Merlyn_LeRoy

Bob White writes: Every time time you [madkins007], or jkhny, or prairie scouter, or Ed, toss out any more wild eyed claims about what the BSA should or should not be doing or supposedly is doing that they shouldn't do I will happily say Bull and insist you show evidence. Hey Bob, are you ready to admit that public schools won't be chartering BSA units any more? Recently when someone mentioned that, you said it was "absolutely untrue". I showed you the letters sent by the ACLU, and the response from the BSA where the national director of registration stated that the BSA would re-charter all units chartered to government entities and would not accept such charters in the future: http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000259.shtml Also, there are some BSA council web pages that talk about it: http://www.stlbsa.org/Common/Home/Partnerships+for+the+Future.htm http://www.grandcanyonbsa.org/pdf/11814-BSAandPublicSchoolsStatement.pdf So Bob, are you willing to admit that the BSA will no longer (or at least has said it will no longer) grant charters to public schools?

stlscouter writes: Well since for you a Creator is imaginary there is no need for you to even to adress the question of creationism Sure there is; creationism is bad science. I don't consider science to be imaginary, and creationism isn't science. My original question was to see if the BSA might end up endorsing a false science like creationism in order to appease some of its supporters.

Well, gods are imaginary supernatural beings, and the only common element to religions that I can see is they all address death in some way. Now what does your question have to do with creationism?

stlscouter, I fail to see what your point is; creationism isn't science, and that can be shown without addressing what gods or religions are. Creationism isn't science because it doesn't follow the rules of science - it doesn't propose falsifiable theories, for one thing.

uz2bnowl writes: The Girl Scouts took the "God issue" out of the argument by doing away with that requirement. So the ACLU won. The ACLU had nothing to do with that; the GSUSA voted to change their requirements back in 1993. Should the BSA cave to the ACLU and rid itself of the "reverent" part of Scouting? The ACLU isn't trying to do that, either. The BSA established in court that it is a private, discriminatory religious organization. The ACLU is concerned with unlawful government support of such an organization, such as public schools "owning and operating" the BSA's private religious clubs, and millions of tax dollars spent supporting the jamboree.

No Bob, the BSA has STATED that they will not issue charters to government entities anymore (which includes public schools). Now, either the BSA is lying (always a possibility), or public schools will not be allowed to charter scout units. Which means your statement of "absolutely untrue" is false (or you think the BSA was lying). Plus, as I've explained in this forum for years, all chartering organizations are required to practice religious discrimination, and public schools can't do that. Your characterization of the situation is completely dishonest - the ACLU isn't concerned about "traditional values", they are concerned about religious discrimination. Excluding atheists is religious discrimination, and any public school that does so deserves to get sued.

Ed writes: Well, Merlyn, I doubt if they will be sued for religious discrimination or anything else for that fact. Well Ed, we'll see if the national BSA lied to the ACLU and renews any charters to public schools, and, if they are renewed, what lawsuits follow. I don't consider your batting average in predicting legal outcomes concerning the BSA to be very high. I also note that Bob White has said nothing to support his "absolutely untrue" remark to Prairie_Scouter; could it be he has never read the BSA's official response to the ACLU, where the director of registration states they will no longer charter scout units to government entities? Shouldn't Bob be aware of the new chartering restrictions, reportedly sent to all councils?

Ed writes: I know of many public schools that still charter Scout units. You are really gonna have to do some work to get this blatant & rampant practice stopped. Ed, those schools certainly will get sued for practicing religious discrimination. And while you are at it, go after all those other discriminatory organizations that do the same thing. Oh wait! I forgot! You don't care about them! Ed, there ARE no other private organizations that have public schools practice religious discrimination on their behalf.

Bob White writes: "Public schools can no longer sponsor Scout units. Absolutely untrue Bob, your answer is wrong no matter how you look at it. First, public schools can no longer sponsor scout units, because the sponsor of a scout unit is required to practice religious discrimination, and public schools can't legally do that. Second, the BSA itself has stated that it will no longer issue charters for scout units to public schools, and has told its councils not to do this -- so even if it was legal, the BSA says it won't grant such a charter any longer. So public schools can't sponsor scout units, both in the sense that they can't legally do it, and in the sense that they will not be accepted as a sponsor by the BSA (assuming Clark Farrer, Director of Registration wasn't lying to the ACLU in his March 11 letter): ... I have advised all local councils to transfer charters issued to government entities to private entities immediately. My office will work with councils to see that the transfers are made, and I will confirm during the next chartering cycle that councils have complied. Any charter which thereafter designates a government entity will be rejected. ... So how is Prairie_Scouter's statement "Absolutely untrue"?

