Merlyn_LeRoy

No Ed, nobody is ever required to swear (on a bible or not) in a US court of law; such a requirement would be unconstitutional anyway. But you've shown before that you aren't capable of understanding what religious freedom means; it certainly doesn't mean you're "free" to believe only what the majority believes.

Only when dragged into court; they didn't tell the San Diego city council that they were a religious organization when the city renewed their lease and voted to spend money to defend it on the grounds the BSA wasn't a religious organization. And does the BSA inform all those thousands of public schools that charter BSA units that the BSA is a religious organization, and they are agreeing to "own and operate" a youth group that has religious requirements for membership?

Let's keep in mind the plaintiffs are also San Diego taxpayers, and the city can't decide to treat THEM any worse, either. It looks like the Boy Scouts' duplicity in claiming it's a religious organization when it wants to discriminate and claiming it ISN'T a religious organization when it wants freebies from the government isn't working anymore.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/opinion/news_mz1e22gwinn.html ... In 2001, the City Council voted to extend the Boy Scouts' lease at Balboa Park for an additional 25 years. The ACLU challenged the lease extension in federal court on a variety of grounds. 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, Judge Jones determined that the Boy Scouts is 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. The Boy Scouts' position that it is a religious organization makes Judge Jones' ruling understandable. Under current case law, no public entity can provide special preference or benefit to a religious organization whether it be a church, a mosque, a synagogue or a youth group. ... The Boy Scouts repeatedly and pointedly refused to support the city in helping to pay any of the potential attorney fees involved in this case. The Scouts want San Diego taxpayers to continue to argue the case even though it has acknowledged that it is a religious organization and even though it refuses to share in the potentially enormous attorney fees award that ultimately will be awarded to plaintiffs who have already prevailed in Jones' ruling noted above. ...

That's OK, Ed, just keep yourself ignorant, then. After all, Orwell said "Ignorance is Strength". You might be interested to learn that San Diego (back when it was defending the lease) brought up almost exactly what you just did; they claimed that the city leased property to many organizations, and the BSA was just one more such lease. If you had read the link I posted months ago, just a few days after the summary judgement, you would know why the judge didn't accept that as a valid argument (page 16). This is also why NJCubScouter won't bother to explain the first amendment to you; you've been given plenty of opportunities to learn from other people, or on your own, and you simply refuse to learn. And that's why it's pointless to try and engage in any kind of intelligent conversation with you.

I think they messed up in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, Ed. Is that what you meant, or could you cite an actual court decision and point out what part you think is a mistake?

The first amendment forbids the "establishment of religion", NOT the "establishment of a religion". As I said, you can read actual court decisions on the web, or choose to remain ignorant. Notice that "or I'll be your legal tutor" is not one of the choices.

Neither is "separation of powers" or "right to a fair trial", but the concepts are there. You can easily read historic first amendment court decisions on the web and actually understand what it means, or you can choose ignorance.

San Diego decided to bow out of the legal dispute and pay the ACLU's legal fees; the Boy Scouts can continue the lawsuit if they like, but they'll have to foot the bill: http://www.kfmb.com/topstory21345.html San Diego and the American Civil Liberties Union settled a lawsuit over two leases between the city and the Boy Scouts, both sides announced Thursday. The ACLU suit, filed in 2000, challenged the city's subsidy of the Desert Pacific Boy Scout Council through leases for public land in Balboa Park and Fiesta Island Aquatic Park. In July 2003, a federal judge ruled the Balboa Park lease violates First Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state. The judge also put over for trial the matter of the Fiesta Island lease. Under its settlement with the ACLU, the city will take no position on the validity of the leases in future legal proceedings, and the city will pay the ACLU's attorneys $790,000 for legal fees incurred during the three years of litigation and $160,000 in court costs. "The Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways," said ACLU volunteer attorney M.E. Stephens. "Having gone to great lengths to establish that discrimination against gays and (athiests) is essential to their mission, and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment, they cannot now turn around and ask the people of San Diego to foot the bill for that discrimination." The settlement also relieves the city of any liability to pay future ACLU legal costs. "While it may be legally acceptable for the Scouts to privately discriminate against so many boys and their families, it has never been acceptable for the city to bar those families from a public park," said ACLU co-counsel Mark Danis. "Government has a constitutional duty to treat everyone equally and fairly." The Boy Scouts of America, which is not a party to the settlement, has the right to continue to present defenses to ACLU legal claims. The national organization, based in Irving, Texas, also retains possession of the leased properties during the pending litigation, including all appeals, according to Deputy City Attorney John Mullen. The BSA says the mission of the organization is to "prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." The Scout Oath reads: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight." (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Hey, Sinatra shared his hookers...

Scoutldr pointed right to the problem; the CofL council can't merely refrain from "unlawful discrimination" to get rent-free government property, they have to refrain from discrimination as required by the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which would mean they can't discriminate against gays or atheists. And their new policy will get tested immediately as local groups press for the reinstatement of Greg Lattera, who is both gay and an atheist. An organization that didn't practice discrimination would take about an hour to write an acceptable policy; the fact that this has dragged on for months should be an obvious sign that the CofL council can't meet the city's requirements no matter what they attempt to do.

eisely wrote: The paramount responsibility of the President of the United States is to see to the safety of the republic. In times of war civil liberties are compromised. So let me see this official "declaration of war", so when it's repealed I'll know when these "compromises" on civil liberties will be lifted... Oh, it's a metaphorical war, there is no real declaration? So my civil liberties are compromised as long as the government thinks they need to be forever? And you see nothing dangerous in this?

