Merlyn_LeRoy

Ed, you don't seem to realize that the lawsuit against the football prayer was brought by a Catholic family and a Mormon family, not atheist families. I can't tell you their names, because they filed anonymously to avoid harassment and death threats. Plus there's the minor fact that the US Supreme Court agreed that these prayers violated the constitution. There are 11 families as litigants in the lawsuit against Dover's Intelligent Design policy. The lawsuit doesn't say what their religious views are. I doubt all eleven families are atheists.

Ed, did any of those schools have an official policy that excluded players based on race? No. The BSA excludes members based on their religious views. Public schools can't do that.

Ed, I'm certainly going to go after any organization that gets public funds and excludes atheists. And since you'll pray for me, I'll think for you.

Ed, you aren't intelligent enough to meet my requirements. If you want to try and get public schools to stop sponsoring Girl Scouts, go ahead. I did Boy Scouts.

The BSA isn't perfect, but I didn't expect that half a dozen BSA officials could know about a molester and cover it up instead of doing the right thing. The BSA is now being sued by families whose sons were molested because the BSA failed to act when they should have.

Ed, there certainly ARE requirements for school sponsorship; do you think a public school could have a whites-only baseball team?

Fred, the only ACLU "strategy" is civil rights; public schools can't own & operate Scout units, because they would have to violate the civil rights of their own students to do so. As for the BSA becoming more conservative, that seems to be what the BSA wants: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=20306 ... While many churches already sponsor Cub Scout packs, Shields urges many others to get involved in all levels of scouting, an institution whose core values can fit well within the standards of most conservative evangelical congregations. ... It sounds like the BSA is saying they only want "conservative evangelical congregations" as charter partners.

Ed, the Boy Scouts don't meet the requirements for school sponsorship, so they can't get sponsored.

Torveaux writes: "Religious rights of atheists" - rather oxymoronic no? Not at all. "Religious rights" includes things like not being discriminated against by the government due to your religious views. When a public school runs a youth group that excludes atheists, that's exactly what's happening. And I wouldn't join the BSA; it's a dishonest, bigoted organization. That's why I want all government support removed from it.

I've highlighted parts: http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcstories.cfm&ID=2216 CASE FILE UNSEALED Mar 10, 2005 What did they know and when? The records in a three-year-old civil case between a molestation victim and the Boy Scouts of America are unsealed for the first time. Leaders with the scouting organization say they wanted the case kept sealed because it contained the names of other young victims of former Scout Leader Brad Stowell. But the file also shows evidence that more people knew Stowell was a pedophile - and ignored it. Senior reporter Suzanne Hobbs looked at the files today. There is damning evidence that not only did the Scout leaders know Brad Stowell had molested a child when he was 16, but others also witnessed Stowell engaged in inappropriate conduct with young Scouts at Camp Little Lemhi. The now unsealed civil case brought on by the parents of a then 11-year-old boy known only as "John Doe" consists of hundreds of pages in nine file folders filled with motions, testimony, witness lists and graphic details of what happened at camp. On order by the judge, the names of Stowell's victims are blacked out. This is what the Boy Scouts of America did not want the public to know. Brad Stowell was arrested at Camp Little Lemhi in the summer of 1997 and charged with sexual abuse of a child. These court records show that Stowell admitted that from 1988 to 1997, he repeatedly molested boys at camp and away from camp. The file shows that the Boy Scouts of America were 'repeatedly placed on notice' as far back as 1991 of Stowell's pedophiliac propensity. A letter from Richard Scarborough dated May of 1991 to the National Scouting Headquarters sends a warning that Stowell molested a 6-year-old Blackfoot child when Stowell was 16. There is case evidence of a note taken in 1995 by Hart Bullock, the area director for the Scouts Western Region. He was warned by a phone call that Stowell had fondled and sodomized a child and was now working with young boys at camp. The file shows Stowell could have been stopped much sooner. At least seven people within the organization were given reports about Stowell years before his arrest. Despite an investigation by the Scouts, Stowell continued to work at camp several more years until his arrest. Was there intentional concealment by the Scouts? The records state that three Scout staffers observed Stowell engaged in some level of inappropriate conduct but failed to report it and the Scouts admit they knew that Stowell had been improperly touching some of the younger camp staff in 1997. The record also alleges that at the time, the Scouts did not notify the parents of other victims to avoid further liability - meaning there could be other victims out there who have not come forward. Kim Hansen, the Scout executive for the Grand Teton Council, maintains that the council took swift action to remove Brad Stowell and did not turn a 'blind eye'. As for Stowell, he lives in Idaho Falls and is still on supervised probation for pleading guilty to the sexual abuse.

