Merlyn_LeRoy

vol_scouter writes: I do understand analogies and implied meanings! I disagree; if you understood my analogy, you wouldn't have thought I had implied you were anti-semitic. My analogy drew a parallel between denigration of atheists and similar denigration of Jews. I have not seen you admit that you may be wrong in your beliefs but in my previous post I admitted that you mat be right - so who is blinded by dislike. What does one have to do with the other? To insinuate that the BSA foments hate and discrimination becaise of its' membership standards is ridiculous. I don't think it is; and the BSA does more than just exclude atheists, their DRP implies that only people who believe in god can be "the best kinds of citizens," which means atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens. The BSA saw no problem in having public schools discriminate against atheists on their behalf. When Darrell Lambert was thrown out for being an atheist, it was because he responded to a direct insult against atheists by a BSA member. It shows that your intolerance to others beliefs. I think your attitude towards atheists shows your own intolerance. If you respected others, you would not continue to be agitating people on this website I think the term is "uppity." You lack respect for others and their views. I certainly don't respect your views on atheists. Assuming you're Christian, does this sound insulting to you? "I do believe that if mankind turns entirely to Christianity that it will descend into depravity." If I've guessed your religion incorrectly, feel free to rephrase it using your religion.

If there is no absolute standard, who's to say what is good and what is bad? If there IS an absolute standard, but people don't agree on which absolute standard to use or whose interpretation is correct, the end result is the same.

Eagledad, which religions have been consistent since their inception in moral teachings about slavery and homosexuality? And since the BSA has no restrictions on the religious beliefs of members, for every moral question X, one member's religion can say "X is moral," while another's says "X is immoral," so how does the BSA use religion as a moral foundation when it has no basic tenets?

vol_scouter writes: If you read my post carefully, I did not denigrate atheists. And if you read MY post carefully, I did not say you denigrate atheists; I said the BSA denigrates atheists. Your dislike of religion makes it difficult to accept other viewpoints. And your dislike of atheism makes it difficult for you to accept non-theistic moral systems. I did not say that atheists are depraved, immoral, or in any way bad. Hmm, if someone said "I do believe that if mankind turns entirely to Judaism that it will descend into depravity," doesn't that sound like Jews can't be good people if the whole world is Jewish? You said exactly that about atheists, and it doesn't sound any better. For a well educated attorney, I find it sad that you feel that you must resort to implying that I am anti-semitic because I do not share your belief system. First, I'm not an attorney, I'm a computer programmer. Second, I did not imply that you are anti-semitic; you don't understand analogies. I as said, I have not joined several clubs where I would like to play golf because they do not allow some to be members: i.e. blacks and Jews. So you won't join clubs that exclude blacks and Jews, but excluding atheists is OK? To imply that because private organizations have membership requirements they foment hate and discrimination is simply not true. I'm not saying this is true in the general case, but it is in the case of the BSA. So membership requirements do not determine anything but who can join. If that's true, why don't you join clubs that exclude blacks and Jews? It's just their membership requirements, right?

Well vol_scouter, in my opinion organizations that denigrate atheists like the BSA lead directly to attitudes such as yours, just as organizations that exclude Jews end up having lots of members who have unfavorable views of Jews and Judaism.

Gonzo1 writes: Merlyn, I didn't see a probably with public schools chartering units before, I wouldn't see a probable today. It's a right to peacably assemble. Assuming you meant to type "problem," I agree that you don't see a problem. But the ACLU and even the BSA did. But, we CAN still meet at schools, just not be chartered by them. Yes -- because there IS a problem in having public schools charter them. Public schools can't discriminate on the basis of religion. Merlyn, if AA doesn't accept my application, isn't THAT discrimination based on religion? Of course it is; got a problem with that?

