Merlyn_LeRoy

robk: >Once more, from the beginning -- Silverman won his case because the state established a religous test for public office, which while expressly prohibited by Article 6, also fails the First Amendment prohibition on state establishment of religion, since it requires the citizen to follow a religion to receive the full benefit of citizenship. No, it didn't require "following a religion", it only required belief in god. These are two different things (of course, the first amendment prohibits the government from requiring either one for public office). ... >My main purpose has been to expose and highlight to those on my side of the issue the underlying truth of what the First Amendment really says, to ensure they fully understand the truth of the matter. Well, you don't understand it at all; here's what you said earlier: >I have completely covered the religion aspect of the First Amendment. It forbids congress from forcing a religion on anyone, or prohibiting anyone from his chosen religion. No more, no less. Here's a quote from Everson v. board of education: 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. Using your interpretation, passing a law that aids all religions would be constitutional; the court said in Everson that it isn't. And here's Abington v. Schempp: this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another.

bob white: >The links provided by you and OGe refer to a case that was settled on Oct. 24, 2001. it in volved only the Chicago School System and its affiliates and provides for Learning for life, carrier scouting and scouting for the handicapped to continue to be sponsored by the Chigacgo governement and afiliates and allows tradional scouting use of school property after school just as other private organizations and allows the BSA to recruit membership during school hours as other organizations do. >This case did not include as plaintifs the federal government or the FECBSA. So where is that suit? I am still unable to find it. It is not listed as a pending ACLU action. Read the link I gave earlier: http://xxx.infidels.org/~nap/bsa_IL_District.html It's a class action suit, and names a representative agency for both an Illinois state and federal chartering org. The federal one named is USTRANSCOM. Also see e.g. section 69: 69. The Taxpayers bring this nationwide class action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Federal Government Agency Class, consisting of each Federal Government Agency that expends federal tax funds in the operation of Scouting Units chartered by BSA. It's a class action suit naming ALL federal government agencies that charter BSA units. The only Winkler item with a date of Oct 24, 2001 that I could find was the chicago school board vote to settle the case in the ACLU's favor by dropping all discriminatory charters; but this is only the action of one defendant, the chicago school board. http://www.cps.k12.il.us/AboutCPS/Board/Board_Actions/FY01-02/octbdact102401/01-1024-AR3.pdf Notice that this agreement prohibits schools from chartering any discriminatory BSA units, etc. and repayment of the ACLU's attorney's fees. In other words, the ACLU won. It's possible the federal part of the case was split off; I found a reference to "Winkler v. DoD" on a military site dated January, 2002.

robk: ... >How does that prevent you from creating your own scouting style organization? It doesn't; I've explained before. >>Partly yes" means that the first amendment covers more than what you claimed earlier. >No, it does not. In this instance, the law struck down clearly violated the First Amendment prohibition on government requiring religion to qualify for the full benefit of citizenship. You admitted that the Silverman case was partly decided on first amendment grounds, and since the Silverman case didn't involve congress establishing a religion, that amendment covers more than what you claimed it did. Read some court decisions, like Torcaso v. Watkins or Abington v. Schemmp. The first amendment isn't nearly as limited as you think it is. >Membership in the BSA can in no way be construed as a right or benefit of citizenship. I've never claimed it did; however, the first amendment prohibits the military from running religiously discriminatory youth groups, because the government can't do that. >>>Moreover the US government gives no preference to the BSA over other organizations in this regard. >>Yes it does; the US military is chartering some BSA units. >The US military charters other similar organizations, which prima facie disproves your contention. Which ones? Remember, to create the same constitutional problems, the US military would have to sponsor a group that discriminates on the basis of religion, and the military would be in charge of selecting leadership of that group (and be required to discriminate on the basis of religion in selecting the leadership). One of the requirements of the chartering organization is to select the leadership. to kwc57: >Quit picking and choosing what you want to use as evidence and what you don't. If you decided to create a Private Organization in the same vein as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts or Campfire, you could. Start reading what I write; I haven't said otherwise. I was pointing out that atheists can't create a scout group in the US because of the BSA. >Here is the document again that spells out the military's policy concerning Private Organizations on Military Installations. It is a document for ALL private organizations.....not just the Boy Scouts. Read it, learn it, live it. Your argument is invalid. And read my arguments again; I'm talking about units CHARTERED by the military, not just private organizations that meet on bases. It's like the difference between a public school running a KKK group (illegal) vs. a public school allowing the general public to meet in the school after hours and a KKK group meets there (legal). But apparently, this is too difficult for most of you to grasp. Why do you think the ACLU won the earlier Chicago case?

