Merlyn_LeRoy

Hey vol_scouter, I notice you have time to continue to disparage me, but still you haven't managed to quote ANYTHING I've written that supports this statement of yours: "You are not interested in preventing the abuse of First Amendment guarantees except to outlaw public religious expression. " So I'll continue to call you a liar.

Gonzo1 writes: I asked my district executive yesterday how many units are chartered to these public entities across the country. Would you believe that it is less than 15. No, I wouldn't believe that. And why isn't that number zero? It's already been five years since the BSA said they wouldn't do that. There are less than 15 scout units chartered to government entities across the country. I'd say you're wrong. Soon, it will be zero and you won't have anything to complain about. Yeah, the BSA will fix it "real soon now," even though they've already had five years.

vol_scouter writes: In this thread and in a recent thread you displayed an intolerance for allowing a scout group from meeting in a school but saw nothing wrong with an AA group doing the same. Then you'll have NO PROBLEM quoting exactly what I said, right? Right? Why haven't you done this yet? You are intolerant. You are clearly expert about twisting the thread and never addressing those things to which you can not respond so I am just copying your own method I actually QUOTE things people write. You just keep lying about me, but you don't QUOTE what you claim I've said. Now, here's something I've written in this thread: No, because the government likewise won't (and can't) charter groups that exclude other people, such as a group that only allows atheists to join. OK, now right here I've stated that the government can't charter BSA groups AND they likewise can't charter a group that only allows atheists. And here's another bit from me: Any other group that practices religious discrimination would be treated identically Equal treatment AGAIN, as stated by me. Now, here's I'm referring to an all-white basketball team: For all those who think a public school could charter a BSA unit, how about if public schools formed teams for the new "All-American Basketball Alliance"? It's whites-only, but I'm sure that's OK if nobody is required to play on the team, and people can still start their own sports teams. And refusing to form such a team is discrimination against whites, and we all know schools can't practice racial discrimination, so that means they're REQUIRED to form them. And here I point out that the legal issues are similar: The legal issues are the same; since some people are STILL putting forth the bizarre view that NOT chartering a BSA unit is somehow religious discrimination against those who would like to join, then NOT creating an all-white basketball team must also be racial discrimination against those who would like to join that. Now, if THIS is what you're referring to, I'm afraid you can't even read. But I have no idea WHAT you're referring to, because I keep demanding you QUOTE ME and you keep RUNNING AWAY.

vol_scouter, YOU lied about ME. YOU need to quote something I wrote to support YOUR assertions. Here is what YOU wrote: "You are not interested in preventing the abuse of First Amendment guarantees except to outlaw public religious expression. " You have so far REFUSED to support your assertion above; you feel free to write lies about me, but not support them. I will continue to call you a liar until you support your own assertions about me.

Well vol_scouter, assuming you're referring to this thread, the only one google finds with "madison vol_scouter merlyn_leroy": http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=223949&p=6 OK, what in the above thread supports your assertions about me? vol_scouter writes: You are intolerant of those who believe in reading the entire First Amendment and resort to calling me names. I've called you a liar because you wrote lies about me. That's not namecalling. I have more important things to do than to do searches to prove that I am correct. Like I predicted, you can't back up your lies (of course you can't, because they're lies). So now you say you're just too busy. Not too busy to lie about me, but too busy to back up your assertions. And spare me your vile false "pity."

vol_scouter, instead of posting anything I've written to support his lies, tries to throw the responsibility back on me: Where have you ever supported the rights of the people to exercise religion in public as called for in the First Amendment? Look, YOU accused ME of this: "You are not interested in preventing the abuse of First Amendment guarantees except to outlaw public religious expression. " You're LYING. You need to post things I have actually written to support your claim. It is painful for it to be pointed out to you that you are intolerant of others whereas those of us on the other side are tolerant. I don't consider lying about my views "tolerant," nor do I consider advocating that government agencies be allowed to run private "no atheist" clubs to be "tolerant." You make up arguments of children being harmed in areas where you do not live and cannot know if that harm is taking place. You are to be pitied for the hate that you have of the majority of your fellow citizens. I truly hope that you can find some peace and happiness, cease meddling in others affairs, and learn tolerance of others. As expected, vol_scouter posts NOTHING to support his lies, only more self-important blather to show how much more tolerant and moral he is than me. Except for his lies, I suppose.

vol_scouter writes: Your responses to Beavah shows a intolerance and anger with those who do not share your world view. When they constantly advocate atheists being officially second-class citizens by having public schools discriminate against them, correct. I have no patience for people willing to sacrifice atheists' rights so they aren't personally inconvenienced. You clearly only care for atheist children. Wrong. I've consistently argued for equal treatment, in stark contrast to the innumerable arguments where atheists are expected to get whatever the majority decides to allow them. When presented with the idea of schools allowing after school activities for atheists along with Boy Scouts and others, you totally rejected the idea but were comfortable with schools supporting an atheist group. I did no such thing. Quote where I wrote this. You are not interested in preventing the abuse of First Amendment guarantees except to outlaw public religious expression. Well, now you're just lying. Of course you quote NO examples of anything I've actually written to support your lies. Ed writes: Sorry Merlyn but building a Muslim foot bath is more of a violation of the 1st Amendment than chartering a BSA unit. Atheists (and anyone else) can use the foot baths, Ed, but atheists can't join the BSA unit.