Gonzo1, like I said before, I've been replying to your remarks back from page 4 where you didn't see any problem back when public schools chartered units. American Atheists would accept your membership if you're willing to sign a statement that you are an atheist; if not, you can't join, since it's an organization of atheists. Since AA is a *genuine* private club that does not attempt to defraud the government by having government entities run regional AA units or apply for HUD grants to increase their membership, there is no civil rights violation and the ACLU will tell you as much. vol_scouter, if you don't like the title of "Piss Christ," complain to Serrano, the guy who made it, because that's the title he gave it. And I doubt he did it to shock people, as he's Catholic and has done a lot of religious imagery with other human body fluid like blood and milk.

Beavah writes, spelling my name correctly again: If anything, the trend in legal thought is that funding of religious entities passes constitutional muster when it serves a legitimate secular purpose. "Some entanglement" does not necessarily rise to the level of "excessive entanglement" used as a First Amendment test. It also depends a lot whether yeh think of things being a "grant" or more like "bidding a contract." If a religious organization or entity is best positioned to serve the needs of a large group of people, why not let 'em have the contract? Beavah, none of your examples results in people being refused a governmental service based on their religious views. That never serves a legitimate secular purpose, and is a violation of the first amendment. And if a religious organization wants to bid on a contract to serve the needs of a "large group of people," they must serve atheists in that group.

No, that was part of some very long litigation in Illinois that started back when a gay man was refused membership to a legal-issues Explorer Post that was chartered by the city of Chicago. That lead to the ACLU suing Chicago to stop chartering 28 BSA units (which was part of the reason the BSA moved Exploring into L4L), and that also resulted in other lawsuits, including ones against the Department of Defense. It was after this case was settled that I contacted Adam Schwartz at the Illinois ACLU about all the thousands of public school charters that still existed, including about 300 in Illinois, which lead to another letter to the BSA about other government entities chartering units.

The US military agreed back in 2004 to stop chartering BSA units in response to an ACLU lawsuit: http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16382prs20041115.html (fixed URL)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

The ACLU no doubt would if public schools supported FCA by running it, since it's a Christian ministry, and public schools can't run Christian minitries. But if outside groups can use school facilities, the FCA can too, on the same terms. Christians In Action is another ministry, same for them.

OGE, I don't see it as being any different from the current local option of whether women are allowed to be leaders of particular BSA units, or having men in charge of coed Crews. There's no reason that changing to a local option would require any different sort of chartering agreement or liability.

Gonzo1, My replies to you are back from page 4 of this thread where you indicated that you didn't see how anyone's civil rights were ever violated when public schools chartered BSA units. Public schools can't run private clubs that have religious requirements for membership.

Yes Ed, but the piece wasn't created with government money. It won an award.

Gonzo1, I advocate for atheists' rights. The BSA still dishonestly charters units to government agencies and still tries to get taxpayers, including atheists, to subsidise their organization. I'm working to stop that.

vol_scouter writes: you are not able to show harm from a school sponsoring a scout unit. Of course I am; a school running a private club that only allows kids with "acceptable" religious views is discriminating against those it doesn't allow to join. And in the case of the BSA, the DRP suggests that atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens. I couldn't play certain school sports because I was not physically competitive That isn't religious discrimination, which is prohibited by the constitution. And the percentages don't matter; you can't ignore the civil rights of groups as long as that group is "small enough". In fact, I'd say the danger of illegal discrimination is even greater in that case. I will remind you that many more than 3% of the country was incensed over money being paid for a photograph of a Crucifix in a pail of urine. "Piss Christ" was not paid for with public money. And the ACLU doesn't get public money either; like every other litigant, it can be awarded legal fees if a judge decides to award fees in cases they win. This is no different from, say, a church getting their legal fees paid if they win a case against the government -- that does not constitute the government paying for a church, it's the government losing a legal fight and being held liable for legal fees of the wronged party.

