Atheist leader to be expelled from BSA

[ASM7]

I think the only mention of separation of church and state was in a writing by Jefferson, but nowhere in the constitution or any amendment is a mention of it. And the 1st amendment certainly doesn't.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This means you have the right to exercise any religion you want and they can't tell you what religion that will be.

And by the way, all of the signers beleived in God. As a matter of fact they were all Christians.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

 

Definition of atheism is a denial of the existence of God. So it's not a religion, but a denial of religion.

 

The lawsuit states that all of the plaintiffs beleive in a separation of Church and state. However the ruling will be based on law and not their belief.

 

Doug

Nov. 6, anno Domini 2002

 

[RobK]

[W]hen people try to dismiss discrimination against atheists by telling them to start their own atheist scouts, I point out it's not possible due to WOSM rules. But that doesn't really have anything to do with stopping government support of religious discrimination.

 

In fact it does pertain. I ask again, what does WOSM have to do with it? So WOSM only allows one member organization from each country. How does that prevent you from starting your own scouting organization? WOSM cannot prevent you from founding Atheist Scouts of the World. There are non-WOSM affliated scouting organization in existance. Why is affiliation with WOSM required? What does WOSM have to do with the US Government allowing your non-WOSM affiliated scouting organization from serving youth on US military bases? WOSM has no jurisdiction over the matter.

 

You are simply insisting that others do, unwillingly, what you yourself refuse to do.

 

Silverman was struck down on first amendment grounds...

Partly yes, but mostly on the clear injunction in Article 6 of the US Constitution against religous tests for public office. It's still irrelevant to the discussion at hand since membership in the BSA is not a public office. And by the way, Silverman was a South Carolina Supreme Court case, not a US Supreme Court case.

 

Welsh v. US was about consciencious objector status, and the law had only religious provisions for gaining CO status...

 

Again, I'd like to see the actual opinion for Welsh v. US, but as you've described it, it has no relevance to the case at hand. How is conscientious objector status similar to membership in a private youth organization? The ability to obtain one has definite consequences regarding one's relationship and legal status with the US government. The other does not. There are no governmental benefits to membership nor consequences for non-membership in the BSA. It is entirely voluntary. Moreover the US government gives no preference to the BSA over other organizations in this regard. Any private organization is welcome to serve the membership they desire.

 

These are the sort of points the Supreme Court would consider.

(This message has been edited by RobK)

[Compass]

Merlyn_LeRoy, you write:

 

compass:

>Not going to address what I said. Out of your comfort zone, sir?

 

No, just not relevant; when people try to dismiss discrimination against atheists by telling them to start their own atheist scouts, I point out it's not possible due to WOSM rules.

 

But hey, that is YOUR rebuttal, not mine. Your counterargument is still absurd. Of course, you still did not address my point (and others), which is (quoting from my original post):

 

(Merlyn_LeRoy states):

 

...which is impossible, since WOSM will only allow one Scout organization per country...

 

And my response:

 

So, call them 'Atheist Flower Children from Mars.'

 

Which, of course, is part of the real point, isn't it? Why does it have to be Boy Scouts? When people suggest that Atheists start their own organization, it doesn't have to be called Scouts at all. Except, that isn't good enough, is it? Because there's a lot more to it than that.

 

Plain simple truth is that Boy Scouts-- the name, the uniform, the values-- are almost universally recognized. Boy Scouts have built up a tremendous amount of goodwill through the decades of its existance. And, it has an effective distribution system. It would be a desirable takeover target in the for-profit world.

 

Or, maybe its still a takeover target. By people who don't want to start their own organization and have to build-up that brand name recognition, goodwill, etc. from the ground up. Hmmmm...

 

 

(This message has been edited by Compass)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

>WOSM cannot prevent you from founding Atheist Scouts of the World.

 

The BSA can (and will) prevent you from using the word 'scout' in the US. But, like I said before, this isn't relevant to government religious discrimination.

 

>>Silverman was struck down on first amendment grounds...

>Partly yes, but mostly on the clear injunction in Article 6 of the US Constitution against religous tests for public office.

 

"Partly yes" means that the first amendment covers more than what you claimed earlier.

 

>Again, I'd like to see the actual opinion for Welsh v. US, but as you've described it, it has no relevance to the case at hand. How is conscientious objector status similar to membership in a private youth organization?

 

I only cited Welsh to show that your narrow interpretation of the first amendment is wrong; Welsh was decided on first amendment grounds, and the court's interpretation doesn't match yours.

 

...

>There are no governmental benefits to membership nor consequences for non-membership in the BSA. It is entirely voluntary. Moreover the US government gives no preference to the BSA over other organizations in this regard.

 

Yes it does; the US military is chartering some BSA units.

 

>Any private organization is welcome to serve the membership they desire.

 

The US military isn't a private organization; it can't have a "no atheists" youth group. It can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

>These are the sorts of point the Supreme Court will consider.

 

I doubt it will get that high; it'll probably get decided in district court.

[berkshirescouter]

One question that has not been asked is: Can a BSA troop exsist on a US military base 'Without gov sponsorship' I beleive that due to security conserns the answer is no. If sponsorship is turned down due to religous conserns it is then religous discrimination and illegal.