Beavah writes: Yah, Merlyn, I get it, eh? Yeh care about yourself and your agenda, but not about children in particular. I care about even the atheist children; you don't care about their rights. Again, usin' "violate civil rights" is another hurtful exaggeration, eh? No it isn't. There you go being dismissive again. If yeh actually care about people, yeh refrain from such labeling of other groups as violators and criminals and such. We teach boys to respect folks they disagree with, and treat 'em fairly and with dignity. Well, you've certainly advocated that atheists NOT be treated fairly. You seem to care about MY actions even though I'm pretty sure I don't live anywhere near you, either. I've already said I DO care about rights violations that happen elsewhere; you, on the other hand, wrote "I confess I'm not particularly fond of folks from outside of a jurisdiction makin' complaints. Not sure that it's any of my business what a school district in Arizona is doing." But you seem to care what *I* do even though I don't think I live near you. Yeh live near me here on Scouter.com, eh? Yeh seem to have an almost child-like need to hang out with us. So yah, sure, I care about you and your actions. Not because of what you're doin' to others. Frankly, you're affecting Scouting not a whit. I disagree; I had a lot to do with remove public school charters. ... So as a friend or at least a caring fellow citizen, You're no friend of mine, and your "caring" I can certainly do without. I'd encourage you to go volunteer in your local schools because you need to learn how to do something for people and not for a cause. You'll be happier for it. You'll accomplish a lot more. And yeh just might develop a more nuanced and mature perspective about schools and clubs and kids. "Nuance" that justifies official religious discrimination by public schools? Sorry, your "nuance" is reprehensible, and just a smokescreen for majoritarianism that ignores the rights of anyone outside your approved, special groups.

Gonzo1, a person's right ARE VIOLATED when a GOVERNMENT ENTITY offers a service that REQUIRES A RELIGIOUS TEST.

Ed writes: Muslim foot baths installed in a public school and paid for by public money is a straw man? Since you don't have to be Muslim to use them, yes Ed. Beavah, I get involved when first amendment rights are threatened. I know you don't care if a school outside your area violates other people's civil rights, but I do. For some reason, even though you don't care about actual civil rights violations not near you, you seem to care about MY actions even though I'm pretty sure I don't live anywhere near you, either. Which seems to say something about your warped priorities.

Certainly nothing you've posted shows anything, Ed. When you accuse me of straw man attacks, you post examples of me using analogies; when I ask for Muslims getting special treatment in schools, you post examples of equal treatment. Gonzo1, I'm concerned about illegal discrimination by my government. Too many people like you are willing to ignore discrimination against atheists.

I said to Gonzo1 " I'm sure it isn't the way you've described, with Muslims having special rights that members of other religions don't have." Then Ed posts some irrelevant links: http://thesop.org/story/usa/2009/11/20/maine-muslim-students-right-to-pray.php This link is about CAIR stating that a Muslim student has a right to pray, as do all students. http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/muslim_prayer_in_public_schools This link starts with a falsehood ("For years, Christian prayer has been banned in public schools") and makes mostly vague claims with no specifics ("These schools are giving the Islamic students breaks to pray during the school day" when just listing cities, not schools). In the one specific case mentioned in San Diego, you'll notice it also mentions Christians asking for the same accommodation. Statements by school officials indicate that they treat all religions equally: http://old.sandi.net:80/news/2007/religious_observances.html http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070801/news_lz1e1cohn.html So this isn't an example either. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/1347/exclusive-so-long-churchstate-separation-university-of-michigan-to-fund-muslim-footbaths/ Schlussel writing about church/state separation makes my irony meter explode. As pointed out before, these are not Muslim-only sinks.

