Merlyn_LeRoy

hunt writes: The San Diego case is different, because the judge (in my opinion) made an absurd decision that the lease wasn't openly negotiated. That case was about San Diego breaking the lease--if it were a matter of San Diego just deciding not to renew the lease, I don't think there would be a case. San Diego renewed the lease early (at the BSA's request) instead of going through the usual competitive bidding process for leases of public property. The BSA was the only organization that was considered for this lease; the judge ruled that San Diego improperly renewed the lease. The BSA now has a lawsuit against San Diego for breaking the lease, but the original lawsuit (and the only lawsuit that has been ruled on so far) is over San Diego renewing the lease, not breaking it.

I'm saying you're a bigot because you make unwarranted assumptions about the morality of atheists as a class based, as far as I can tell, entirely on your religious prejudices against them. Hunt has already pointed out problems with your assertions.

There are certainly other issues - for example, I don't think Learning for Life has any business teaching ethics to students (particularly atheist and gay students) as it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of an organization that discriminates against them. Your bigoted statements are your statements about atheists and morality.

Eagledad, stop lying about my position; I'm opposed to any government support of a supposedly "private, discriminatory" organization that excludes atheists (and given your bigoted statements about atheists, it should be pretty clear why). If the BSA can't survive without leeching off my government, it's hardly a private organization.

Dan, I mean "can't" in the legal sense; public schools can't legally charter discriminatory BSA units.

Eamonn writes: Is it the fault of the BSA if the school principal failed to read what he was signing ? A few times, no. When it happens thousands of times every year, year after year, and the national BSA is quite aware of court cases where school administrators testify under oath that they THOUGHT atheists and gays could join THEIR Pack or Troop because they're a school, I consider the BSA to be acting dishonestly. If a gun shop sells a gun to an ex-felon, it might be a mistake. When it happens thousands of times, it isn't a mistake. I do agree that I didn't cover the homosexual policy.My thinking being that unless he had been living on some other planet, he would be aware of all the fuss. With legal contracts, particularly with government agencies, making such assumptions is incredibly reckless. Looking at the HUD thing, first the charter is not in HUD's name. But if HUD employees are informed that they are not to enter into agreements with the BSA, and they go ahead and do so anyway, isn't this the same as the guys who continue to do business with company A? No, every HUD grant requires a nondiscrimination agreement. To get a HUD grant, someone has to sign an agreement which will include a nondiscrimination clause. If that person then uses that grant money in some way that violates the nondiscrimination clause, they can be fined and/or charged with fraud. If school districts know that chartering BSA units is not allowed, the ruling is their ruling not the BSA ruling how do you see the BSA as being dishonest? Because the BSA also knows this, yet still issues charters to public schools.

Rooster7 writes: Public schools offer band for children that know how to play a musical instrument. Gee - that doesnt seem fair since my children dont know how to play a musical instrument. And the kids next door, you couldnt pay them to play a musical instrument. Yet, everybody has to pay taxes to support the band. And anyone who wants to join the band can join. Not so with the school's Cub Scout Pack - no atheists allowed (no girls either, but if the school observes Title IX requirements, that part is OK; the "no gays" part is also unlawful in many states, but that would vary). If the school excluded kids with no musical ability, and it was unlawful for public schools to discriminate on the basis of musical ability, you'd have an analogy. But they don't, and it isn't, so you don't. Public schools offer football and other team sports. Yet I know kids that dont have any athletic ability and would be cut from the team if they tried out. I know others that hate competitive sports. Still, everybody has to pay taxes to support these teams. And if it was unlawful for public schools to discriminate on the basis of athletic ability, you'd have a point. As it is, it IS unlawful for public schools to discriminate on the basis of religion, so school-run Cub Scout Packs can't legally exclude atheists. Public schools support the science club. Science clubs that very often teach and talk about evolution as if its fact vice theory. This seems wrong to me since creationism is a theory too. Surely you scoff, but creationism has been a theory for thousands of years. Evolution has only been around for a few decades. You ignorance of what constitutes a scientific theory notwithstanding, school science clubs don't exclude students on the basis of religion, either. School-run Scout Packs do. When youre done charging this windmill, whats next? There's still quite a lot of discrimination against atheists, even after all goverment charters are removed.