Fred, how long would it have taken you (and the rest of the BSA) to drop charters from public schools WITHOUT the ACLU threatening legal action? And by the way the BSA immediately agreed to remove these charters, it sounds like they agreed with the ACLU that they wouldn't survive a legal challenge. In other words, they're illegal. You apparently don't care if public schools break the law and violate the religious rights of atheists, as you discount the ACLU's basis for challenging these charters. Face it, when the BSA said years ago that they could discriminate on the basis of religion because they are a private, religious organization, THEY started down the road to losing all government charters.

hunt writes, in reply to me: "If the school only recognizes one official PTA, then I would still go after sponsorship by that PTA, as it's an official school organization." You'd lose, though. The PTA is a private, not-for-profit organization. I also feel quite confident that the courts would draw a line between the school sponsoring the unit (endorsement of religion) and the PTA sponsoring the unit (no endorsement by the school of the Scout unit). I think it would win if the school only recognizes one, official PTA. A private PTA could, for example, exclude Catholics as members, but that would mean Catholic parents and students of that school are at a disadvantage compared to everyone else. A public school couldn't designate as its only official PTA one that discriminates on the basis of religion. The same is true of a PTA that runs a youth group that excludes Catholics (or atheists).

hunt writes, in reply to me: "If the school only recognizes one official PTA, then I would still go after sponsorship by that PTA, as it's an official school organization." You'd lose, though. The PTA is a private, not-for-profit organization. I also feel quite confident that the courts would draw a line between the school sponsoring the unit (endorsement of religion) and the PTA sponsoring the unit (no endorsement by the school of the Scout unit). I think it would win if the school only recognizes one, official PTA. A private PTA could, for example, exclude Catholics as members, but that would mean Catholic parents and students of that school are at a disadvantage compared to everyone else. A public school couldn't designate as its only official PTA one that discriminates on the basis of religion. The same is true of a PTA that runs a youth group that excludes Catholics (or atheists).

Most of the work on this was actually done by me, in compiling the lists of government-chartered BSA units at http://www.scoutingforall.org/packtroop I've been keeping in touch with Adam Schwartz of the Illinois ACLU on the Winkler case, and after the military settlement to drop charters on military base(which was part of the Winkler case), I told him about the 300+ government chartered units in Illinois. Mr. Schwartz wrote up a letter citing these units and sent it to National BSA headquarters, pointing out that government agencies can't sponsor youth groups with religious requirements for membership, and that the IL ACLU would start filing lawsuits if they weren't dropped. The BSA has decided to drop them. So the only effort on the ACLU's part was typing a letter and mailing it out. Also, I wonder if you would be as lackadaisical about religious discrimination by public schools if thousands of schools ran youth groups that excluded only members of your particular religion. What if public schools ran chess clubs that wouldn't allow Jews to join?

Fred, you're being completely hypocritical. I pointed out to you months ago that your cub scout pack couldn't legally be chartered by a public school. Stopping public schools from practicing religious discrimination is not "harassment."

I think examples would help; I have no idea what you mean.

eamonn writes: The Council moved quickly and the PTA took the charter. I don't know if the ACLU or this AA group will go after the PTA? If the school only recognizes one official PTA, then I would still go after sponsorship by that PTA, as it's an official school organization. While they may be right and may have right on their side, surely they have bigger fish to fry? What's bigger than first amendment rights? Do you think violations of the first amendment should be ignored?

