Merlyn_LeRoy

The government can't "write off" religions as cults, no. That pesky first amendment again.

But using that standard leads to no challenges. It's never a "good time." When Loving v. Virginia said that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional, two-thirds of the public were against interracial marriage. Besides which, nobody gets to control what other people do; even if everyone else thinks e.g. Newdow's timing is inopportune, neither you nor I nor anyone else can prevent him from filing such lawsuits. At best, all the theocratic side can do is try to undermine civil rights by trying to pass legislation to remove things like 'under god' from judicial review, and I think that would only inflame the situation even further. The summum case is Summum v. City of Ogden, Utah http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4022.htm Basically, Ogden put up a 10 commandments monument on public property, and members of the Summum religion want their seven aphorisms also put up. So far, the summums are winning, as the city can't decide to promote some religions' tenets and not others.

If they don't complain, the 10 commandments stay up anyway; with a complaint, at least there's a chance for a ruling that the 10 commandments really are religious and shouldn't be there. The upcoming summum case should be interesting.

I disagree, Hunt. Some religious displays have been upheld *because* "nobody complained for 50 years," which implies that "old enough" constitutional violations magically become constitutional, and will only insure that every single possible violation will be challenged as soon as possible. Saying a lack of lawsuits makes something legal will only encourage lawsuits.

http://mortystv.com/media/a_sock_and_a_shoe_norman_rob.wma

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Looks like the producers fell for one of the classic entertainment blunders -- the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a legal fight with DIsney lawyers," but only slightly less well known is this: "Never depend on 'fair use' when a Beatle copyright is on the line!"

If the day of silence is to "promote homosexuality," observing Martin Luther King day must be encouraging school age children to become black, right?

Yes, of course I have a cite Gold Winger; most of the 10 commandment monuments were put up by the fraternal order of eagles, and this is almost certainly one of them. http://www.foe.com/events/ten-commandments.aspx

This was one of the monuments put up to promote the movie "The Ten Commandments," so apparently public property can now be used to promote religious movies. I can't wait for "Allah Akbar" to be made and demands for equal movie promotion hit the courts. Plus, of course, all those flying spaghetti monster monuments: http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=55995(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

DYB-Mike, a public school couldn't just say by fiat that the BSA can use their forum and the KKK can't; that's deciding on the content of the group's message, which (as the memorandum says) can't be used as a criterion. It's possible that a school would have a forum only open to, say, non-profit organizations, but there's nothing stopping the KKK from forming a non-profit group and qualifying. There's no legal distinction between a group that says whites are the best kinds of citizens vs. one that says god-believers are the best kinds of citizens.

Pappy, the BSA's religious discrimination make it absolutely impossible for it to be any part of a public school's mission. There are still people who think official Christian prayers are part of their public school's mission and a decades-long tradition, and they're wrong, too.

Pappy, if the scouts get to advertise by putting up posters, so do Jehovah's Witnesses. Religious groups have sued when not given the same access as the Boy Scouts, and they've been winning, because once a public school creates a public forum by letting outside organizations advertise, they can't pick & choose which groups they like and don't like. So they either let them all do it, or none.

According to a post by Jay Lenrow (chairman of the Nat'l Jewish Committee on Scouting) on the scouts-l list, the 2010 Jamboree will be the last one at AP Hill; the BSA is looking for a permanent Jamboree site that they can own.

Pappy writes: If atheists wanted to have a atheists scout group, they would be allowed to meet at the school. Yep, on the same basis as cub scouts. But parents probably wouldn't put their child into a group of atheists scouts. That's up to the parents, of course. I've seen parents write on the internet that they won't allow their son to join the scouts because of the scouts' discrimination, for that matter. But Scouting does not actively promote a specific religious point of view except that God is referred to as God, and that reverence to this God and giving thanks is important. Yes, I've already said that the BSA has vague religious requirements. I'm sure the name God can be inter-changed with Allah in an Islamic scouting group. I wouldn't be so sure; the national BSA can be pretty stubborn when it comes to changing the wording. I want the Galesburg Public schools to fight us on this one. What, exactly, is the fight over? Is it over recruiting in school? Is it over meeting in school? Do other groups get the same sort of access? I think that you are a bunch of atheist socialists who want to destroy religion in this country, even at the expense at denying boys scouting opportunities. That's the problem when theists decide that a small fraction of the population is out to get them; you have to create bizarre conspiracies, instead of accepting the ordinary explanation that public schools do not want to further the BSA's religious discrimination. All you'll achieve is moving scouting into Church and Temple basements and perhaps adding to the already growing number of psychologically castrated soccer playing earth-day observing disrespectful video-game suckled long haired male lunk-heads. That's better than having public schools violating the civil rights of atheist students. The BSA can certainly have churches own & operate their discriminatory private clubs, but not public schools. If you decide to move to Scandinavia, Merlyn, I'll help pay for your ticket. You mean where atheists can officially join scouts, large numbers of people are atheists, and their health care and life expectancy is better than the US? Plus, I have relatives there. Tempting, but I hate moving.