>WOSM cannot prevent you from founding Atheist Scouts of the World. The BSA can (and will) prevent you from using the word 'scout' in the US. But, like I said before, this isn't relevant to government religious discrimination. >>Silverman was struck down on first amendment grounds... >Partly yes, but mostly on the clear injunction in Article 6 of the US Constitution against religous tests for public office. "Partly yes" means that the first amendment covers more than what you claimed earlier. >Again, I'd like to see the actual opinion for Welsh v. US, but as you've described it, it has no relevance to the case at hand. How is conscientious objector status similar to membership in a private youth organization? I only cited Welsh to show that your narrow interpretation of the first amendment is wrong; Welsh was decided on first amendment grounds, and the court's interpretation doesn't match yours. ... >There are no governmental benefits to membership nor consequences for non-membership in the BSA. It is entirely voluntary. Moreover the US government gives no preference to the BSA over other organizations in this regard. Yes it does; the US military is chartering some BSA units. >Any private organization is welcome to serve the membership they desire. The US military isn't a private organization; it can't have a "no atheists" youth group. It can't discriminate on the basis of religion. >These are the sorts of point the Supreme Court will consider. I doubt it will get that high; it'll probably get decided in district court.

bob white: >I have been trying to find the pending ACLU suit that Merlyn has talked about. the original complaint is here: http://xxx.infidels.org/~nap/bsa_IL_District.html It's been amended since the original filing to add things like HUD block grants, but I don't think the amended version is online.

compass: >Not going to address what I said. Out of your comfort zone, sir? No, just not relevant; when people try to dismiss discrimination against atheists by telling them to start their own atheist scouts, I point out it's not possible due to WOSM rules. But that doesn't really have anything to do with stopping government support of religious discrimination. robk: >>Well, the supreme court disagrees with you. The Silverman & Welsh cases easily show that. >Silverman is about a religous test for public office. That's not what we're discussing. Silverman was struck down on first amendment grounds, and you claimed that the first amendment didn't cover such things. The Silverman case shows you're wrong. Welsh v. US was about consciencious objector status, and the law had only religious provisions for gaining CO status; Welsh was agnostic and sued to get it, and won on first amendment grounds.

RobK: > I have completely covered the religion aspect of the First Amendment. It forbids congress from forcing a religion on anyone, or prohibiting anyone from his chosen religion. No more, no less. Well, the supreme court disagrees with you. The Silverman & Welsh cases easily show that. ... >>"[A]llowed" organizations are not the same as organizations run by the military itself. I've been talking about BSA units ponsored by the military. >Your implication is absurd. The military makes available facilities, possibly some supplies, and a Charter Organization Representative. The BSA itself says the chartering org. is in charge of selecting leadership; yet the BSA requires that the military practice unlawful religious discrimination in carrying this out. And again, you seem incapable of distinguishing between a group sponsored by the military, and a group sponsored by a private organization that meets on military bases. These are two different things, but you use them interchangably. Do you have any idea why Chicago stopped chartering 28 BSA units when the ACLU sued them?

kwc57: >The military base does not RUN the scouting program. They are the charter organization that sponsors it. According to the BSA, the chartering organization selects the leadership of the unit, and can replace them any time. I'd call that running the unit; they're completely in charge of who runs it (except they can't choose an atheist, of course). >You never responed to my post pointing out that the agreement you are so taken with also states that the military entity expects the FECBSA to operate the scouting program based on the BSA policies and procedures which includes excluding atheist. Unlawful clauses of contracts aren't enforcable; the military could sign an agreement with an organization to run a "no Jews" youth group, and that wouldn't make it legal, either. You'll just have to learn your civics lesson the hard way.

RobK: >How does a military base chartering a Boy Scout troop require anyone to follow a religion? It isn't; but your previous paragraph didn't outline everything that the first amendment forbids. For example, if the military tried to create a youth group that excluded Jews, that wouldn't violate anything in your opening paragraph, either. But it wouldn't be lawful. ... >Moreover, the troop is not the only youth organization allowed. Please note that now you're talking about something else entirely; "allowed" organizations are not the same as organizations run by the military itself. I've been talking about BSA units sponsored by the military. >If you wanted to start up Atheist Scouts of the World, with atheism as a requirement, ...which is impossible, since WOSM will only allow one Scout organization per country... >...and you had enough interest to get a troop up on the base, I'm sure you'd be allowed all the privileges that the BSA troop is allowed. It would also be unlawful for the military to sponsor a youth group that only allowed atheists. >Further, to disallow an organization with religous requirements from operating under the auspices of the military base would be in violation of the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the First Amendment. Only if the military welcomes all outside organizations onto their bases, which they don't. Military bases aren't public forums.

Rooster writes: >>Sorry, you just don't understand what "religious discrimination" means. Read some actual court decisions. >kwc57, if I was you, I'm wouldn't waste the time. Yes, by all means, when addressing a dispute that concerns the US legal system, the best possible route is to purposely keep yourself ignorant of actual court decisions on the topic in question. "Be unprepared" would be a good motto to keep in mind.

