Judge rules for boy in Boy Scouts case

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"I can't figure out what I said that led you to believe that. I said THEY WOULD be discriminated against, but quietly."

 

It was the way you stated it without indicating that you were against it; after all, you've been arguing in favor of public schools discriminating against atheists.

 

...

"I agree with Bob Russell, just been having hard time putting it in words. If BSA is denied access because of it's belief in God, isn't that discrimination?"

 

The BSA isn't being denied access, they're being denied SPECIAL TREATMENT. The BSA has been getting special treatment so long, losing it looks "unfair" to BSA supporters.

 

Recruiting during school hours is NOT something all other groups get access to.

 

Free use of school facilities when other similar organizations have to pay is NOT equal treatment.

 

...

"Also rereading the definition of discrimination then the organization of Parents Without Partners is discriminatory -- you can't be married to join."

 

And as soon as public schools allow them to recruit during school hours, you'd have a point. Even if they did, it wouldn't mean the BSA would get to keep their recruiting, it would mean both organizations would lose it.

 

...

"And I still hold that any school or government function held on Friday evening or Saturday is not right according this logic because there are recognized religious groups who call this time "Sabbath" and believe you should be praying, not partying, playing, etc."

 

Only if the government is deliberately scheduling these events in order to discriminate.

 

---

Merlyn LeRoy

 

[Bob Russell]

Merlyn, you have sidestepped my question. You talk of special access, saying that the Boy Scouts get to recruit when other groups do not. I was very specific, inquiring whether Boy Scouts should be able to recruit IF other groups, such as athletic leagues, get to. So I will ask again: IF other groups get to recruit during school hours, would not prohibiting the Boy Scouts from the SAME ACCESS be discriminatory.

 

I live in Portland, and know this case pretty well. I also experience the way the Portland Public Schools treats scouting at this time. I formerly handled the school recruiting for a Cub Scout pack in a school near the one in question. My kids would bring many flyers home, for all kinds of school and after school activities. Yet when I asked to have flyers given out for our Cub Scout recruiting night, many of the teachers would fail to distribute them. The teachers were making a choice that should be left to the families. And in case you are wondering, our use of the school in the evening for recruiting and meetings is done the same as any other group, and we pay the same. Equal treatment, not special.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"Merlyn, you have sidestepped my question."

 

No, I ignored it, because I already answered the same question when oldgreyeagle asked a similar one.

 

...

"I was very specific, inquiring whether Boy Scouts should be able to recruit IF other groups, such as athletic leagues, get to."

 

Boy Scouts should be able to recruit on the same basis as any other outside religiously discriminatory group; it doesn't sound like the groups are the same, since you could be talking about a school athletic program (which obviously can NOT discriminate on the basis of religion, and which might be able recruit on school time if it's a school program).

 

...

"So I will ask again: IF other groups get to recruit during school hours, would not prohibiting the Boy Scouts from the SAME ACCESS be discriminatory."

 

If your comparing apples to apples, yes.

 

...

"I live in Portland, and know this case pretty well. I also experience the way the Portland Public Schools treats scouting at this time. I formerly handled the school recruiting for a Cub Scout pack in a school near the one in question. My kids would bring many flyers home, for all kinds of school and after school activities. Yet when I asked to have flyers given out for our Cub Scout recruiting night, many of the teachers would fail to distribute them. The teachers were making a choice that should be left to the families. And in case you are wondering, our use of the school in the evening for recruiting and meetings is done the same as any other group, and we pay the same. Equal treatment, not special."

 

So sue. Powell had to; it's taken nearly five years, and it isn't even over yet.

 

Of course, you realize that all organizations, even ones like the Klan Youth Corps (which does exist) will get the same access.

 

---

Merlyn LeRoy

[Bob Russell]

"So sue. Powell had to; it's taken nearly five years, and it isn't even over yet."

 

No thanks. Lawsuits are unpleasant, and will help drain the school budget, and the issue simply isn't that important. Not every issue needs to be litigated. But I don't think that the Powells should have sued either. She could have handled it far better than saying to her son "They don't want our kind." She, along with the ACLU, should instead follow the advice of the bumper sticker that says "Celebrate Diversity" but by allowing diversity of opinion, rather than just the diversity that they approve of. Let both Boy Scouts and Campfire recruit, give the public a choice, and see who gets freely picked.

 

"Of course, you realize that all organizations, even ones like the Klan Youth Corps (which does exist) will get the same access."

 

Schools have the right to restrict some things, such as the right to edit school papers within reason. I don't know the limits, but I suspect that a Klan group might possibly be over the edge. But if not, that is our concept of free speech and free association. Better to let the free flow of ideas compete. After all, the ACLU rightfully supports free speech, as this has been their traditional goal. It seems that the ACLU has changed from the American Civil LIBERTIES Union to the American Civil RIGHTS Union. I believe that the ACLU, if it cares about civil liberties, should support the Boy Scouts in their right of association, even on public property, as a fundamental civil liberty.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"But I don't think that the Powells should have sued either. She could have handled it far better than saying to her son "They don't want our kind."

