Merlyn_LeRoy

It's worse than that -- men don't even wear toothbrush mustaches anymore, unless they're imitating Hitler (or Chaplin or Oliver Hardy).

Yeah, but Buddhists and nazis both use swastikas.

But why that particular work, OGE? If a court was reviewing this, your earlier remarks about Muslims and sinks would probably have the courts conclude your motive was promoting your religious views.

Beavah writes, reply to me: "Meanwhile, he has no qualms advocating that atheist kids be left out in the cold." If they are, it's only because fellows like yourself who could provide 'em a strong program don't step up to da plate. Wrong, and this is exactly why having public schools discriminate is a problem. Because there are still plenty of people like you who would see no problem in cutting off a group you dislike from a program paid for by all, and contemptuously telling them to "get their own program", whether that group is atheists or Jews or blacks or whatever.

What's the secular reason for selecting that particular artwork, OGE?

Beavah's challenge is just as I described it; a faux, holier-than-thou charade. Meanwhile, he has no qualms advocating that atheist kids be left out in the cold.

You mean his faux holier-than-thou challenge to work with kids, which will somehow convince me that some kids ought to be discriminated against on religious grounds?

Beavah, you're still just making nonsense assertions that you're right and public schools CAN discriminate on the basis of religion on the slightest whim.

It's OK if you have a secular reason (and anyone can use them regardless of religion). In addition to breaking sinks, it was also something of a safety issue. Some time back I comment on a thread about school holidays, and the most reasonable one I've ever heard of actually asked parents of students which days they were planning on having their kids away from school (for any reason), and assigned school closings for the days when the most students would be absent (and they tried not to schedule tests on days with high absences). Now, it's a pretty safe bet that some religious holidays would be among the most absent days, but that doesn't make the school's decision-making process illegitimate. (fix typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Yes, Ed. But in the only case I know of, the existing sinks were getting broken because so many people were washing their feet in them, so there was a legitimate reason to install sinks for people to wash their feet.

Beavah, you're the one lacking a credible case; you keep trying to justify religious discrimination on the flimsiest of grounds, i.e. "we'd like to." You need something on the order of a "compelling state interest" joined with a least-restrictive means test to even come close, and you don't have either. There is NO compelling reason for any public school to charter a BSA unit, since schools can simply make up their own similar program or use another program like Camp Fire that doesn't discriminate. Using your criteria, schools could go back to segregation, since they'd serve both white and non-white students, which is all you use to justify separate-but-supposedly-equal programs by public schools.

Correct Ed, just don't confuse sinks that anyone can use with sinks reserved for Muslims.

No Beavah, NJ and I make very straightforward legal arguments -- here's one: 1) public schools can't practice religious discrimination 2) chartering a pack requires the chartering organization to practice religious discrimination 3) public schools can't charter a pack If you say the above is wrong, what part is wrong? Statement 1, 2, or the logic used to arrive at statement 3?

Both sides are asking for a summary judgement; a trial could start later this month unless there's a summary judgement before then. http://epgn.com/view/full_story/6838124/article-City-requests-immediate-eviction-of-Scouts?instance=2nd_top_story There's also this part: The motion is accompanied by an affidavit signed by R. Duane Perry of the LGBT Working Group, stating that the Cradle of Liberty Councils former executive director attributed a suicide to the Scouts antigay policy. On one or more occasions, the Boy Scouts then-executive director, William T. Dwyer 3d, told us that he personally opposed the Boy Scouts policy of discrimination, because discrimination is wrong and because of a suicide that he attributed to that policy, Perrys affidavit states. Perry couldnt be reached for comment. Dwyer, who resigned as executive director in October 2009, couldnt be reached for comment. Anyone here know anything about this?

Correct Gonzo1, but that includes not having public schools run private clubs.

