their discriminatory "private" club to exclude people based on just that, and still be run by public schools. But they don't understand the constitution.

fgoodwin writes: ronvo, you say people today are rude, mean, thoughtless, ill-mannered, disrespectful, greedy and self-centered. Suppose there was a group that trained boys to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. Do you think such a group would be welcomed in public schools? Ronvo, suppose that the above group excluded some kids based on their religious views - they rejected Jews, say, or Catholics, or atheists, or Hindus, for following the wrongs gods, or not following enough gods, or for following too many gods. Do you think such a group would still be welcomed in public schools?

There's more information here: http://laptop.media.mit.edu If it's eventually sold in the US, it would probably cost more than $100, as they're projecting manufacturing costs of $110 per unit, and sell individual units to subsidize the project. But the minimum order at the start is 1 million units. Kid-sized (about 2/3 the size of a normal laptop), ~500MHz AMD CPU, 1GB flash storage built-in, ~1 megapixel display, unknown amount of RAM, 4 USB ports, wi-fi mesh networking, open source linux, will run about an hour minutes on 10 minutes of cranking (there's also an AC adapter). No manufacturers signed up yet, but a few are interested.

GernBlansten writes: If the Jewish Student Union or Good News Bible Club invited anyone to join regardless of their religious affiliation or sexual preference, then yes, a school could sponsor such an organization. No, they couldn't. If the school allows outside groups to meet in the school, outside groups can create the above groups - but that isn't sponsorship, and the school would then have no say in their membership rules. Same as how they are (finally) having to treat the BSA. As far as PTAs/PTOs, there was a recent story here: http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=87483 ... Cub Scout Pack 530 was sponsored by Castlio Elementary School in St. Charles County for 20 years until the school pulled out after the ACLU'S nationwide threat to sue. Some parents are upset because the parent-teacher organization at Castlio decided not to sponsor the pack, after being requested to do so. When a new PTO Board was seated this year, members talked with an attorney and decided the organization was at risk legally by sponsoring the Scouts. "The ACLU has left the door open for litigation in this matter," says Castlio PTO President Mary Johnson. ... PTAs/PTOs are likely to be considered public accommodations, which prevents them from practicing religious discrimination.

scoutingagain asks: Why can a school officially sponsor a Jewish Student Union or a Good News Bible Club, but not a Scout Unit? What schools officially sponsor a Jewish Student Union or a Good News Bible Club, comparable to chartering a Scout unit? That is, is the school required to select leadership for the Jewish Student Union or Good News Bible Club, and apply a religious test to potential leaders? That's what they have to do for a Scout unit, and they can't legally do that. I suspect all examples of "offical sponsorship" of a Jewish Student Union or a Good News Bible Club aren't that at all, but instead are non-school groups meeting in schools on the same basis as any other outside group, and the school can't decide which religious groups it allows in - they have to accept all.

Rooster7 lies: While Merlyn likes to speak of atheism as if its a religion, most know better. Rooster7, stop lying about my views, OK? I thought your religion prohibited that sort of thing, but apparently you pick & choose what parts you follow and what parts you ignore. I have stated in this very forum before: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=53830&p=3 Torveaux writes: So Merlyn, If atheism is a religion (as you seem to be saying) then by removing other religions from government is exactly what you claim to be fighting against! What you are advocating is tantamount to government endorsement of the religion of atheism. Nope. First of all, I DON'T say atheism is a religion; in fact, I say that atheism is NOT a religion, just as theism is not a religion. Most religions have some kind of theism as a tenet of that religion, and there are a few religions, like the Raelians, that have atheism as a tenet of that religion, but atheism (and theism) per se are not religions. It's true that under some circumstances atheism needs to be treated as if it's a religion in a legal sense (just as corporations are sometimes, legally, considered persons even though they are not). This does not make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. Sadly, the movement in the last 30 years or so has been for the government to erase all acknowledgements of faith and God from public view. Not at all; only government-endorsement of religion. For example, churches are in the public view, and can erect all the 10 commandments monuments, creches, etc. that they like on the church's property. When a church gives a 10 commandments monument to the city so the city will put it up on city property, that's government endorsement. If the city creates a public forum that allows a church to put up the 10 commandments, other groups must be given the same access, so atheists could put up signs that say "gods are myths". That's what equality looks like.

Ed writes: Then the pledge violates no one's rights! Sure it does, Ed. This is why it's important to understand what the actual legal issues are; the pledge isn't being challenged on the grounds it's "offensive", it's being challenged on the grounds that the government does not have the power to coerce children (who are a nave captive audience) into making a religious avowal, and on the grounds that doing so infringes on the parents' rights to decide what kind of religious teaching their own children receive.

There is no right "not to be offended". The 14th amendment applies some federal constitutional protections to state governments.

Here's an article written by a conservative atheist on why it should be removed: The Pledge Is Not For Our Children http://www.americandaily.com/article/9369 It's too long to quote, but here's the conclusion: If conservatives were genuine supporters of parental rights to control the rearing of ones children, they wouldn't be demanding that my child sit and listen to the government tell her that her father and mother are wrong about their most deeply-held beliefs.

Torveaux writes: The purpose was derived from the direct experience in Europe where governments tried to mandate adherence to a specific set of beliefs and practices. When did monotheism stop being a specific belief? Some religions (like, oh, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) consider monotheism an important part of their creed. The Nicene creed starts "We believe in one God...", so the council of Nicea certainly thought it needed to be mentioned. "Under god" doesn't just conflict with atheism, it conflicts with polytheism. It's promoting a specific religious belief. It doesn't matter if a number of religions subscribe to it; more than one religion says eating pork is prohibited by god, but that doesn't somehow make it a nonreligious belief.

stlscouter writes: My post refered to The Mayflower Compact, The Articles of Confederation in addition to the Declaration of Independence. If they are not familiar to you, as American History documents perhaps you should google them and we can continue.... Continue WHAT? You haven't made any sort of argument or point. That's what I told Ed.

