Merlyn_LeRoy

Ed, they're being punished exactly the way I already said. As for your band example, there is no first amendment protection for musical ability like there is for religion. I also think that school bands exist at least partly for bad musicians to improve their skills, so it wouldn't make sense to exclude bad players.

Okay, so reading the above , please point out where - by public schools chartering BSA units- the governemnt has broken any laws. "bill of rights" incorporated against the states via the 18th amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I 1st amendment specifically incorporated against the states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education From Everson: No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. If a public school operates a club that excludes students based solely on their religious beliefs or disbeliefs, those students are being punished by having a school benefit denied them on those grounds. Oh, by the way: But the moment that the government says : "No,. we cannot allow you to meet, and will not provide equal services to you because you have religion" Where is that happening? I hope you aren't trying to imply that a public school is guilty of doing the above by refusing to charter a discriminatory BSA unit. But I really can't tell unless you come up with an example.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed writes: Your constant comparison to public schools running "No Jews Clubs" or "Jews Only Clubs" is what I was referring to Merlyn. Do you actually have proof ANY public school was running such a club? No Ed, because that's called a "hypothetical example," which I was using as part of an "analogy." That isn't a straw man attack. Scoutfish writes: Merl, at one point, you aked me - when I said I had no problem with schols chartering a BSA unit - if I would feel the same way about the school chartering an AA unit. I said,not, I did NOT have any issue or problem with it. Then you said but AA woulld be youth led, not school. When did I say this? But YOU did not ask me about a youth led group, you asked about a school chartered group..to which I still have no issue. Well, I don't know what you're referring to. It's possible for a club to be chartered by a school but lead by students, for one thing, but you're talking about it like they're mutually exclusive. So by changing around (and assuming what you thought I might mean) you also made a "strawman attack". Only if I actually did that. So quote exactly what I wrote where I said this. Funny thing about that: I'm not trying to stop your group, but you are trying to stop and prevent mine. Only ones unlawfully run by government entities, which cannot discriminate against atheists. See, the thing is this: A school that charters a group because it fills a PUBLICLY WANTED void : I'm cool with that. If that group discriminates in ways which are illegal for a public school to discriminate, such as religion, I'm not cool with that. And you can specifically state intricate details, but in the real world, as you know too well,that even if a school did charter a BSA unit, it would have no more connection to the government than I do as the finacial backbone of the government. A non-zero amount, which is enough standing to sue.

No Ed, that's an analogy. This might help, but I doubt it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You need to find an example of the second sort. Mr. Boyce writes: But WHY would atheist parents okay putting their kid in a youth organization widely known as having a religious interest if they were opposed to having their child be exposed to this? First, many BSA units have no religious content at all, and many more have very little (and not all of them require any sort of participation). Second, the BSA kicks out atheists whether their parents are OK with their kids being exposed or not. I just don't see how the BSA would want to toss out "Reverent." Not all definitions of "reverent" are incompatible with atheism.

Ed, stop trying to evade your own accusation. You accuse me of making a strawman attack. Quote something I've written where I make a strawman attack.

sherminator505, if the plaintiff's lawyers are not allowed to even see the files, the BSA ends up deciding everything, leading to the unlikely situation where the files would only be released if the BSA's own lawyers said something like "Yes, these files are incredibly damaging to my client, which is why they must be released to the people suing us immediately" and not "Oh no, nothing relevant here, sorry, you can't have them."

Ed, when have I ever made a straw man attack?

Yeah, when you can't deny something.... all you have left is insults right? Quite the opposite -- a "straw man" is where someone simply makes up another person's opinion, and attacks that. I'm not going to deny a position someone else has made up for me. But feel free to make more dishonest straw man attacks. I'll just point out that such attacks are dishonest.

More straw men than a Wizard of Oz festival on Guy Fawkes Day.