Gonzo1 writes: I heard in the news recently that a public was forced to provide a place and time for muslim students to pray, each day the students were in the school, in accordance with theri religion. Do you see the irony here? A school forced to provide a place and time for muslim students to pray, but Christians and Jews are not allowed. Not allowed what? Christians and Jews (and atheists, and anyone else) have the same rights as Muslims in US public schools. But until you come up with a real reference, instead of something you "heard in the news recently," you haven't presented anything solid enough to comment on. I'm sure it isn't the way you've described, with Muslims having special rights that members of other religions don't have. I don't kow how many public schools now charter scout units, frankly, I don't care. I do. For the sake of "keeping up", I wish to remind you that the BSA is a private organization and can admit anyone it wants to. it can also refuse or reject admission as well. And public schools can't practice religious discrimination, so they can't own & operate private clubs that exclude people bases on their religion. I'm sorry you have a problem with that, I have a problem with the BSA continuing to charter units illegally to government entities. but seeing that you're an attorney, you should realize that the court has spoken. I'm not an attorney. You know Merlyn, sometimes we don't like a court's decisions, but we have to live by them, kinda like abortion. I don't agree with it, but hey, it's supposedly the law of the land, eventhough the woman in Roe vs. Wade has found God and regretted having an abortion. The point here is that the court has spoken. Now, all of us "pro-life" people are told to shut up by the pro-abortion people. You're smart, do the math. I'm fine with all the court precedents that prevent public schools from discriminating on the basis of religion.

Gonzo1 writes: A school is not REQUIRED to sponsor a scout unit, it may if it wishes, if the community wishes and if the entity wishes. Wrong. Sponsoring a scout unit requires the sponsoring unit to practice religious discrimination, and public schools can't do that. If cops want an explorer post, what's the big deal if the cops want, the kids want it, the community wants it. Nothing. But Explorer Posts don't exclude atheists (or gays or girls, for that matter). Do try and keep current. Now, we know that "Friends of XYZ school" can, the actual school can't. Right, because these are two different situations. I think it all boils down to this: We have something you want, either for yourself or as you claim to "advocate" for others, for them. I realize that not all members of this forum agree with me or you. The rules are the rules. I think "the rules are the rules" includes things like what public schools legally can and cannot do.

Gonzo1 writes: You continue to fail to see the Free Exercise thereof part. Wrong; "free exercise" does not mean "requires a government subsidy." I don't care if a government entity sponsors an atheist group, jewish group or whatever. I do. The government can't practice religious discrimination.

Well, you fail to see illegal government support of religious discrimination. And you didn't even check for white globetrotters.

See Bob Karstens and Seth Franco. Karstens played back during WWII; the Globetrotters were integrated before the military.

The legal issues are the same; since some people are STILL putting forth the bizarre view that NOT chartering a BSA unit is somehow religious discrimination against those who would like to join, then NOT creating an all-white basketball team must also be racial discrimination against those who would like to join that.

Why "can't it happen" Ed? The All-American Basketball Alliance really exists: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/whites-only-basketball-le_n_429281.html

For all those who think a public school could charter a BSA unit, how about if public schools formed teams for the new "All-American Basketball Alliance"? It's whites-only, but I'm sure that's OK if nobody is required to play on the team, and people can still start their own sports teams. And refusing to form such a team is discrimination against whites, and we all know schools can't practice racial discrimination, so that means they're REQUIRED to form them.

Beavah writes: What isn't really opinion is that Merlyn's claims of illegality are a bit exaggerated, eh? It's an open question. Then why did the BSA drop public school charters, Beavah? They never run from a court case that someone else has to pay for. Sorry, the claim that it might be legal for a public school to run a private club that excludes people for having the wrong religious views is completely, utterly laughable. And yes, legally, it's identical to a school running a private club that says Jews can't join.

The decennial census. Also, since "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation" this implies that the House is required to at least pay the president's salary. But yeah, I had to search for "shall"s.

So wouldn't you agree that by government not being able to charter a BSA unit.. then people who would be in that unit are not being treated equally BECAUSE OF their religion are - in fact having their equal protection violated No, because the government likewise won't (and can't) charter groups that exclude other people, such as a group that only allows atheists to join. They are being discriminated against because they believe a higher form exists. No, the group they want to form is being discriminated against because that group practices religious discrimination. Any other group that practices religious discrimination would be treated identically. If they really WERE "being discriminated against because they believe a higher form exists," then even if they tried to form a group that allowed everyone to join, they would be discriminated against because they (the people trying to form the group) still believe a higher form exists, regardless of whether the group they want to form excludes people or not. But that isn't the reason. The reason is the exclusionary policies of the group, not the religious views of the people trying to start the group.

I didn't say bad musicians. I said kids with no musical talent. Ed, like I said, musical ability isn't protected by the constitution. Religion is. NJCubScouter, I'm not sure that I'm saying much that's different. Everson was the case that stated that the 14th equal protection clause applied to the 1st amendment, so treating people differently based on religion violated equal protection ("No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs" etc etc)

No it isn't the same thing, Ed.