Merlyn_LeRoy

Ed, I see you still can't follow a conversation, even when it's written down.

Ed writes: Well since the government isn't paying they get no say! Exactly, although you seem to have already forgotten how the subject of government funding of churches was raised - tortdog seems to think it's constitutional, and possibly a good idea.

Ed writes: Why would the government have any say in church creed? If the government is paying for it, it gets to say what it's paying for.

So the government gets to set the church's creed, is that what you're saying Ed?

tortdog writes: I agrue my interpretation is correct because it is the one espoused by the founding fathers. Let me ask you this. If the founding fathers believed the position espoused in 1946, then why did they permit government funds to be given to churches and commence with prayer in Congress? James Madison, the guy who WROTE the first amendment, said it prohibited congress from hiring chaplains, but he was outvoted. And if churches are funded with my tax dollars, I get to set that church's official creed, right?

tortdog writes: However, there is no constitutional provision that prevents a public entity from supporting religion IN GENERAL According to the supreme court, the state can't pass a law that "aids all religions": ...The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another... Everson v. Board of Education. And ...We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs... Torcaso v. Watkins Plus, of course, state agencies can't act in ways the state government itself can't act.

OneHour writes: There are no rights being trembled on. There are no group of people being denied of their rights! Yes there are; what happens if an atheist student wants to join a unit chartered by the school?

The BSA could have decided that BSA units chartered to government agencies would not discriminate - but they didn't. Instead, the BSA decided not to charter units to government agencies. Would you have preferred the former decision?

"nonsectarian" still doesn't mean not religious, as there are groups that are both, like the National Council of Churches (or whatever they're called now). Also, "secular" is not the same as "sectarian"; you seem to think they mean the same thing, as you are saying that "religious vs. secular" shows that "sectarian" must be exclusive of "religious". No, "secular" is exclusive of "religious". And if the ACLU wants to make money, why didn't they file lawsuits against some of the thousands of unlawful BSA charters to public schools, instead of just writing the BSA a letter telling them to stop? In any case, the BSA has been ruled to be a religious organization.

Where has the BSA stated, in court, that it is not a religious organization? You've only shown where the BSA has said it is "nonsectarian", but that's not the same, as the description of the BSA as both nonsectarian and religious has shown. And if you'll read the judge's decision, you'll see that the BSA lease was struck down because the city didn't have any sort of competitive bidding, which it can't do when dealing with a religious organization. How were those other leases granted?

No Ed, just trying to make sure the government treats everyone equally, instead of giving special favors to a discriminatory religious organization.

tortdog writes: Well, Merlyn. You said that the BSA had itself to blame for the withdrawal of San Diego (paying almost $1,000,000 to the ACLU) because the BSA ITSELF said it was a religious organization. But it didn't. You showed that in the San Diego case, the COURT found the BSA was a religious organization. But that very same COURT recognized that the BSA had told IT, the COURT, that the BSA was NOT a religious organization. The BSA claimed it was "non-sectarian". That's not the same as saying it isn't a religious organization. And by the documents submitted to the court, the BSA admitted it WAS actually a religious organization, as the San Diego DA explained. Now, you go to a quote from a brief in 1998 where the BSA said it was religious...and then said a council was a religious organization. Are you arguing that this statement was the one San Diego relied on? No, it's an instance of when the BSA claimed to be a religious organization. If so, then why did San Diego not terminate the lease (and settle) after this 1998 so-called admission? They certainly should have; the ACLU was already warning the city council about renewing a $1/year lease with a discriminatory organization. If the BSA at one time did argue it was a religious organization, it certainly has denied that in the San Diego case. The BSA seems to claim it is a religious organization, or not a religious organization, depending on what it wants. When it wants to kick out atheists, it's a religious organization. When it wants to recruit kids in public schools during school hours, it isn't a religious organization. You err. How so? My opinion agrees with the San Diego DA, who probably knows more about this case than either one of us. Now, THIS one federal district court that claimed the BSA was in California found the BSA to be a religious organization. The BSA disagrees. Who else disagrees? 3rd Circuit: 386 F.3d 514 Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School District This hardly helps your case; the court uses the Boy Scouts as an example of an organization with strong religious tenets and gives examples of the BSA's religious requirements to show that Stafford is discriminating against the Evangelism Fellowship. Saying the BSA is "nonsectarian" is not the same as saying it isn't a religious organization, especially in the court's context: And though the Boy Scouts of America is a nonsectarian group, it still maintains that no child can develop to his or her fullest potential without a spiritual element in his or her life. Yep, that's a religious organization. It's got religious requirements for members. 4th Circuit: 17 F.3d 703 Fed Dist of Connecticut Could you quote where they state that the BSA is not a religious organization? By the way, even the court you cite states that the BSA is a "religious, albeit nonsectarian, and discriminatory organization". So it says it's a religious organization, right? Or do you somehow think the term "nonsectarian" means you can ignore the term "religious" in the court's description? Maybe that's what the BSA means. If so, it's still a religious organization. Sure, it has religious character to it, but it's nonsectarian in that it doesn't pick one religion and favor it. Yeah, so? An organization that requires monotheism is a religious organization, even though many (though not all) religions would qualify. An organization that requires belief in an Abrahamic religion isn't specific to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, but it's still a religious organization. And yes, an organization that requires theism is a religious organization. It just believes that God exists. Do you? No.