You'd have a point if discrimination on the basis of intellectual ability was illegal. But it isn't, and you can't just equivocate as if all discrimination is equally lawful or unlawful (since public schools discriminate, legally, in all kinds of ways).

Yes Beavah, the BSA has already done that re: schools, they just haven't been honest enough to do likewise with law enforcement agencies, correctional institutions, municipal park & recreation depts. etc.

Gonzo1 writes: I have a couple of college degrees (similar to you) and I know what an analogy is. No. You really don't. If you knew what an analogy is, you would not have responded to my hypothetical "no Jews" club by saying you welcome people of all faiths. You're responding to an imaginary situation as if I was referring to your specific, real situation. If you knew what an analogy is, you wouldn't do that. You would, instead, consider the BSA's exclusion of atheists and compare it to my hypothetical group that excludes Jews. That's the analogy. I don't care for your attempt to pigeon hole me into you jews vs atheist example. I'd say that's because you'd have to defend a public school excluding Jews on the same basis as a public school excluding atheists. I don't really see it as a school "running" the scout groups that happen to meet there. And AGAIN, you aren't keeping straight the difference between a school-run club and a student-run club. If a public school is the chartering partner, the school is running the club. This requires the school to illegally practice religious discrimination. Public schools can't do that, period. It is not a case of a group simply "meeting" in a school.

Oh, I see you're another person who has no idea what an analogy is. I'll use smaller words. Gonzo1, compare these two situations. Forget about the BSA specifically, address these two imaginary situations: 1) a public school runs a club that excludes Jews 2) a public school runs a club that excludes atheists Now, considering the two imaginary situations above, and remember that neither one is about the BSA specifically, in your opinion: a) which (if any) of the above two situations is illegal? b) which (if any) of the above two situations harms children?

Gonzo1, it's the same harm as if a public school ran a "no Jews" club. Now, if you'd like to argue that having "no Jews" clubs run by public schools don't harm Jewish kids and don't foment hatred against Jewish kids, go right ahead. You pretty much have to take that position to stay aligned with your stance regarding atheists. As for "friends of XXX", that's what the BSA would have done if they were honest. As it is, there are still hundreds of units unlawfully chartered to government entities, in spite of the BSA's word that they wouldn't do that. The BSA's word is worthless.

gonzo1 writes: the court in 1947 could had no more of an idea of what Jefferon's "intent" was than you or me. The constitution is what it is. Yeah, well, until the court reverses itself, that's precedent. We have a private club and you seem to really want in. You might be better off in a good old boys camping club. No, you're a "private club" that's dishonest and still illegally chartering BSA units to government entities that can't practice religious discrimination. Not really sure why you want in, other than to try to dismantle what we have. You apparently have trouble reading. I've never said I "want in." Let's be honest when applying for membership, let's tell them about our religious beliefs and when we're denied, let's claim that our civil rights are being violated because we want to join and spread the Good Word to of mankind. We have the right to do so and let's join now! Go right ahead. You realize that AA is a genuine private organization that DOESN'T illegally have government entities practicing religious discrimination on their behalf, right? You don't even know what the issues are.

Scoutfish writes: So you are saying that "SOMEBODY" decided that Jefferson really meant but didn't actually write. No, it's the supreme court justices stating what the first amendment means, and using a quotation from Jefferson to illustrate it. There are plenty of other cases where the supreme court uses phrases that aren't in the constitution but are used as shorthand, like "right to a fair trial" and "separation of powers," neither of which appear literally in the constitution. Well I could just as easily say" Jefferson never intended that govermnet couldn't ptactice religion . Good luck with that. but it does say the government cant etsblish or respect a religion..which it is not doing. It also cannot prevent it, which is what you are hoping to do. What are you babbling about now? I'm talking about preventing government entities from practicing religious discrimination. And BSA dropping or not isn't any kind of ebforcement of the first Amendment. The BSA dropped public school charters because they were clearly illegal. WRONG! I have grasped it, I just thing your idea of it is inane. No, you really haven't.