My theory is George Bush was still reading that book about a pet goat.

stlscouter writes: again with respect- the government is US. Yes, and I don't think my government should unlawfully infringe on the civil rights of its citizens, and they (we) SHOULD pay the legal fees of people whose rights have been infringed, so those people suffer no out-of-pocket expenses on top of having had their rights violated. The ACLU tries not to file fivolous /malicious/ wrongful- actions yet not one payment to anyone-curious. What do you mean, "curious"? If the ACLU litigates fairly and honestly, I would EXPECT that they do not have to pay fines or other people's legal fees. The ACLU always wins. My original big league comparison was totally wrong. The ACLU doesn't always win, but I think I've read somewhere that their batting average is around 80%.

stlscouter writes: with respect- The fact that the government ( we are the government) has to pay is and has been improved for the ACLU because many of the suits are venue shopped and/or class enhanced. The government only has to pay when they violate people's civil rights, and the ACLU sues on their behalf. If you REALLY want to cut off the ACLU, make sure your government doesn't violate the civil rights of its citizens, and the ACLU will stop winning civil rights lawsuits. My question is still/was has the ACLU ever been sued for wrongful/malicious/frivilous action and been sactioned or had to pay $ as a result. My guess is no. I don't know, but the ACLU tries not to file wrongful, malicious, or frivilous lawsuits. But as with some recent actions the mere THREAT of civil action by the ACLU has caused schools etc to stop supporting scouting rather than incur a lawsuit because "litigation is expensive". Nope, that's the BSA's dishonest PR reason for dropping public school charters. The real reason is very simple: 1) any organization that charters a scout unit has to practice religious discrimination by excluding atheists. 2) public schools and other government organizations can't do that. The ACLU press release has both their letter to the BSA and the BSA's reply: http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000259.shtml So again the odds are in the ACLU's favor. What "odds"? Public schools cannot charter youth groups that have any sort of religious requirement for membership.

Student writes: Merlyn_LeRoy, is the ACLU declining to accept court-authorized payments? Of course not; litigation is expensive. I was under the impression they accepted payment awards and contributions and they paid their lawyers. Sure, but their clients don't pay anything regardless of whether the ACLU wins or loses the case. "Free" is what you do as a volunteer Scouter. "Free" is also how the ACLU litigates with respect to its clients. It may cost the government if the courts find that the government violated someone's civil rights, but the government isn't supposed to be doing that, anyway.

Student writes: Side comment: how many hours is the ACLU spending in service projects this year? Quite a large number of hours, unless you don't consider defending people's civil liberties for free to be a "service project".

Bob White writes: As far as the original topic as usually some posters try to make this far more difficult than it is. The BSA refers to "God" as the "creator" of the world around us. That's creationism. If you give a supernatural power the credit over random or evolved events of science then that is creationaism at its core. The BSA allows for both. So the original query offered by Merlyn in the first post is flawed to begin with. No Bob, you just have your own definition of "creationism", as you seem to have with many other words. Since I asked the question, you have to read it using "creationism" in the sense I was using it, or it simply isn't the same question I asked. I use it in the sense that Philip Johnson and the Institute for Creation Research use the term.

stlscouter, NJCubScouter gave you a perfectly fine answer right off the bat; you (and the BSA) have every right to peaceably assemble. What you do NOT have a right to: 1) government financing of this assembly, such as the jamboree 2) conducting this assembly on military property without permission You can conduct a protest march in Washington, DC if you like. The city's ordinance for recovering city costs for parades and festivals specifically exempts protests and rallies, so it won't cost anything. But that's true for everyone. You know, all people being equal and all that -- instead of taking money from everyone and having just a private group benefit from it.

Ed writes: Posting the Ten Commandments in public school was not a law. Yes it was, Ed. Kentucky passed a law requiring that the ten commandments be put up in every classroom in the state. One was created to have them removed. No Ed, the law was struck down by the courts, so they were removed. How do you manage to get things exactly backwards?

stlscouter writes: doesn't the fact that religious instutions (notwithastanding the "wall of separation")are given tax exemptions show a specific set of laws that are borne of religion? Lots of institutions are given all kinds of tax exemptions. In fact, when a Texas law only exempted religious publications from sales tax, it was struck down. Here's part of Texas Monthly inc v. Bullock: The exemption lacks sufficient breadth to pass scrutiny under the Establishment Clause. The fact that a subsidy incidentally benefits religious groups does not deprive it of the secular purpose and effect mandated by the Clause, so long as it is conferred on a wide array of nonsectarian groups as well as religious organizations in pursuit of some legitimate secular end. However, when, as here, government directs a subsidy exclusively to religious organizations that is not required by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and that either burdens nonbeneficiaries markedly or cannot reasonably be seen as removing a significant state-imposed deterrent to the free exercise of religion, it cannot be viewed as anything but impermissible state sponsorship of religion, particularly where the subsidy is targeted at writings that promulgate the teachings of religious faiths. NJCubScouter, you may be right, though there seems to be a lot of state-level litigation and not much reaching the supreme court, McGowan v. Maryland (1961) being one. That one talks about a "uniform day of rest", but doesn't say it's for mom & pop stores to compete, and there isn't much to justify why it has to be "uniform".