tortdog writes: The Court that ruled AGAINST the BSA says: >The BSA-DPC contends that as a nonsectarian organization, it is beyond the reach of the establishment clause. Merlyn? Yes? So the DPC contended that - the judge didn't agree, did he? He ruled the BSA a "religious organization". Here's the San Diego DA: http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/attorney/caseys_column.jsp ... The primary issue addressed in the Court's summary judgment ruling was whether the lease extension gave a preference or a special benefit to a "religious organization." The City's defense of the case rested on the position that, while the Boy Scouts may follow certain religious principles, it was not a "religious organization" subject to the restrictions in the state and federal constitutions. During the course of the case, however, and without forewarning the City as to its position, the Boy Scouts admitted in court documents that it was in fact a "religious organization." Based upon that admission, Federal Judge Napoleon Jones determined that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization and that the lease was invalid because the process by which it was extended violated both the state and federal constitutions in providing special preference and benefits to a religious organization. ... Here's the judge's decision: http://aclusandiego.org/pdf/MSJorder.pdf ... the Boy Scouts is a religious organization with a "religious purpose" and a "faith-based mission to serve young people and their families." [page 11 - Judge Jones quoting from documents submitted by the BSA-Desert Pacific Council] ... in 1995, when the BSA kicked out Buzz Grambo in Maryland for being an atheist, BSA national spokesman Richard W. Walker was quoted in the Washington Post: "It's no secret we have a duty to God," said Walker, from Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Irving, Tex. "We're not a religion, but we are a religious organization." Here's where Bill O'Reilly found out: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108666,00.html ... O'REILLY: All right. Now we researched this for the past 24 hours, and here's how it goes down. On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion." However, in several legal briefs, including one in a 1992 case in Kansas and another in 1998, lawyers for the Boy Scouts put in writing that the Scouts are a religious organization. Here's the quote in '98: "Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization." Confused? So am I. Because if the Scouts say they are a religious organization, then the ACLU and the judges who dislike them can boot them off city properties all over the USA. ...

San Diego based its defense of the lease partly on the grounds that the BSA was not a religious organization; the BSA scuttled the city's own defense by their own admission that they WERE a religious organization. The city decided to not defend the lease after being blindsided like that.

prairie scouter, your question seems to involve two different things: First, using school facilities: schools can have their facilities open to outside groups, or only used for school-related activities. If they are open to outside groups, they can't discriminate against who can use their facilities, so Boy Scouts, churches, atheist groups, the KKK, etc all can use school facilities. But your question starts with you "going into schools and telling kids about scouting", which is kind of vague. As above, anything open to the BSA has to be equally open to any other outside group, so if you're going into schools during school hours to recruit, churches, atheist groups, the KKK, etc ALL can demand (and get) the same access to students. However, public schools can't allow outside groups to come in during school hours to recruit, especially religious organizations like the BSA, as students are a captive audience during school hours, and young children may not be able to tell the difference between a talk given by a teacher and one given by an outside, private, discriminatory religious organization. That's the sort of recruiting that's being challenged in court.

The Oregon court found the opposite, and the Michigan decision is being appealed. Plus, if the Michigan case holds, churches can demand (and will get) the same kind of access to students, because to allow the Boy Scouts but deny a church would be viewpoint discrimination.

I KNOW that BOy Scouts can distribute flyers on the same basis as any other outside group (including churches, by the way); I've never said otherwise. What they're losing is special access, like in-person recruiting talks during school hours.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed, I've explained it to you before, and you are literally too stupid to understand the answer.

jr56 writes: Actually, most schools around this country will allow minority interest groups to form, they refuse to allow standard Christian groups for fear of lawsuits from special interest groups like the ACLU. "Most"? Yeah, right... And the ACLU would sue the school for REFUSING to allow students to form such a group, assuming the school allows other non-curriculum groups; they go into a lot of detail over the Lamb's Chapel decision: http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9881&c=29 I would say the main reason these sorts of things happen are due to so many people having absolutely no idea what religious freedom really means. Yes, that includes you, Ed.

Well, here in the real world, public schools can't discriminate like that, and not only do they NOT sponsor atheist-only groups, sometimes they unlawfully refuse permission for students to form their own such group (even though e.g. student Christian groups are routinely OK'd) and they have to be sued in order to treat atheists equally.

Using your reasoning, it would be fine if a public school had a football team that didn't allow Jews; after all, no one is FORCED to join, right? And I would agree with your antisemitic analogy, but only if antisemitism is analgous to the prejudice displayed against atheists in this forum. Many of you seem to think it would be just fine if public schools had any number of programs that excluded atheists - yet how many of you would scream "discrimination" if a public school owned & operated a youth group that only allowed atheists?

Ed, you can't learn. There's no legal distinction between a school requiring you to be a Muslim or requiring you to believe in at least one god. Both are religious requirements that government entities like public schools can't enforce.

Tortdog, excluding people for not believing in at least one god IS "religious discrimination" under US law. Specifically, it's discrimination based on creed - you a requiring that the person hold to a creed that god exists. The EEOC seems to think atheists are covered by religious discrimination law: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html "Religious discrimination also includes discrimination against someone because s/he is an atheist."

Hey tortdog, I was referring to the Powell case in OR, not the Scalise case in MI. In Powell, the BSA (used to) recruit during the class day, aided by the teachers. The Oregon court of appeals said the school can't do that. Of course, in cases where the BSA distributes flyers along with all other groups equally (including other groups like churches, or groups that discriminate like the KKK), the BSA will get to do so. But no more recruiting in class for a discriminatory religious organization like the BSA.

Once again Ed doesn't know what he's talking about; the constitution forbids the "establishment of religion", not "the establishment of A religion". Read Torcaso v. Watkins.