public schools as chartering partners

[OldGreyEagle]

Thank you JM, I appreciate your comment

 

But what? I have asked quite a few questions of Merl and his keyboard has grown uncharacteristically silent. What do you hope to gain from this posting Merl, and have you accomplshed it as yet?

 

If you wish to point out that if BSA needs to stop using public buildings, then say so and if I understand my fellow scouters they understand that as well. If we dont like it, we may yelp but we will understand and follow it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

What I hope to gain is to point out that public schools that charter scout units are practicing religious discrimination, and that it's unlawful for public schools to do this.

 

Apparently, you and many others have trouble reading, since I never said boy scouts had to stop using public buildings.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Then why not just say so

 

And I agree, If Boy Scouts have qualifications that public schools cant meet, then as I have said before, other private institutions have to be found.

 

::extending a hand in friendship::

 

Are we agreed?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

I *did* say so, in my very first message.

 

I think we finally agree on something, though you still seem to be claiming that the BSA and/or its chartering partners aren't discriminating.

 

[ddrefke]

Hey guys, I have other problems with schools being chartering partners. The admissions standards are just the tip of the iceburg.

 

Schools are not open year round and the pack does not have access to facilities for summer meetings.

 

The principal of the school is automatically the "Institutional Head of the sponoring organization, whether he or you likes it or not. I thought that the premise for a scouting unit was that it belonged to the organization that runs it. Here we have the BSA designating what the organization is.

 

There is no sponoring organization. The school district via the school board is the entity. The school itself is not a legal entity. The school board has to approve the principals actions for the sponorship to be valid.

 

Our pack cannot buy anything tax exempt because the school district will not let us use their tax exempt certificate and the school itself does not have one because it is not a entity. To petition the state for tax exempt status one must be an organization with a articles of association and by laws. The BSA way of doing things does not provide for this.

 

Finally, why is the principal the head of scouting at a school. Should not this be a position that is voted on by the parents whose kids are in the program?

[frankj]

This has been an interesting thread to read. Mr. LeRoy is either an interested Scouter trying to give a heads up, or an ACLU activist. Eisley and company are to be commended for restraint and civility. In the long run, churches and what would be considered non-public entities might become the only viable chartering organizations. The reason I say this is because it is so easy to bring lawsuit in this country, Scouts may find themselves fighting and re-fighting the same battles -- in nearby Portland, Oregon there was a legal battle over whether Scouts could use public school facilities to recruit on back to school night. This was the doing of one mother of one boy if the newspaper accounts were correct. Make no mistake, I am solidly on the side of BSA and what they stand for. I don't see any big problem with a school being a chartering organization so long as the school board, etc., don't run for cover if someone tries to apply pressure. One has to look at the greater good: Allow Scouts to be sponsored and meet in public schools knowing that a few kids will not join because of the religious requirement? Or, knuckle under to the politically correct and deny a great opportunity to young boys who need the guidance Scouts provides. The answer is obvious.

 

sco

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cjmiam]

I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to read all the threads. However, it seems to me that it should be up to the tax payers of the individual school district to decide. Like all other referendums, it could be decided by a simple majority. There are many issues approved and disapproved this way. I believe a majority of Americans currently agree with the BSA. Further, I believe a majority of Americans believe the BSA is a healthy addition to their community. Since we live in a democracy, everyone is free to voice their opinion and vote. If a majority feels in favor, it ends the dilemma. There will always be those that disagree, but the beautiful thing about the country in which we live is that we can voice our opinions openly and freely. I may not believe that the district needs a new school, but 51% may believe that we do. That means 49% that dont believe we need a new school may be paying for one anyway. We live in a democracy. Let us never forget what millions of Americans fought and died for. We live in a country of law and order, free from oppression, where majority rules. If 51% of Americans believe tax dollars should be spent on character development through Scouting, so be it. If 51% of Americans believe Scout units and other organizations should be able to use their buildings, so be it. Remember, the buildings belong to the people. The laws are laws of the people. We as Americans decide what is best for our country. I have faith in America, in God and in our system of government. I believe that truth and justice will prevail through the voice of the people. And oh yes, if 51% of the school district believes that each school day should start with a prayer, I believe that is right as well.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

I think your reply (and attitude) is a good example why civils rights CAN'T be voted away by a simple majority vote, and why the BSA's discrimination will result in the removal of all charters from government entities.

[sst3rd]

Removal of any charter from ANY goverment agency, will be done at the local level. Even on the local level, removal of charters will be done within the Councils, on a case by case basis.

 

Do you support Scouting?????? Evidently, you don't.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

It isn't a local issue. Government charters will be removed by lawsuits, because the government can't enforce the BSA's discriminatory membership requirements; the government can't run a group that excludes atheists any more than it can run a group that excludes Jews.

[sst3rd]

Incorrect. This will always be taken as a local issue.

 

YOU want it to be much bigger than it has to be.

 

Again, you are obviously not a supporter of Scouting.