 

Well, her statement was true, and the judge found that the school actually violated Remington's civil rights. And civil rights are certainly worth litigating in my opinion; you're essentially saying the Powells should have accept this violation of their civil rights.

 

...

" I believe that the ACLU, if it cares about civil liberties, should support the Boy Scouts in their right of association, even on public property, as a fundamental civil liberty."

 

It DOES. This was about a public school allowing a religiously discriminatory organization special access to recruit during school hours to a captive audience of 6-year-olds who could not be expected to distinguish between school officials and scouting officials inviting them to join a fun club advertised as being open to "all boys" and then finding out their religious views were unacceptable.

 

---

Merlyn LeRoy

[Bob Russell]

Merlyn, we are looking at this, each seeing discrimination from a different angle. You see the discriminatory Boy Scouts, where I see an organization exercising its constitutional right of free association; a right recognized by the US Supreme Court. I see a government so fearful of religious expresion that it will deny access to public property to avoid it. My contention is that if the government allows access to some groups, to deny THE SAME access to Boy Scouting is government discrimination on account of religion. If the schools do not allow access to any outside groups, fine. But they do allow access, and the same access should be allowed to Boy Scouts. We have gone too far to make all groups follow the party line, and that destroys true diversity. The First Amendment says : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I believe that the pendulum will swing back to where total denial of religion on public property will not be permitted, as that is in effect prohibiting the free exercise of religion. I read one appellate brief filed by the Boy Scouts, I forget which case, where the Boy Scouts stated that when government dictates what views an acceptable organization must follow, there no longer is diversity.

 

I will not be able to continue this discussion until the end of the weekend, so I'm not ignoring any further comment you may make. I will be taking my "discriminatory" scouts to our winter lodge on Mt. Hood for some serious skiing and boarding. Many feet of snow have come down in the last week, and it is time to enjoy one of our little pieces of heaven. Every time I go to the mountain, I think that I left Flint, Michigan for this. Life is rough sometimes.

[slontwovvy]

Wouldn't allowing school athletic leagues to recruit during school hours clearly "discriminate" against those that have physical disabilities and cannot play sports?

 

Discrimination is not selective, Mr. Leroy. Maybe your beloved ACLU should concentrate on all forms of discrimination before focusing attention on a cause that has done more to hinder discrimination in the last fifty years than virtually any other organization.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Having physical requirements for sports doesn't violate the constitution; if schools recruited for sports and said "by the way, Jews can't join", then you'd have a problem.

 

The BSA's religious discrimination is the problem, and I certainly don't agree that they've done more than, say, the ACLU the hinder discrimination, as the BSA has gone to court to practice discrimination.

[KoreaScouter]

Folks,

 

You might as well stop trying to win a debate over this...neither side is going to convince the other that they're right.

 

If nothing else, it's just further evidence that a fringe group has had yet another success making the majority appear to be "deviant" and undesirable. Welcome to the age of relative morals and "anything goes".

 

If the athiests prevail and Scouters in Oregon are not permitted to recruit on school property, it will be the challenge of those Scouters to reach those boys in other ways...ways that may not be as easy or efficient as in-school recruiting.

 

A couple of points to ponder.

 

I can't belong to the Daughters of the American Revolution, because I'm not a woman (even though I have an ancestor who fought in the Revolution...yes, on our side). Is it gender discrimination? Yeah, maybe, but you know what: I'm okay with it, even though I can't change my gender (easy, there, Ed and Rooster, I know what you're thinking!). Some day, the lad might become enlightened (or maybe his mom will get a clue) and develop a belief in a higher being (which nobody is trying to define for him or rank order by desirability), at which time he's welcome to join Scouting.

 

To me, teaching a child there's no God constitutes neglect the same as deliberately failing to feed, clothe, educate, inoculate, etc. In other words, parental laziness, indifference, apathy, pick your own word. Doing the right thing has always been more difficult, and something many so-called adults have lost sight of is that choices have consequences, or they're supposed to, anyway.

 

Wonder if Oregon schools say the Pledge of Allegiance..."One nation, under God..."

 

I repeat what I said at the top of my post; nobody's going to change each others' minds here...we believe what we believe...

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

...

"Some day, the lad might become enlightened (or maybe his mom will get a clue) and develop a belief in a higher being (which nobody is trying to define for him or rank order by desirability), at which time he's welcome to join Scouting."

 

You really have no idea how arrogant this sounds, do you?

 

If the BSA excluded Jews, you could make the same "argument" on how Jews aren't wanted until they "become enlightened" or their Jewish parents "get a clue" and become good & proper Christians, and then the formerly despised Jewish boy would be welcomed. Oh, how nice.