Rooster7 writes: ...what's the underlying reason...what "works"? The law is to prevent road accidents, but the decision on whether to drive on the right side or left is not religious at all. By the way, did you have a point with this line of argument? ...Explain to me why you would argue against the reversal of Roe V. Wade. Because I don't think it ought to be reversed. Do you agree with the pretence that the beginning of life is debatable? If so, it seems to me that you'd have no motivation to take either side. Well, you're simply wrong, then. There are lots of issues that are debatable, yet I have no problem taking sides in many of them, and being neutral on other issues. Can you give me a valid law that only has religious reasons for existing? No. Can you provide an example of one? Or of one that was proposed? Well yes, the law struck down in Stone v. Graham that I cited earlier. Posting the ten commandments in public schools. OGE writes: No car dealers are open on Sunday nor are the liquor stores open until noon. I think these are civil laws based on religious precepts. Now, I know you will say these arent "valid", but why havent the "blue" laws been a target of the ACLU? They have been. Courts generally upheld these kinds of laws in the 1960s, but soon after people started to repeal lots of them, so I don't think the ACLU got involved much after that. A challenge to e.g. Sunday closing laws might succeed today, because they were upheld based on the gov't arguing that employees deserve at least one day off - however, I don't see anything in that argument that requires that that one day off a week needs to be Sunday. An Orthodox Jew could make a good argument that a law specifying Sunday unconstitutionally burdens his free exercise, since he can't be open Sunday and his religion prohibits him from working on Saturday, instead of choosing Saturday as his one-day-a-week to close and being open on Sunday. As it is, he would not be able to be open for any of the weekend (except Saturday after sunset). The ACLU has been more successful in getting other blue laws removed, like the ones against consensual sex acts by adults.

Rooster7 writes: What if the law served two masters? That is, suppose there was a valid secular reason for the law, but the law was also agreeable to others for religious reasons. That's true of a whole host of laws, and lots of religions. Murder, for example. As long as there are valid secular reasons, it's irrelevant (and not surprising) if religions also advocate it. That being casewhat if, elected representatives passed a law banning abortion Or, better yet, what if the Supreme Court throws out Roe v. Wade Would you view these possibilities as the state establishing a religion? No. Would you argue against the law or the courts decision? Yes. But Id like to take this debate one step further. Give me a law any law, and I bet I can show a religious motivation and a secular argument for its existence - or why it shouldnt exist, as the case may be. Driving on the righthand side of the road. Some countries drive on the left side, but that doesn't make it immoral. It's just a convention so driving "works". No religious motivation for that law. Can you give me a valid law that only has religious reasons for existing?

Rooster7 writes: "What if" - the majority of Americans voted (or rather elected representatives) to outlaw murder because God's law and/or spirit inspired them to do so. To defend it in court, they'd have to show that outlawing murder has a secular purpose. As this is trivially easy, they would succeed. Would you argue before the Supreme Court that the law should be overturned because it was "religiously inspired"? Only if there is no secular purpose; with murder, there clearly is such a purpose. For a law with no secular purpose, see e.g. Stone v. Graham. And frankly, how could you prove such a claim? By having the attorneys arguing in favor of the law explain what secular purpose the law serves. If they can't come up with ANY non-religious reasons for a law, it deserves to be struck down.

The current legal standard is that all laws must have a "secular purpose"; if the ONLY purpose of the law is to advance some religious tenet or religious view, it isn't a valid law. For example, in Stone v. Graham (1980), the opinion begins "Held: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

stlscouter writes: ...When Judges in colusion with the ACLU side with folks to deny access to a WE owned space based on a percieved slight or indignation of a limited group... What "access" has been denied? In the San Diego case, the judge struck down a lease to a BSA council, but everyone still has ACCESS to the property. And when the BSA no longer controls it, atheists and gays will ALSO have access to that public parkland in the summer, instead of the local BSA council booking it 100% with the members of their private, exclusionary club. So I'd like to know what "access" has been denied to whom. I can only see where the old lease gave BSA members special access to public parkland, and removing that makes the playing field equal again.

CA_scouter, I brought this up because Philip Johnson, a fairly well-known creationist (at least with people familiar with creation/evolution debates), not only supports the BSA, but actually advocates that the BSA somehow "counter" school teaching of evolution, lest more Boy Scouts become atheists. I've also seen some people either advocate creationism or disparage evolution in this forum, and there are strong advocates for the Boy Scouts who also advocate creationism. Plus, a lot of people tend to equate evolution with atheism. All of these factors would suggest that the BSA may well favor creationism over evolution.

Ed writes: San Diego did nothing illegal by renewing the BSA lease. Judge Jones disagreed with that defense. And the ACLU has no business telling San Diego (or anyone else) who to lease to. They do if they see government officials violating civil rights to give preferential leases to religious organizations.