Gonzo1 writes: So, it's not about becoming a scout leader (by creating your own scout type organization) it's more about being an agitator to those of us who have what we have (BSA) which is something you cna't have (membership in our private organization). No, it's to prevent dishonest organizations like the BSA from infringing on the rights of atheists. Boovah writes: [a school board] is free to do what it feels best for its kids and program, includin' chartering a BSA unit. No it isn't, Boovah. Public schools can discriminate in many ways, but not on the basis of religion. You can yell and handwave all you want, but even the BSA's lawyers saw that was a losing proposition. excludin' a religious viewpoint fundamentally changes the nature of the topic. That's one reason why public schools can't charter BSA units that exclude people based on their religious viewpoints. So truth is, eliminatin' a religious perspective on those aspects of knowledge and culture is real discrimination. It's givin' kids a worldview devoid of God. Sorry Boovah, there are thousands of competing myths for everything from the origin of the earth and animals and humans, to orbital mechanics, yet none of them qualify to be taught as if they actually happened. The government can't decide to promote some religious myths, even your favorite ones. And Boovah, your ridiculous view that only atheists are served by government neutrality on religion is easily refuted by looking at, say, Saudi Arabia.

vol_scouter writes: So you want all religious references out of the public arena? No. I do want the government to be neutral on the subject of religion, however. In the subsequent court proceedings, a Federal judge ruled that atheism is a religion. No, he didn't. Kaufman v. McCaughtry is here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/ET0SR6GW.pdf ..."The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions...The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion."" Corportations are, under some legal circumstances, treated as people, even though they obviously aren't. Atheism is often treated as a religion for legal purposes even though it isn't. Marijuana is legally classed as a narcotic even though it isn't, if I remember correctly. So if the schools ban all other religious activities, they are tacitly endorsing a religion - that of no belief in God. Wrong, unless the school permits activities that state gods don't exist. Teaching that 2+2=4 is not teaching atheism even though gods are not mentioned. The minority interests' seem to always trump the majority interests even when there is no demonstrable harm as in the case of scouts meeting in schools. Scouts can meet in schools on the same terms as any other group. I've been referring to scout units chartered by public schools, which is quite different. [the first amendment] was not written to assure that you are never exposed to religion. Luckily, I've never said anything close to that. I'm exposed to religion every day. There are churches all over, people on TV, people on the net, people in public. Of course, I and other atheists can likewise promote atheism in the same public manner. I am so tired of 'activism' disguised as 'progressive' thought that serves only to disrupt or to be abrasive. Well, I'm tired of organizations like the BSA attempting to use public schools to practice religious discrimination, and I actually did something about it. And like I said, if you don't like what I write, why don't YOU leave?

[retort to insults deleted] FScouter (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Skeptic, I keep hammering at atheists' rights because you keep saying that atheists' rights should be optional, and that the majority ought to be able to ignore their rights whenever the majority feels like it. Rights don't work that way, nor are the rights of unpopular minorities "PC". Gonzo1, tell you what, if you go away, you won't have to suffer through any more posts by me.

Skeptic, public schools don't avoid lawsuits by breaking the law and "hoping" that "PC stuff" like first amendment rights don't get in the way of a program that's 99% positive and only 1% unconstitutional. People's civil rights can't be ignored even if it's popular to do so.

I **KNOW** that gonzo1, I had a lot to do with forcing the BSA to STOP chartering units to public schools. I was pointing out that the BSA does NOT make their discriminatory policies clear, because if they had, public schools would not have chartered units in the first place.

I agree they're both at fault Ed, I'd just put more blame on the BSA, because they knew about this problem for years and didn't bother to do anything about it. Gonzo1, public schools can't run religiously-exclusive private clubs.

vol_scouter writes: No, Merlyn, it doesn't make it 'legal' in the BSA. Beavah is clearly saying that most (but unfortunately not all) scout leaders exercise thought and some wisdom in dealing with our youth. By selectively ignoring the rules. The BSA's membership requirements don't have allowances for scouters who can be atheists for an hour, a day, a year, or a decade. If a current scout can be an atheist for a week, can a boy who has been an atheist for 5 years join? Where are all these exceptions to the rules coming from? Is a week OK, but 5 years too long? If so, where's the dividing line?

Ed writes: Don't ya think that maybe the public schools shoulda known that? Exactly my point, Ed. The BSA certainly didn't make it clear that chartering a BSA unit required religious discrimination, because public schools wouldn't have chartered any.