Beavah writes: Good citizenship and good personal ethics and good mental health generally aren't about bein' right or wrong on some petty issue or another. It's about bigger stuff, eh? Beavah, you constantly dismiss the rights of atheist students. Merely arguing that atheist students HAVE rights is apparently unethical to you, because that would mean schools couldn't ignore their rights to run BSA units. vol_scouter writes: Those who accuse atheists of wishing to rid all pubic life of religious expression, I considered overstating the case. Merlyn has been successful in making me reconsider those views. His intolerance, anger, and contempt for those who disagree with him has made me concerned that perhaps some of those reports may deserve some credence. vol_scouter, if you want to draw ridiculously fallacious conclusions about atheists, I can't stop you; however, I suspect what you're really trying to do is just insult me but you lack the guts to be direct. And, by the way, I haven't seen any atheist who wants to rid all public life of religious expression, but I've seen plenty of religious types who say that's what atheists want when atheists prevent government officials from using their office to promote their religious views, or when atheists stop violations of their rights.

And by the way Beavah, your idea of "balance" is that it's OK to exclude atheist kids if it helps other kids; I think official government exclusion of one class of people based on their religious views is both unconstitutional and dangerous. You can allow your own civil rights to be ignored, but not those of other people.

Beavah writes: Now, Merlyn, in many a thread you've shouted "liar, liar!" when anybody has done to you the same thing you just did to me. Then post a link. I have called people "liars" when they make false claims about what I think. What I said about you is that you think public schools can discriminate on the basis of religion. "A public body like a school board has discretion, eh? It is free to do what it feels best for its kids and program, includin' chartering a BSA unit" is stating that public schools can discriminate on the basis of religion. My statement was accurate. Now, if you'd like to grow a spine and admit that you have stated that public schools can practice religious discrimination, I might feel a little less contempt for you. But you'd have to lose the annoying pseudo-bayou accent.

Beavah writes, replying to me: "By the way, do you still think public schools can discriminate on the basis of religion?" At no time have I ever said that, so I guess you're just being a liar again, eh? Nope, you've clearly advocated that public schools ought to be able to discriminate on the basis of religion, as you have said they ought to be able to charter BSA units that exclude atheists (which would require the school to practice religious discrimination). Here's just one example: "A public body like a school board has discretion, eh? It is free to do what it feels best for its kids and program, includin' chartering a BSA unit." vol_scouter writes: Denying scouting to youth by the actions of people not in the community I can only see as harmful to children but you may need to work with our youth to see that. Would that include e.g. people at BSA national who insist on kicking out atheist kids even if the local pack/troop and council want them to stay? Or don't atheist kids count?

Beavah, a school that only allows groups that allow any student to join is not discriminating against a particular group, correct? So that would be a valid school policy. By the way, do you still think public schools can discriminate on the basis of religion?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

If you were paying attention, NancyB cited her own school earlier in this thread, which is why we're on this tangent now.

Ed, if a school has a policy that ONLY groups that allow all students to join can meet, that would only allow an Explorer Post.

Ed, it's possible that public schools may be able to require that all groups that meet in the school allow all students to join. As far as I've seen, there have been no court opinions in this area. Imposing such a requirement on ALL groups wouldn't be discriminating against any one group if it's uniformly enforced.

beavah writes: Your interpretation of the meaning of the law and the associated regulations would be incorrect. Coming from someone who still insists that public schools CAN practice religious discrimination, that's laughable. Nothing in that act says that schools can't require all groups to allow all students to join any groups that meet at the school, and I don't know of any court decisions regarding that. "Got any examples of that? They actually exclude expectant fathers? " Yah, all over da place In other words, no, you don't have an actual example, just your waving hands.

"If a group doesn't allow non-christians to join it cannot meet at school. " This at least is simply not true Got a cite for that Beavah? The federal Equal Access Act only says that all groups must be treated equally. If ALL groups are required to not discriminate, that's equal treatment. So, for example, school districts and public alternative education programs frequently offer infant caregiving classes to young mothers which exclude all male students. Got any examples of that? They actually exclude expectant fathers?