OK bob, I'm willing to wait for the outcome of the ACLU lawsuit; if you knew any constitutional law, you'd know that the military WILL be kicking out all BSA units.

Sorry, you just don't understand what "religious discrimination" means. Read some actual court decisions.

bob white: >>"Uh, no. That particular clause was strictly about nondiscrimination," >No it's not. Here read it again.. >4.5.4.1. that the FECBSA and the USAGSO-WP will not: permit unlawful discrimination in their membership based on race, color, religion, or national origin. >It does not say that the BSA will not discriminate. It says very specifically that it will not unlawfully discriminate. And the courts agree that the BSA in not unlawfull in its actions. But then the clause is totally meaningless; the BSA can lawfully discriminate in ALL the ways that the clause prohibits, so WHAT IS THE CLAUSE FOR? Then you come back and say it's about "unlawful ACTIVITIES", which it isn't. It only addresses nondiscrimination, as I pointed out. And, as I also keep pointing out to you, I've actually CONTACTED COMNAVFORJAPAN and asked them about this specific question, and they disagree with you as to what the clause means.

bob white: >My guess is to let anyone reading the document or questioning if the scouting program is doing any unlawfull activity on military bases know that the military will not allow any group to practice unlawfull activities with its member families. Uh, no. That particular clause was strictly about nondiscrimination, and I think we both agree that the BSA, as a private organization, can choose to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, national origin, etc. So the clause is meaningless given your interpretation. Which is why I went to the trouble of actually asking the COMNAVFORJAPAN Public Affairs office about it. to kwc57: >Why would an atheist want to join an organization that values religious principles? Simply to be disruptive? You might want to ask other people that; I'm trying to remove government support from the BSA, which I consider to be a dishonest organization that promotes bigotry against atheists.

bob white: >You keep misrepresenting the contents of the CNFJ 5720.11F. It says the BSA cannot take part in unlawfull discrimination, and the courts say that the BSA DOES NOT discriminate unlawfully. Did you mention that to the PA officer? Yes, I just got through *telling you* that. The first thing I did was point out that the BSA can legally discriminate on the basis of religion, race, national origin, etc. so the clause appears to be meaningless. The Public Affairs office said it means that FECBSA has agreed to not practice religious discrimination. Tell me, why does the clause exist, in your view? Since the BSA can legally discriminate in ALL the ways described in CNFJ 5720.11F, what's it FOR?

doug: >I am anxious to know your opinion of the origin of the laws that you you think are being broken. Where do these morals come from. Humans, of course.

bob white: >That document recognizes the BSA as a Private Organization serving youth members of DOD families. as well as non-DOD members. It does not require the BSA to change any of its values. It does say in section 4.5.4.1. that the FECBSA and the USAGSO-WP Will not: Permit unlawful discrimination in their membership based on race, color, religion, or national origin. >So they see the BSA as a private organization and they cannot permit unlawful discrimination. which takes us directly back to the supreme court ruling which says that the BSA as a private organization does not discriminate illegally. This was actually the first question I asked the Public Affairs office at COMNAVFORJAPAN; of course, given your interpretation, the regulation makes no sense at all, since, as a private organization, the BSA could practice discrimination in their membership based on race, color, religion, or national origin, so the clause has absolutely no purpose. What the Public Affairs office told me was this: >The reason the FECBSA or USAGSO-WP cannot or will not discriminate is because our instruction says so. That is the law. Ask them yourself at n01pas@cnfj.navy.mil; they clearly expect FECBSA to not discriminate on the basis of religion, based on CNFJ 5720.11F.

bob white: >My point that Merlyn continues to avoid is that his disagreement is with the governemrnt agencies that willing use the scouting program. The point you continue to avoid is the BSA's lying to continue these disagreements; as I've already said, FECBSA agreed to the Navy's nondiscrimination requirements in CNFJ 5720.11F. If the FECBSA was honest, they would NOT have agreed, because FECBSA is promising to not discriminate on the basis of religion. If the military requires the BSA to not discriminate, yet the BSA does by falsely entering into nondiscrimination agreements, why is my disagreement with the military agencies that the BSA is defrauding? Shouldn't the blame go to FECBSA, for entering into a nondiscrimination agreement it knew it couldn't and wouldn't follow? There are similar examples of various BSA councils signing nondiscrimination agreements with the local United Way to receive funding. And this is an organization teaching ethics to atheist children in public schools. And to OGE: yes, you seem to understand the issues I'm going after.