 

[KoreaScouter]

It's certainly easy to dismiss an argument you disagree with as arrogant; I guess it depends on how open-minded and lucid you are. Webster's defines arrogant as "Over convinced of one's own importance". This has nothing to do with whether I think I'm important or not, especially to you or the parties to the case we're talking about. In fact, using Webster's definition, I've never met a Scouter who considered himself more important than the boys he/she serves. Wish I could say the same thing for everyone I've encountered in other circles.

 

Your point about Jews or any other religious group is invalid since it's based on a faulty premise; BSA doesn't exclude members of any religious group.

 

To all the Scouters out there, maybe we're locked onto the wrong issue, that is, whether or not we should be excluded from public school recruiting because we're considered "discriminatory" by some. What do you all think of removing the grounds for the complaint by allowing youth members who do not profess a belief in God? Before you think I've gone nuts, let me assure you I'm a lifelong Catholic, believer, raising my kids in the Church, etc. All I'm saying is this: if you let the lad join a pack/troop, and he actually does (which may or may not happen), he'll get what will be in all likelihood his first exposure to Scouting's values-based program, and see our leaders and other Scouts for the role models they are. That, as opposed to exclusion, may actually be the profound event that enlightens the young man (and then Merlyn could go do something worthwhile, too -- everybody wins!).

 

You'd have to find a way to work through the Scout Oath and Law as currently written, or leave them intact which means no advancement (here comes Merlyn again!) But, I think there's precedent for this in a way. We've all known Scouts who strayed from other points of the Law (i.e., Trustworthy, Obedient), and gave them second chances. What's wrong with giving a first chance to a lad who could really use the experience and can't help his upbringing?

 

I don't claim to have a monopoly on brains, just asking a question...

 

Bottom line: What would Jesus do?

[Bob Russell]

KoreaScouter, you inquired : "What do you all think of removing the grounds for the complaint by allowing youth members who do not profess a belief in God?" The problem with this approach is that under standard discrimination approaches, merely saying "lets all get along" is not good enough for our opponents. Recall the Citidel case, where first women litigated to be enroled, wanting to be part of the program. But then the program was too tough, and had an unfavorable impact on females, so the standards have to be changed. Just in the last week a court ruled that grace could not be said at meals, because it discriminates against athiests. Until all distinctions are removed, our opponents will not be satisfied. We could not do grace at camp meals, we would have to change the scout oath and law, no troop could compel its scouts to participate in religious functions. This might make Merlyn happy, I suppose, but it would lead to a great migration from scouting. And I do not believe it would bring in but a few to replace them. I belive that few of our critics care about scouting at all, they are merely attacking any group that does not embrace thir beliefs.

[slontwovvy]

Maybe an atheist family should realize this. To quote the state motto of Ohio (I believe), which the ACLU tried to destroy (unsuccessfully), "With God, all things are possible."

[evmori]

KoreaScouter,

Jesus would probably tell us to love the sinner and hate the sin.

 

I have no problem with a group denying membership to certain people provided those guidelines are adhered to in all cases & make sense (like the DAR example). When the membership criteria isn't adhered to in "special" cases, then I start to worry. From what i can see, the BSA doesn't fall into this category.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[sctmom]

As hard as I tried to stay out of this discussion, I just can't help myself.

 

If you remove God from the requirements and Scout oath, are you going to remove the requirement for saying the Pledge of Allegience?

 

Merlyn -- serious question because I'm curious, how does the atheist handle the saying of the Pledge of Allegience?

 

I know the history of why the phrase "under God" was added, and believe we should take it back out of the Pledge. Because it is assumed to be the Christian Fatherly God. Many people do not worship THAT God. And our founding fathers were very specific about not putting references to God or Christianity in the first national documents, some wanted to but were outvoted. The current bestseller "John Adams" discusses this if you want some good reading.

 

KoreaScouter, I have to disagree with your idea of letting atheists in so they can see what Scouters live like. That is recruiting for Religion. I stand by BSA because it is not based solely on recruiting for religion.

 

Also, I disagree with your assumption that teaching a child there is no God is neglect. I believe there is a God or higher power, but I respect the right to NOT believe or to believe differently. Just as you don't want your children told homosexuality is okay, I don't want my child told that everyone MUST believe in God. I tell my child "this is what I believe, this is what others believe, I may not agree with them or even understand them, but they have that right." I honestly try to understand what others believe and why. This weekend I looked up the words atheist and agnostic in the encyclopedia to get at least a quick definition.

 

Merlyn, I appreciate (as I feel others do to) your explanations about what "atheist" means. It is a misused and misunderstood word just as "pagan" and "witch" are.

 

One more question -- should Girl Scouts be allowed to recruit during school hours? They also have "god" in their promise and they do not allow boys to join (men can be co-leaders and hold other positions). I do not know if they let atheists join and say something other than the promise.