No Ed, I can't "avoid the actual point" because, as I pointed out, stlscouter writes in a semicoherent and disconnected style; there IS no point that I can discern, so I can't reply to it.

stlscouter writes: and including MORE religion in our daily lives is bad how? So you agree that public school officials should lead students in the pledge with "one nation, under odin" on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays? Monday would still have the same-old "under god", so this change would be just an increase. More religion, right? So you'd be in favor of this? And did you really miss the first part of the post in your anxiousness to scroll down to see the answer to the quiz? What about it? It's your usual semicoherent, disconnected thoughts.

What do Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday have in common? They're all named for Norse gods. So, would that justify changing it to "one nation, under odin"? Or at least on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays?

And to see how a bad decision like Marsh affects people, the 4th circuit recently said a town council could legally open its meetings by only allowing ministers in the "Judeo-Christian tradition" by citing Marsh. Look for town councils to declare what religion their particular town is (by, say, establishing a policy that only Southern Baptists can pray to open their meetings) if this isn't overturned on appeal.

NJCubScouter writes: Now, a unit does have the right to pick its own leaders and to exclude anyone for any reason or no reason (with the probable exception of race or ethnicity) What? Any organization that can discriminate on the basis of religion (constitutionally protected) can discriminate on the basis of race/ethnicity (which is largely just statutory protection). Bob Jones University, for example, prohibited interracial dating until 5 years ago.

stlscouter writes: Hunt-maybe the compromise could be based on what the first amendment actually says, "congress shall make no law.." I wish someone would point to the law tht congress passed that mandates all school children must recite the pledge. There's no law (now) that MANDATES recitation of the pledge, since such laws were declared unconstititional years ago (but only three years before THAT, such laws had been found constitutional, and the Jehovah's Witnesses who still refused to pledge to the flag for religious reasons were harassed by mobs of freedom-hating bastards, including one castration). The 14th amendment's clause "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..." has, for decades, been interpreted by the courts to mean that many parts of the constitution apply to the states. For example, states can no longer have an official state religion, as they could (and some did) back when the constitution first was adopted. The first amendment generally applies to the states (and if it didn't, the BSA couldn't have won the Dale case on first amendment grounds, since the state of New Jersey would be not be constrained by the first amendment, which only restricted Congress until the 14th amendment). The first amendment restrictions also apply to the legislature of the state of California; public schools are the result of California government action, which must not violate the first amendment.

Torveaux writes: I guess if our school was as small as yours I would look into making Scouting part of the curriculum (of sorts). At our school the Brownies get almost 100% participation because they hold their meetings almost exclusively during school hours (lunch/recess once a month). Only make scouting part of a public school curriculum if you like being on the losing end of a lawsuit; it really isn't that hard to understand that 1) all BSA packs have to practice religious discrimination by excluding atheists, and 2) that means it can't be part of the public school's curriculum.

So you don't think the case should be appealed, so as to not waste money? Oh wait, you probably don't see anything wrong with public schools promoting the religious view that god exists to schoolkids every day - so you'd also have no objection if the pledge were revised (yet again) to read "one nation, under no gods, indivisible..."? By the way, what does this have to do with scout issues? addendum: Here is the PDF of the opinion: http://207.41.18.73/caed/DOCUMENTS/Opinions/Karlton/05-17.pdf(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Hunt writes: your example suggests that you would criticize any religious organization for limiting its membership to religious people, because that would somehow "denigrate" people of different beliefs. No, it's the combination of both: 1) You have to be X to join our group; if you are not-X, you can't join. 2) Only people who are X can be the best kinds of citizens.

Hunt writes: If this is "denigration," then it is simply impossible to say that it is better to believe in God without denigrating those who don't. Just as it's kind of hard to say it's better to be Christian than Jewish without denegrating Jews. Or better to be white than black without denegrating blacks.

That's not the issue at all, Bob. The Boy Scouts, as an organization, denegrate atheists. Public schools have no business sponsoring such a group, yet the BSA is dishonest enough to charter units to public schools for decades, while expecting those same schools to violate the civil rights of its students by practicing unlawful religious discrimination. The attitudes against atheists of BSA members like yourself illustrate why the law prohibits public schools from promoting such an organization. Plus, of course, you've never explained your statement that "I am all for the local school boards being able to decide what values they choose to have shared" earlier in this thread. You insist that you are for "EQUAL rights, not special rights", yet you would apparently find it OK for public schools to own & operate youth groups that exclude atheists for their religious views. Well, this thread is a good illustration of "EQUAL rights, not special rights". The Boy Scouts will no longer get the special right of having public schools run their supposedly private, discriminatory religious groups. I actually did quite a lot of work to help make that happen, because the dishonest Boy Scouts sure weren't going to do that on their own. Yet hypocrites like yourself will wail about the Boy Scouts being treated badly - simply because they are now being treated the same as any other organization that practices religious discrimination.

I'd say some of the responses to me in this forum illustrate how it's completely inappropriate for government entities to charter BSA units.

Hunt writes: what is wrong with BSA, a religious organization, restricting its membership to religious people if it no longer is entangled with government? In the BSA's specific case, it doesn't merely restrict membership to believers in (at least one) god, it also actively denegrates atheists as part of its official policy.