Oh, if you're suggesting gutting the first amendment so your discriminatory private religious club can still have public schools as sponsors (while excluding atheists), I'd say it's time for another armed revolution.

Of course the BSA isn't going to tell people about their religious discrimination, you have to ask the pagans that tried for years to get their religious award accepted: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.scouting/msg/06066293cfcfbd4a The award is here, but of course the BSA won't recognize it: http://www.cog.org/projects/hartcres.html If you like, you can see if the BSA will yet allow any Wiccan religious group to charter a unit. Wiccans say the BSA won't issue any charters to them, so of course they can never get 25 chartered units and can never have their award recognized. Pagans are only welcome in the same sense that blacks are welcome to sit in the back of the bus in Alabama in the 1950s.

Rooster7 writes: I dont think about Rev. Sun Myung at all. I just thought the article was interesting...and true. Why do you think the article was true? It presented NO data to show that atheism is declining, and there have been a number of recent polls that say the opposite. You seem to just believe what you WANT to be true, instead of what's actually true. And it's hardly "ironic" that I would question why you would post an article that has nothing to do with Scouting in a Scouting forum. I believe people want to control their future even beyond this life. They dont want to fear the unknown. So, they pursue a spirituality that enables them to remain unchanged and/or to believe in an afterlife that will satisfy all of their perceived needs. Now THAT'S ironic. You cling to your unsubstantiated belief in an afterlife as much as anyone I've seen.

And that rule of 25 was created out of whole cloth solely to prevent pagans from creating a recognized religious award. I wouldn't describe pagans as "very welcome" in the BSA when special rules are created to keep them from being treated equally.

Hmm, quoting a newspaper owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon (Washington Post) and a news service owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon (UPI). So, rooster7, do you think the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the new messiah? Oddly enough, the Moonie paper published a slightly different version a bit earlier: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050301-123015-2069r.htm It's nearly identical, but they removed this paragraph: Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance." They've removed it in later reprints; turns out Harun Yahya is something of a Muslim extremist. (Ironically, that paragraph came after "moral high ground") It also seems that this bunch of non-atheists talking about the "decline" in atheism are as divorced from reality as ever; opinion polls, where people went out and actually asked lots of people what they really believe show atheism increasing in the western world: http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html By the way, what does this have to do with Boy Scouts, Rooster7?

If absolutely everyone can send home fliers, then it's OK. But I think you'd see a change when churches start soliciting kids to change their religion, or KKK recruiting fliers, or when the system gets overwhelmed with too many fliers.

Yes, I saw when reading the decision it was during lunch, so it was during school hours, not classtime. Footnote 11 points out that they would analyze the case identically if the school had allowed the youth auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan to make similar presentations, but that the superintendent probably would have concluded in that hypothetical case that there was sufficient evidence that the district discriminated by allowing it. If the school tries to address this decision by allowing all groups, the KKK would have to be allowed in with all the rest. The court also said something that would apply to OGE's first comment: "There is no practical difference between encouraging a student to sign up during a school activity, knowing that the student subsequently will be rejected for a discriminatory reason, and preventing the student from signing up in the first place." The court also distinguished this case from the earlier case: "...the issue is whether there is substantial evidence that the district's actions constituted discrimination under ORS 659.850, that is, whether the district subjected Remington to an "act that unreasonably differentiates treatment, intended or unintended, * * * based on * * * religion * * *." That is also a different question from whether the district violated constitutional standards by itself promoting a religious message, which we held in Powell I it did not." ... "It is apparent that, although the facts in Powell I are essentially the same as the facts in this case, the issues in the two cases have little in common. The question before us is not whether the district has established a religion by its relationship with the Boy Scouts; rather, again, the question is whether there is substantial evidence that the district subjected Remington to discrimination in a school activity."

Here's the actual court opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A117310.htm