Pappy writes: There has been no discrimination done by BSA in Knox County when it comes to Cub Scouts. Even if true, it's irrelevant, just as my hypothetical whites-only group in an all-white town. The national BSA, which controls membership, says no atheists can be members of cub scouts anywhere. It requires that members promise to do their 'duty to god'. For all you know, the BSA's reputation as excluding atheist scouts has already dissuaded some atheist kids from even attempting to join. Cub Scouts are not trying go to sneak a religion into the schools. Who has said they were? Oh, a straw man argument. Gotcha. Your point of view I find equally offensive. And I find your point of view offensive. But I have noticed the glee you take in seeing Cub Scouting opportunities denied to children, so I don't have to pretend to understand your intentions. I'm actually on record as wanting to see cub scouting increased to include ALL boys. But scouts are not on par with Jehovah Witness or Islam or any religious group wishing to promote their faith. Mere assertion. The BSA promotes monotheism; I don't see any law that says religious organizations with vague theological requirements are treated differently from religious organizations with more specific positions on gods. Your minority position that atheists should be given an equal seat at the table is ridiculous. Right, just as it's ridiculous that Jews have an equal seat. Or Muslims. Or Catholics. Or Wiccans. At least your contempt for religious freedom and equal religious rights before the law is clear. What about people who believe that Jews must all die. Should they be given an equal place at the table? Equality before the law is much preferred over what you're proposing, where any group that you personally don't like simply has their rights ignored. Why couldn't someone who doubted the existence of God say that Duty to God means to them duty to right actions, right thinking, or ethical decisions? They could, of course. Or they could say that gods are superstitious myths. What's wrong with thinking gods are myths? This is what it boils down to to most believers anyways. So why is the BSA continuing with their pyrric victory and keeping atheists out? I see this happen a lot when the BSA's religious requirements are dissected in detail. Eventually, it comes down to having no coherent theological requirements in theory, and no religious practices in a large number of packs and troops. So why keep swallowing the poison pill of religious discrimination? What's the purpose? A deist who believes in a prime mover who started the universe 15 billion years ago, and who is not a personified being, and has nothing to do with human morals, and has never interacted with any part of the universe since it was started, and who requires no 'duties' to it, is practically indistinguishable from an atheist.

Pappy, don't pretend to know what I think. The BSA has kicked out atheist kids before, and they've stated publically and in court that they can't join. Your local council and packs can't officially ignore that policy, either. You don't control membership, the national BSA does, and they say that atheists can't join, period. I'm from Minnesota, and many small towns in this state are 100% white. This would not mean that an all-white organization would be considered a non-discriminatory organization in these towns, simply because they lack the oppotunity to exclude non-whites. I'm sorry your local BSA council was unable to lie convincingly to the school board and try to present themselves as a non-discriminatory organization. The national BSA has been touting its discriminatory policies for quite a while. I find your arguments offensive and fake, too. You don't seem to like getting your nose bloodied by the school board slamming the door in your face.

No, it ISN'T a ridiculous outlook. The BSA has successfully defined itself as a religious organization, they clearly have religious membership requirements, and they promote the theological view that a god exists and that people have a duty to that god. If a public school allows an organization that excludes atheists, on what grounds can they exclude an organization that excludes theists?

From a legal standpoint, if a public school allows the BSA to recruit students, they've opened the floodgates to Jehovah's Witnesses and evangelical Christians (and recruiting by atheist groups, for that matter). The BSA has theological requirements and promotes a theological view just like these other groups.

funscout, why are you assuming that all Muslims (or all Muslims connected with the original story) are not from America? About 1/3 of Muslims in the US were born here.

hops_scout, I didn't see any indication that other groups could reserve the gym, and if there already was such a reservation system set up, nothing new would need to be set up for a group of Muslim women to reserve it. So I'd bet there is no such system.

Without getting too far off topic (too late), my reply was just an example of how an Iraqi scouting organization could "buy into the scout oath and law" in a way that could be considered "bad." You did ask "how can that be bad..."

Gunny, it isn't a straw man, because I'm not saying the Iraqi scouting association is actually doing that. I'm just pointing out they could, using the same reasoning the BSA uses to kick out gays and atheists.

I agree, Calico. As for my opinion on carving out exceptions based on religion, I think it would be far better to just allow ANY group to reserve a gym for a period of time. Scoutldr, as a federal employee, nondiscrimination is part of your job description. And how are you required to "take part" in, say, black history month?

If Iraqi scouting takes a page from the BSA and interprets their oath & law to necessarily exclude Jews (in the same way the BSA insists they must exclude gays and atheists), I don't think that would be an improvement, nor would the BSA be in any morally superior position to criticize them for it. After all, if the BSA gets to interpret their oath & law to exclude gays and atheists, Iraqi scouting could interpret their oath & law to exclude Jews, or Sunni Muslims, or Shiite Muslims, or pretty much anyone else. And still advertise themselves as open to "all boys," like the BSA.