Merlyn_LeRoy

Hey FOG, can you find any public school in the US that "owns and operates" a youth group that excludes Jews or Catholics or Hindus or Muslims for their beliefs? Because I can find hundreds that exclude atheists for their beliefs. Schools can discriminate in many areas, but religious beliefs are not one of them. Period.

Uh, OGE, I DO live in Minnesota. However, you seem to think it's OK for a public school to own & operate a discriminatory youth program as long as it doesn't "get caught" or something. That hardly seems honest to me. As I pointed out before, if the school had waited until a litigant was found, it would have cost the school (and possibly the BSA) much more money, because they would have already violated the student's civil rights, and they would likely be sued for damages and legal fees. And I think the phrase you're looking for is "outside agitators"; that's what civil rights advocates were called when they went into towns where they didn't live to change a governmental system that unlawfully discriminated against a segment of their society.

Whitewater, have you actually read the judge's decision? http://ACLUSanDiego.org/pdf/MSJorder.pdf

Hey OGE, I can finally tell you what high school that was that chartered a Venturing Crew, as that issue was settled (the school decided to drop the Crew in favor of an intermural program that would allow all students to join, instead of excluding gay and atheist students, which violated the law). It was Cambridge-Isanti High School in MN. Here's a story about it from 2003: http://www.isanticountynews.com/2003/february/4venturing.html By the way, the principal of the school also is (or used to be) chair of the Three Rivers District: http://www.scoutingbsa.org/Districts/ThreeRivers/Leadership.html Notice his email address is his school email. Now, I talked to him many times on the phone, and he seemed to think atheists COULD join his school's Venturing Crew; but I called David Park at the national BSA legal department, who was the only person at BSA national who would give me a straight answer on whether atheists really could join this Venturing Crew (the answer was "no"). If the school had been sued to stop this program, it would have cost the school a lot of money (and I would've urged the litigant to also sue the BSA for knowingly chartering its discriminatory program to a public school, as it's illegal in Minnesota to coerce or attempt to coerce a public school into practicing unlawful discrimination under MN statute 363.03). As it was, the school decided to drop the program before any litigant was found. I'm currently working on a situation in St. Louis that's similar; a school program paid for with public money where the government says atheists and gays CAN and MUST be able to join under its nondiscrimination laws, but the BSA district running the program can't tell me how atheists and gays can join, since national BSA requires that they be excluded.

Ed, YOU'RE the one who said the ACLU "coerced" people, but now you admit you don't have any evidence of coercion. And I ignored the rest of your statement because it concerned the first amendment, and you don't understand the first amendment.

Ed, just come up with actual examples of coercion; I've told you that stuff you make up out of your own head doesn't count.

Uncleguinea, go to www.maaf.info if you'd like to find real atheists in real foxholes, though some of them may have a hard time getting back to you, since they're deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Feel free to email them and tell them they aren't real atheists or something. Ed, you still haven't cited any actual instances of coercion; the stuff you make up out of your own head doesn't count.

OK Ed, how does the ACLU "coerce" someone to be a plaintiff? All I ever see them do is publically announce they're willing to provide legal assistance if a plaintiff steps forward. What part is coercive?

Ed writes: [re: the ACLU] They usually coerce a local to file a complaint. "Coerce"? They get a plaintiff by the threat of force? You're nuts. Bob White, Scouting says that only god-believers can be the "best kinds of citizens", and one of the BSA's own lawyers lied in the Spectator article. By the way, do you still assert that no government agencies charter discriminatory BSA units?

FOG says: What I don't get is why the ACLU goes to towns where no local has complained and makes a fuss. The ACLU will "raise a fuss" when they see possible constitutional violations; they typically won't (and sometimes can't) file a lawsuit unless they find a local plaintiff. Did you have a specific example in mind?

You should also check out this article, by Pulliam and one of the lawyers from the Pacific Legal Foundation (which argues many of the cases for the BSA): http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6375 ... The city's betrayal of the Scouts followed an ACLU court victory last summer. Federal District Judge Napoleon Jones voided the Scouts' longtime lease of 18 acres at the city's Balboa Park. Contradicting the findings of many other federal and state courts, he announced that Scouting is a "religion"; therefore, he ruled, the lease violates church-state separation. He threw in a gratuitous insult, denouncing the Scouts as a group "at odds with values requiring tolerance and inclusion in the public realm." ... Even a non-lawyer reading the decision would know that the judge didn't say that Scouting is a "religion", but a "religious organization"; it's inexcusable for a lawyer to co-author an article for publication with such an obviously false statement.

Ed, I've tried to explain concepts to you before, and you simply can't understand them, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'll let you be baffled by court decisions that are beyond your comprehension.

Not for the city, Ed, but you still don't understand the issues. It's legal for the KKK to exclude non-whites, but that doesn't mean the city can decide to lease them city land for $1/year.

Then get the terms of the lease adjusted so that it is open more often to other groups instead of the BSA. Better yet, open the lease to public bidding so the city can get the best deal. Do not destroy the benefit to the community, because you do not like the group that is providing that benefit. The problem isn't "not liking" the group, the problem is that the group discriminates on the basis of religion. I will also point out that whatever is negotiated between the BSA and the city should be used as a template for other groups. For a start, how about enforcing the city's written policy against leasing Mission Bay Park areas to discriminatory organizations (Fiesta Island is in Mission Bay Park). The city actually has such a policy, and it was ignored for the Boy Scouts.