Eamonn writes: Every new unit signs the New Unit Application Form. http://www.scouting.org/forms/28-402.pdf It clearly states the BSA policy. It does? Where's the part about gays not being admitted? By the way, part of the remaining ACLU Winkler litigation (the lawsuit where the Dept. of Defense agreed to drop all BSA charters back in November) is over HUD grants. Whoever signed off on the HUD grant's nondiscrimination requirement could be charged with fraud. Eagledad writes: >>This isn't restricting freedom of choice, it's insuring that government agencies like public schools don't unlawfully discriminate.

SemperParatus writes: I think I'm beginning to understand the fictitious Bobby Fisher No Jews Allowed Chess Club. No you aren't because you are again comparing a club owned and operated by the school itself with a private group that meets in the school like any other private group. Public schools don't run Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which is a private, evangelical organization; public schools can't try to convince their students to be Christians.

Packsaddle, I don't see where the analogy fails. Anyone with a chess board can play chess, but Jews can't join the Fischer chess federation and be in their own school's Fischer chess club; anyone with a tent can go camping, but atheists can't join the BSA and be in their own school's Boy Scout unit. If public schools can charter BSA units, they can also charter my theoretical "no Jews allowed" chess clubs. And if you don't think anyone has ever suggested that certain races or creeds are better at things like chess or science, you need to get out more.

eagledad writes: >>And since Fischer successfully argued in court that his clubs can discriminate, the only legal recourse is to have all public schools stop their Fischer club franchises.

See why I say you're ineducable, Ed? Well, no, of course not; if you did, you wouldn't be. Public schools can discriminate IN SOME WAYS, and they are likewise prohibited from discriminating IN OTHER, DIFFERENT WAYS. The area where a student lives is in the first category; a student's religious views are in the second category. Ed, do you think it would be legal for a public school to refuse to admit any Episcopalians? Notice I'm not asking if it would be wise, or fair, or likely - only legal. Using your "logic", since public schools can discriminate in one way, they can discriminate in ALL ways, including the above. Or they could keep all black students out, something that was popular with some public schools a few decades ago. And here you show you can't read: In Merlyn's analogy what you have is a public school district allowing a club to meet. No, Ed, in my analogy I clearly state that the chess club is THE SCHOOL'S CLUB. The school is NOT just allowing a club to MEET, the SCHOOL is running the club. The SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS decided to start a chess club. I have successfully taught a box of rocks this distinction; when will you finally learn it?

No, I hadn't seen that episode; sorry I missed it. A postscript on my analogy: of course, even if a school had to drop a Fischer chess club, they could still have their own chess club, in case some people would whine about how the ACLU is unfair to kids by taking away their chess club, by litigating over the "no Jews allowed" clubs in schools.

Here's an analogy: Suppose Bobby Fischer, the famous chess grandmaster, decided to franchise chess clubs around the world. You could join a Fischer chess club and find other people to play chess with, have tournaments, read the latest club newsletter with a chess article by Fischer, etc. Now suppose some public school administrators decided that their schools ought to have chess clubs to encourage analytical thinking, and, instead of starting from scratch, decide to franchise Fischer chess clubs in their schools. Fine so far. Now, Bobby Fischer, aside from being a genius at chess, is also pretty far along on the lunatic scale. He has for years railed about Jews secretly running the world. So suppose he, as head of his private chess franchise, says that Jews can't join his chess clubs, and he successfully fights for the right to exclude Jews in court, on the basis that his clubs are private and can do that under the first amendment. Now you have public schools running "no Jews allowed" chess clubs. Public schools can't practice such religious discrimination. And since Fischer successfully argued in court that his clubs can discriminate, the only legal recourse is to have all public schools stop their Fischer club franchises.

I'm referring to public schools chartering Cub Scout Packs, which exclude atheists.

Ed, atheists have the same rights as theists, which includes things like not having their own schools own & operate youth groups which exclude them based on their religious views. And your inability to learn has been pointed out by a number of posters.

Ed, the BSA can lawfully discriminate in whatever way it likes. The BSA could start excluding Hindus tomorrow, and it wouldn't constitute "unlawful discrimination", because they could lawfully do that.

Hey Ed, the BSA discriminates; the supreme court didn't say the BSA didn't discriminate, they said the BSA's discrimination was legally protected. That's why some BSA's are trying to weasel-word United Way nondiscrimination requirements by stating they don't "unlawfully" discriminate, instead of simply stating that they don't discriminate. And I've explained to you before that I'm not a fan of the BSA, I'm an advocate for atheists' rights, but apparently you are incapable of learning that, too.