Scoutfish writes: Seperation of church and state only says that the government cannot create a religion and require the citizens of the Us to support, adhear to and follow that religion You might want to look up Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 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. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Public schools running a private club that excludes students solely due to their religious views are punishing those students for not having certain religious beliefs. But I would like to point out that by trying to prevent BSA charters, you are indeed violating the 1st Amendment. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You might want to consider that the BSA itself dropped the charters. All the ACLU did was threaten to sue, just as I'm going to do about law enforcement charters. Now, if you want to have a AA club at school and there are students as well as leaders who have the time, motivation and willingness to do so...have at it by all means. See my previous note where I can only argue about this with people who can grasp the difference between a school running a group and students running a group. You haven't grasped this yet.

The problem with your main argument is that you and people like you believe there should be an absolute separation of church and state. Funny thing, when I read the constitution, I don't see it. Check that first amendment. I know, you're an attorney I didn't know that. I thought I was a computer programmer. and you think you far better than me what "prohibiting the free exercise there of" really means too. It mean I get to practice whatever religion I want. And the first clause means that government entities like public schools can't penalize you for your religious views, like running private clubs that exclude students who have the "wrong" religious views. But having this argument requires people who can understand the difference between a school-run club and a student-run club.

Beavah, I asked gonzo1 if he agreed. I already knew you didn't care about first amendment rights.

No Gonzo1, American Atheists only allows atheists to join. And if public schools or law enforcement agencies, which cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, owned & operated AA private clubs, they should be stopped, don't you agree? Same goes for BSA units.

Mr. Boyce, stopping illegal discrimination against atheists IS something to be proud of. That stopping illegal discrimination against atheists makes you sad, it would appear you don't care about the rights of atheists.

Just keep making up excuses out of whole cloth Beavah; and yes, there are other countries besides the US which take religious rights seriously, unlike many in this group.

Beavah, are you saying no countries have laws against religious discrimination that apply to that country's WOSM scouting organization? And are you also saying that every single law enforcement agency and correctional institution that charters a traditional BSA unit is privately held? Then you have nothing to worry about, do you?

skeptic writes: In regard to the stat chart from 2008: It certainly suggests that there are still crews sponsored by "traditional" BSA. Of course, one must wonder how, if all such groups were moved to Exploring. Like I keep saying, the BSA is dishonest. Even after the BSA split Exploring into Exploring and Venturing, I was told that BSA officials were pushing Venturing on government entities instead of Exploring. They might be poor reporting by councils; they may have since been moved, because they had yet to do so when this was compiled; they might be LDS crews that are actually Varsity, and are in LDS communities. Hopefully, the errors have mostly been fixed by now. Or it might be deliberate fraud by the BSA. But no matter what; the entire argument is selfish and petty, and really has little or no positive impact, as it just puts a good community program out of business. Because, in skeptic's bizarro world, ending illegal discrimination against atheists is worth nothing. Of course, those that fight so hard to have their way really do not care, which tells us more about them than anything else. You all should be so "proud". It's a damn sight better than how you want the government to treat atheists. Okay; have fun. Ignoring this from on out. Yeah, yeah. Make a ridiculous blunder, offer a bunch of red herrings to "explain" how you might sort-of not be entirely wrong, opine for the Nth time how ending discrimination against atheists is a terrible crime against society, and bail out of the discussion.

I doubt they're all private "law enforcement agencies", Beavah, but there's only one way to find out. Pint, WOSM is hardly coherent on the issue of religion; they allow atheists in some, but not all scouting organizations, and similar to the BSA on a larger scale, there are scouting organizations in countries that cannot exclude atheists, but the WOSM apparently expects them to break the law. And "inclusiveness" is not a single dimensional value when it comes to taxpayer money and discrimination; religious discrimination against atheists isn't made legal by pointing to other taxpayer programs that might discriminate in other ways. It's just irrelevant.