See the difference between you and me is that I believe that if a group approaches the government with a proposal program, benefit, or facility that they will open to all individuals or groups equally and a request for a little support (such as money, or land). And given that the group is a legal entity, then the state should not discriminate based on thats group's beliefs. Well, that isn't the case here; the Boy Scouts get preferential use of this supposedly public land, and you can't even book "their" segment of Balboa park during the peak summer months because the Boy Scouts reserve it all for themselves. The Fiesta Island lease allows the BSA to reserve up to 75% of the use of the facilities for themselves. And since atheists can't join, it isn't open to all equally.

fboisseau writes: ... The first set of exchanges between you and me, put you in the corner of agreeing that the state should not treat a religious organization any differently then a non-religious organization. That isn't how I interpreted your original question. I thought you were asking if the government could treat organizations differently based on what religious beliefs or non-beliefs those organizations held (such as a Christian organization vs. an atheist organization). The government can and does treat religious organizations differently from other types of organizations because the government has to be careful not to involve itself in religious discrimination by showing favoritism. And ProudEagle, if you'll read the ruling, like all court rulings it spells out in rather tedious detail what laws and previous court rulings the decision is based on. And it's still possible if this decision is overturned for the lease to be invalidated on other grounds, such as atheists being excluded from public property as you mentioned. Judge Jones didn't even need to consider that argument since he found that the lease wasn't legally drawn up, but that argument can be addressed later if his decision is reversed. For example, in the pledge of allegiance case, if the supreme court decides that Dr. Newdow doesn't have standing, the supreme court won't even address the constitutionality of having teachers lead schoolchildren in the pledge. In the same way, Judge Jones did not even need to consider whether other aspects of the lease rendered it unconstitutional once he ruled that the lease wasn't properly awarded. In fact, this could go on for years. Jones' ruling could be reversed and sent back down to be reheard; the judge could then rule that the lease is unlawful due to, say, atheists being excluded from public property. Then THAT could be reversed based on standing, since (as far as I know), the plaintiffs didn't actually apply to get their sons admitted to the Boy Scouts to be presumably turned down. And if that happens, all it would take would be for someone to actually apply and be turned down to produce a new plaintiff with proper standing to start a new lawsuit. And we're back to square one.

Rooster7, I never pretended to know what Pat Tillman or his brother had in their minds, and what Tillman's brother stated was the same sort of knowledge that you claim to know about me. But hey, what's a funeral if a bunch of superstitious god-botherers can't pretend that the deceased was religious just like them? It looks like Rich couldn't stand the hypocrisy and said what was on his mind. Ah, but I guess the feelings of religious types is worth defending, and the feelings of people like Rich can be ignored, right?

My point is this. From what I understand is that the city has entered into similar sweetheart deals with other organizations both religious and non-religious. If that is the case then the lease agreement with the BSA should stand. The judge struck down the BSA lease because it was a special deal with a religious organization; this does not mean that all special deals are unlawful, nor that leases to religious organizations are unlawful, but specifically that leases made to religious organizations without competitive bidding are unlawful. Now, there may be other leases that fit that description, but that doesn't mean the BSA lease is legal, either. It may mean that the city has made unlawful leases in other cases as well.

I haven't seen anyone who has disagreed with his brother's statement that Tillman wasn't religious. And if a funeral is for the living, doesn't that include Pat's brother? Or doesn't he count?

I'd say the mourners putting forth the "spiritual bromides" without regard to Pat Tillman's own religious beliefs are the ones not showing respect or dignity. His brother's outburst was in response to the disrespect shown to his late brother by all the religious blather for someone who wasn't religious. It's like clueless people babbling about Jesus at a memorial service for a Jew.

...it's quite clear that nobody else would have "bid"--because the Boy Scouts brought the money! No, it ISN'T "clear" that nobody else would have bid. Nobody knows, because it was never subject to bidding. You can't assume your conclusion.

I guess you find it incredible that Tillman's brother would know his opinion on religious matters, yet you seem to have no problem discerning MY religious views. How do you know Tillman's brother didn't know him better than you know me? And congratulations on writing a sentence that contradicts itself; you claim that no man can know another man's heart, then you proceed to state what my opinion is on religious matters. If you can do that about me, Tillman's brother can do that about his brother. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

We can't conclude anything from his brother stating "He wasn't religious"?

I wonder why Bob White didn't mention the negative press against Jefferson claiming he was an atheist.

Here's what Tillman's brother said during the memorial: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/04/SPG5K6FD091.DTL (also at http://tinyurl.com/yr7ku ) Tillman's youngest brother, Rich, wore a rumpled white T-shirt, no jacket, no tie, no collar, and immediately swore into the microphone. He hadn't written anything, he said, and with the starkest honesty, he asked mourners to hold their spiritual bromides. "Pat isn't with God,'' he said. "He's f -- ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f -- ing dead.'' It sounds to me like Tillman didn't believe in god.