If people want to see what a REAL religious test looks like: http://www.ljworld.com/section/stateregional/story/155184 Kansas City, Mo. A member of a panel interviewing applicants for a judgeship in eastern Kansas asked candidates if they believe in the Ten Commandments, surprising several lawyers who applied for the job. "I was a little taken aback," lawyer Darrell Smith said. "It's my understanding that the Bill of Rights prohibits a religious test for an office of public trust." ... Although Kansas law states "no religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust," Harrington said his question about the Ten Commandments was appropriate. "The oath of office for district judge includes So help me God,"' Harrington said. "So why wouldn't the Ten Commandments be an appropriate question?" Edward Bigus, an attorney who practices in Johnson County, disagreed. "It shouldn't come up in any job interview," Bigus said. "I learned that in business law when I was an undergrad." ... Dick Kurtenbach, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri, said he was contacted about the judicial interviews. "It does raise a potential civil liberties concern," he said. The ACLU plans to discuss the complaint at a meeting in early January -- two weeks after Sebelius is expected to select a judge. "If these lawyers want to take some action, they're perfectly capable of doing so," Kurtenbach said.

Well, Steven Spielberg thought well enough of Scouting to make Indiana Jones an early Boy Scout in IJ and the Last Crusade, but he obviously doesn't agree with the BSA's current discriminatory attitude, so maybe that doesn't count.

So I guess you'll have no quarrel with people who declare the US to be a "white nation", since a majority are white, eh? I, for one, question the motives of those who say the US is a "christian nation" OR a "white nation".

And if you read the constitution, you'd find that the government believes in religious freedom, and not religious favoritism. Like you, I don't want a religion forced on me and my kids, either.

The ACLU defends religious speech, if it isn't governmental speech. The government shouldn't be making religious pronouncements. And as for this country being a "christian nation", you should read the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted under Washington's administration and signed in Adams' administration in 1797, which includes the sentence "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Well, the only dignity it would cost you would be to admit you were wrong. The Dale decision has a short synopsis of what lead to his dismissal: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html ... Dale applied for adult membership in the Boy Scouts in 1989. The Boy Scouts approved his application for the position of assistant scoutmaster of Troop 73. Around the same time, Dale left home to attend Rutgers University. After arriving at Rutgers, Dale first acknowledged to himself and others that he is gay. He quickly became involved with, and eventually became the copresident of, the Rutgers University Lesbian/Gay Alliance. In 1990, Dale attended a seminar addressing the psychological and health needs of lesbian and gay teenagers. A newspaper covering the event interviewed Dale about his advocacy of homosexual teenagers need for gay role models. In early July 1990, the newspaper published the interview and Dales photograph over a caption identifying him as the copresident of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance. Later that month, Dale received a letter from Monmouth Council Executive James Kay revoking his adult membership. Dale wrote to Kay requesting the reason for Monmouth Councils decision. Kay responded by letter that the Boy Scouts specifically forbid membership to homosexuals. App. 137. ...

This is a "correction"? First, you agree with NJ that Dale did not discuss his sexuality with Scouts, so there's no "correction" there. Then you make this contradictory statement: Afer that Mr. Dale began showing up to rallies dressed in a BSA uniform he was no longer authorized to wear. In fact, Mr. Dale's involvement in Scouting was brought to the attention of the media because he wore the uniform to a rally while still a registered member of the BSA. He forced the issue and then wanted to make hay with the consequences. As your own earlier quotes show, Dale was thrown out of the BSA just days after a newspaper article appeared that identified him as a gay man; but above, you're stating that he wore his uniform to a rally while still a registered member of the BSA. But this is false; all the rallies he appeared at were after the BSA had thrown him out. The Rutgers article about the Lesbian and Gay Alliance didn't mention his membership in the BSA, and he did not appear in uniform. Dale in no way "forced" the issue, the BSA simply threw him out when they found out he was gay.

Big_Dog says: The chairman of the uw said " we need to allocate the money to agencies that serve the entire community." Food collected by SFF is distributed to all. No one says if you're gay, you can't have this can of spam. No one says after an eagle project, "If you're gay, you can't use this wheelchair ramp." No, but if you're gay and try to join the Scouts, the Scout say "you can't join." That's the problem.

Here's a long article on the CofL situation: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/article.asp?ArtID=6396

Looks like Congress might bring back the draft (and include women); both bills introduced back in January: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. ... The DoD has recently asked for volunteers for local draft boards: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3242923.stm (I can't find any mainstream US news outlets covering this).

Hey OGE, get the equal rights amendment passed and it probably would be unconstitutional to only register males; until then, it's constitutional to register/draft only men, or only women, or both men & women. I agree with your comment that it should be both or neither, but since there's no constitutional violation (unless you can make a successful equal protection argument, or throw out the draft completely as involuntary servitude, or something), you'll have to convince congress to change the law, or change the constitution.

Its Trail Day writes: Looks like somthing has been worked out. See: http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10287924&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6 This isn't an agreement, it only has statements from the BSA side. They're essentially saying they want to continue to practice discrimination while getting city property for free; even if the city agrees with this (which I doubt), it's sure to bring a lawsuit.

However, I think the nature argument does work when one demonstrates a truth within the bounds of human biology - the same species. So if homosexuality is not learned, how is it passed on from one generation to the next. Are lesbians and gay men secretly meeting to breed future generations? The obvious truth - homosexuality is a learned behavior. If it was hereditary as some insist, the homosexual population would be dwindling down with each passing generation. Well, I'll believe actual biologists over people like yourself who use religious arguments and who don't know about things like kin selection.