I can't find a "central Ohio Council" (there is a UW of Central Ohio), but the Simon Kenton Council at http://www.scouters.org has a new disclaimer: A Word from Our Scout Executive... Clarification of Simon Kenton Council Policies in response to the article in Tuesday, January 18th's Columbus Dispatch. OUR MEMBERSHIP STANDARDS POLICIES HAVE NOT CHANGED THE POSITION OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA HAS NOT CHANGED THE SIMON KENTON COUNCIL COMPLIES FULLY WITH THE POLICIES OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA THESE POLICIES ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE A council's pledge to not "unlawfully discriminate" is meaningless, of course.

I use the term "religious discrimination" because, legally, that's what it is. If you want a more specific term, it's discrimination based on creed - you have to hold the creed that at least one god exists. If a public school runs a school club that requires theism, that's religious discrimination. A better example than your nonsensical "vehicular discrimination" would be discrimination on the basis of marital status - that includes discriminating against people for being married OR for being single.

Laurie writes: Merlyn, my question was just that--a question. I find it hard to understand how one without a religion can even begin to understand and encourage a youth to grow in his own religion. That isn't exactly the same thing as what you wrote earlier, as "an atheist" is not the same as "one without a religion", since there are atheists who do follow non-theistic religions (such as atheist Buddhists, as I mentioned), and there are theists who do not have a religion (and would still be acceptable as BSA leaders). For me, to have to deny what I believe would be a problem for me; for an atheist to have to support what he does not believe--it would seem that would be a problem for him too. Do you think Rooster7 would be good at encouraging a pagan Scout to grow in his (that is, the pagan Scout's) religion? Your suggested example of why scout leaders ought to have a religion is hardly an argument against atheist leaders per se, because the potential problems don't arise from the leader being an atheist, the problems arise due to whatever religious differences there are between the leader and the scout. And, of course, it makes no sense to offer it as a reason to exclude atheists, because if atheists weren't kicked out, there would also be atheist scouts.

Laurie writes: I wonder, would an atheist be able to do support the boy who is trying to articulate how his faith fits in with what he is learning in Scouts? Why not? Aren't scout leaders supposed to support the youth, even if their beliefs don't match? Don't you think a Jewish scoutleader could support a Catholic youth, or vice-versa? Or any other combination of religions? How about an atheist Buddhist?

mhager, I don't think it's a good policy (speaking as someone who was an atheist cub scout about 38 years ago). If you want to do something about it, trying finding a nearby Scout unit from this list: http://www.scoutingforall.org/packtroop/index.html These are Packs and Troops chartered by government agencies, and government agencies can't practice religious discrimination, so if you are refused membership, you'll have grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against both the govenment agency and the Boy Scouts. The government can't run private clubs that have religious requirements for membership. If it seems drastic, keep in mind that the only times the Boy Scouts have opened any of their programs to atheists have been the result of legal issues raised over government agencies practicing discrimination on the BSA's behalf.

cliffgolden writes: You admit there is no legal fight here. No, I haven't. While not an obvious win like removing public schools as chartering orgs, I think there are some arguments that might win. From what some United Ways have said, some BSA councils don't have separate bank accounts for their traditional program vs. their L4L programs; that's an argument against any public funding of L4L. Also, the name "Boy Scouts" is already closely associated with discrimination against gays and atheists, which makes it a problem for public schools to use "Learning for Life" if "Boy Scouts" is mentioned in any of the material, because government agencies can't even give the misimpression that they exclude students, and some students might not even bother to attend a L4L program if they think it excludes them because of their connection to the Boy Scouts (even if they aren't, in fact, excluded). The Boy Scouts are too vocal about constantly stating how gays and atheists are not welcome, so it shouldn't be too surprising that people can assume their L4L program is equally bigoted.

cliffgolden writes: I understand your points about government agencies sponsoring BSA units, but Learning for Life as a program does not discriminate, so what is your problem with it? Just what I stated; it's an organization which is wholly owned by a parent organization that denigrates atheists. Imagine that the KKK tried to clean up its image by creating a nondiscriminatory subsidiary that admitted all races, yet the KKK remained an all-white organization, and fought many court battles to remain all white. Now imagine that this new nondiscriminatory organization wants to teach students, including non-white students, how to be ethical. I'd tell them to get lost. They have no ethics to teach.