bob white: >>"Yes, and the BSA signed an agreement not to discriminate on the basis of religion; yet it does just that." >No it doesn't! Which religion do we discriminate against? Yes, it does; when dealing with the government and discrimination, you need to use legal definitions, and the courts have always ruled that excluding atheists is religious discrimination. As way of an example, if the BSA excluded polytheists, that would also be religious discrimination, even though "polytheism" itself isn't a religion, it's a tenet of some religions such as Hinduism. It would be unlawful for the government to run a "no polytheists" group just as it would be for it to run a "no atheists" youth group. using your bizarre and irrational reasoning, discriminating against multiracial people isn't racial discrimination. Now I see you're claiming I've posted "misinformation" without detailing exactly what I've said that's wrong; meanwhile, you post blatantly false information, such as your assertion that discrimination against atheists isn't religious discrimination, and your earlier assertion that Chicago didn't charter discriminatory BSA units in the past. And to ed mori: > How does what the BSA does differ from any private organization that has membership requirements? Uh, you may have noticed I've been talking about government agencies chartering BSA units; the KKK is a private organization, and if the government ran Klan Youth Corps units, I think people would complain about that, too. However, since you haven't noticed this, and since you seem to have a nonsensical definition of "discrimination", I think it would be pointless to debate you.

bob white: >1st, I would appreciate an answer to the question I have posed. What are you trying to accomplish here? I'm fighting discrimination against atheists. >Second, there are a lot of people in the navy, I don't know who you spoke with or their relationship to a scout unit. But if a navy base is the chartering organization for a scouting unit then someone had to ask to use the Scouting program. Yes, and the BSA signed an agreement not to discriminate on the basis of religion; yet it does just that. That's dishonest. ... >The BSA didn't force them to be a charter organization, they chose to, and they chose to abide by the values, policies and methods of the scouting program. The Navy didn't force them to agree to follow CNFJ 5720.11F, either, yet the FECBSA agreed to follow it, which includes not discriminating on the basis of religion. >f you think they shouldn't be a charter organization then you should tell them not us. It's very telling that you can't even see dishonesty on the part of the BSA. As to ed mori: >Where is this [unlawful for the gov't to run "no atheists" youth groups] addressed in the Constitution? Probably the same place where there is no mention of the separation of church & state. Yes, the first amendment. Do you know what the courts have said on the issue? By the way "right to a fair trial" and "separation of powers" are more phrases not found in the constitution.

bob white replied to me: >>"Why isn't the BSA honest enough to not issue charters to government agencies, which the BSA knows can't enforce its religious requirements?" >But that's not the case at all Merlyn. Every Charter organization is aware of the scouting membership requirements This is false, and I know it firsthand; I asked Navy Public Affairs office at COMNAVFORJAPAN about the Far East Council of the BSA, and units that are chartered by the military, because FECBSA is operating under DoD administration instruction CNFJ 5720.11F, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The PA office doesn't seem to know that the BSA practices religious discrimination, nor that units chartered by the Navy, such as Troop 22 chartered by NAF Atsugi, are required to refuse membership to atheists. I can understand why the Navy would get the impression that the BSA doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion, because the BSA (at least the Far East Council) has agreed under 5720.11F not to discriminate on the basis of religion; it's just that the BSA isn't keeping its word.

kwc57: >The best atheists or gays will probably ever be able to do is stop government entities from chartering BSA units. If that happens, 99.9% of those units will have someone step in almost immediately to start a new charter and they will go on without ever skipping a beat. Why isn't the BSA honest enough to not issue charters to government agencies, which the BSA knows can't enforce its religious requirements? If the BSA can do so easily without them, why weren't they dropped years ago? And I don't understand those of you who say you don't understand my motives; if the government were running "whites only" youth groups, would you really be surprised if nonwhites were working to stop that?

sctmom: >>"The government isn't a private group; using your logic, the government could run a "no Jews" or "whites only" group using the same technique. " >Then the govt. shouldn't sponsor the units. I think most units will find a sponsor. That's what I've been saying for years, yet the BSA continues to issue charters to goverment agencies that it knows can't practice their religious discrimination. Not terribly honest of them.

doug: >I guess you are just going to avoid my direct questions from 10-31. You seemed to think this forum is only for scouts or ex-scouts, so why should I bother answering you?

ed mori: >>"But when a government agency charters a BSA unit, they're running a "no atheists" youth group, which is unlawful." >And it says this is unlawful where? The constitution. The government can't run a "no atheists" group any more than it can run a "no Jews" group. >Since the BSA is a private organization their members must meet the requirements of the organization. Atheists don't so they can't join. The Supreme Court even agreed.! The government isn't a private group; using your logic, the government could run a "no Jews" or "whites only" group using the same technique. Well, I see most of the rest of you have run out of arguments and are just name-calling now. Typical Boy Scouts. Let me know if you ever want to actually debate the issues.