[cjmiam]

Dear Sir,

 

Im not sure what attitude you believe I am exhibiting, however, since you feel a need to peruse the law might I remind you of a few things.

 

1. First and foremost, I am NOT talking about voting anyones civil rights away. You and others have equal rights as granted by the Constitution. The BSA is not currently nor ever has tried to take anyones rights away. How can you conclude that public approval of the BSA would take anyones rights away?

 

2. The anti-discrimination policies that have been referred to ARE adopted by local individual school districts. This is very much a local issue.

 

3. Amendment 10 to the US Constitution does empower the states or the people to all other powers not specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution guarantees that the people do have the power to establish additional laws.

 

4. There are no federal laws regulating the question of school chartering, because simple chartering or the recognition of an organization is not discrimination. If you are referring to disallowing gays or homosexuals, that is the BSA's policy, but not necessarily the school districts policy. Simple administration of another groups policy does not mandate the adoption of that policy by the parent group. I would further argue (off the topic) that many of the locally adopted school district policies pose a greater constitutionality question, because many of them specifically endorse special treatment to specific groups or individuals.

 

5. Part of your argument seems to be that endorsement of one group is discrimination against other groups. I would argue that any group has the right to public endorsement and sponsorship. In a democracy it is up to the people to decide their laws and public policy. Once again, remember that the laws are the peoples laws, the government is the peoples government, and the buildings are the peoples buildings.

 

6. Amendment 10 also provides that the education system is to be legislated by the states. It seems to me that the states could even recognize the BSA as their official character development education program.

 

7. Because of its service to America, in times of war, peace and depression, the United States Congress officially chartered the Boy Scouts of America. This charter in fact recognizes the legitimacy of the organization through the same law establishing body that provided Amendment 1 to the US Constitution- the freedom to associate, speak, and hold meetings.

 

To further illustrate my original argument. Suppose a town consisted of 100% tax- paying atheists that vote and assemble. Would it not be that towns right to establish groups and fund atheist youth groups if they so choose? What if only 51% of the town was atheist? The answer I believe should still be yes. It is the peoples government.

 

No civil rights are being taken away by any governmental endorsement or sponsorship of the Boy Scouts of America. You and other groups have the right to ask for the same treatment. Whether you are granted such endorsement or sponsorship should, according to the rules of democracy, be left to the majority and in the United Sates be the will of the people.

 

[resource]

I hate to join when things seem hot but count on you remaining scoutlike. I'm searching for ideas on this. See, our public schools (and, for that matter, our local churches) entered into these charters without the "policy" statements made with the Supreme Court battle. Now that this is stated as being part of our Boy Scout Program we need one of 2 things. 1) Retain local policy control and have National back out of individual troop decisions, honoring the charters or 2) find another program for our lives (and this is our lives, ours and our families and our communities!)

We are our public school members too!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

As I've said before, there's an ACLU lawsuit in Illinois making its way through the courts that will remove all federal and Illinois state charters (and presumably all other state charters will follow soon after). Anyone who seriously believes that public schools can run a youth group that excludes members based solely on their religious views hasn't the vaguest idea what religious freedom means.

[cjmiam]

Dear Sir,

 

Religious freedom is the right to practice or not to practice religion without being persecuted. At no time are your rights taken away by allowing someone else to practice their religious freedom. You seem to conclude that by allowing, acknowledging, sponsoring, or assisting someone to practice openly and freely, it somehow takes away your rights. Certain activists have taken the Constitution and tried to make it fit their needs. Amendment 1 was not written to stifle people. It was meant to allow individuals the right to exercise their beliefs freely and openly with whomever they choose. And given that we are a nation of law, governed by the people, we have the right to exercise our beliefs through the ballot box and make new laws as we see fit.

 

Once again, I further reemphasize that every American can petition their government for sponsorship, help, assistance or other needs at any time. Whether they are granted such assistance is up to the people.

 

Using your logic, it should have to follow then that all tax-paying citizens having personal beliefs that are not allowed to meet, associate, request funds, or require government assistance, should then be excluded from paying most taxes. Then, We The People can build new buildings with Our money and sponsor organizations that We want to which is Our right as a People in the first place.

 

Every day Americans pay for programs that they have no clue about and many times may be in moral disagreement with. However, public programs are very much a part of our government and everyday life. Because the government assists a program does not mean that it inherits that organizations bi-laws, practices or beliefs.

 

On a side note: the ACLU isnt interested in promoting freedom or liberty. Instead, its interested in promoting its political agenda, through funds from activist groups that are trying to impose their belief system on others. Additionally, they are trying to suppress anyone that has views different than their own, by eliminating them from the publics eye. They do this by court case after court case trying to persuade one state to the next until they find a judge liberal enough to side with them. Their only argument is that the mere existence of such organizations takes away their rights. What about the rights of the millions of Americans that do believe in God and that do believe in traditional family values? What about their rights? What about their freedoms?