[OldGreyEagle]

Interesting reading, so many questions and observaitons

 

Of the people who actually filed the suit, two are religious leaders and one is an Eagle Scout. So, Merlyn, if the suit wins, and Governmental Units have to drop chartering BSA units, then you will have to give thanks to memebers of organized religion for helping you out and one Boy Scout for his help as well.

 

Do you see any irony there?

 

From my reading, and I am no lawyer, it seems the point of the suit is the taxpayers dont want their money supporting Boy Scouts. An open question, how much money does a Chartering Organization HAVE to spend on its unit? From my reading of this forum some of us have great relationships with CO's, others hardly even know who the COR is. If the Commanding Officier of the Base signs the Charter after work, and on his/her own time and appoints/approves adult leaders on his/her own time And the troop furnishes all registration fees from its own treasury, and the base provides meeting space as it does the Christian Bible study Group, the Jewish Defense League, the Muslims for Peace, the Atheist Athletic League and Wicaans for a Cleaner World how much money is the base spending supporting the scouts?

 

Oh, and like I said Bob I am no lawyer, I missed the fact this one was already settled. But I think my other point is still valid, how much money does a Chartering Organizaiton spend on a troop?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Bob White]

merlyn,

The links provided by you and OGe refer to a case that was settled on Oct. 24, 2001.

 

it in volved only the Chicago School System and its affiliates and provides for Learning for life, carrier scouting and scouting for the handicapped to continue to be sponsored by the Chigacgo governement and afiliates and allows tradional scouting use of school property after school just as other private organizations and allows the BSA to recruit membership during school hours as other organizations do.

 

This case did not include as plaintifs the federal government or the FECBSA. So where is that suit? I am still unable to find it. It is not listed as a pending ACLU action.

 

Bob White

[littlebillie]

"...wonder if Rosa Parks should have just started her own Bus line..."

[RobK]

The BSA can (and will) prevent you from using the word 'scout' in the US.

 

While I know BSA does have exclusive right to the term "boy scout" in the USA, I'm not sure they have the exclusive right to the word scout. Whether they do or not, what has that to do with WOSM, or the actual structure or intent of your hypothetical independent group? How does that prevent you from creating your own scouting style organization?

 

"Partly yes" means that the first amendment covers more than what you claimed earlier.

 

No, it does not. In this instance, the law struck down clearly violated the First Amendment prohibition on government requiring religion to qualify for the full benefit of citizenship. Membership in the BSA can in no way be construed as a right or benefit of citizenship.

 

>Moreover the US government gives no preference to the BSA over other organizations in this regard.

 

Yes it does; the US military is chartering some BSA units.

 

The US military charters other similar organizations, which prima facie disproves your contention. Any organization may be freely sponsored in the same manner that the BSA troops are sponsored. Sponsorship of BSA troops is not given preference over sponsorship of any other organization.

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Merlyn,

 

Quit picking and choosing what you want to use as evidence and what you don't. If you decided to create a Private Organization in the same vein as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts or Campfire, you could. And that organization with it's private membership requirements could be sponsored by the military. Here is the document again that spells out the military's policy concerning Private Organizations on Military Installations. It is a document for ALL private organizations.....not just the Boy Scouts. Read it, learn it, live it. Your argument is invalid.

 

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r210_22.pdf

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

robk:

...

>How does that prevent you from creating your own scouting style organization?

 

It doesn't; I've explained before.

 

>>Partly yes" means that the first amendment covers more than what you claimed earlier.

 

>No, it does not. In this instance, the law struck down clearly violated the First Amendment prohibition on government requiring religion to qualify for the full benefit of citizenship.

 

You admitted that the Silverman case was partly decided on first amendment grounds, and since the Silverman case didn't involve congress establishing a religion, that amendment covers more than what you claimed it did. Read some court decisions, like Torcaso v. Watkins or Abington v. Schemmp. The first amendment isn't nearly as limited as you think it is.

 

>Membership in the BSA can in no way be construed as a right or benefit of citizenship.

 

I've never claimed it did; however, the first amendment prohibits the military from running religiously discriminatory youth groups, because the government can't do that.

 

>>>Moreover the US government gives no preference to the BSA over other organizations in this regard.

 

>>Yes it does; the US military is chartering some BSA units.

 

>The US military charters other similar organizations, which prima facie disproves your contention.

 

Which ones? Remember, to create the same constitutional problems, the US military would have to sponsor a group that discriminates on the basis of religion, and the military would be in charge of selecting leadership of that group (and be required to discriminate on the basis of religion in selecting the leadership). One of the requirements of the chartering organization is to select the leadership.

 

to kwc57:

>Quit picking and choosing what you want to use as evidence and what you don't. If you decided to create a Private Organization in the same vein as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts or Campfire, you could.

 

Start reading what I write; I haven't said otherwise. I was pointing out that atheists can't create a scout group in the US because of the BSA.

 

>Here is the document again that spells out the military's policy concerning Private Organizations on Military Installations. It is a document for ALL private organizations.....not just the Boy Scouts. Read it, learn it, live it. Your argument is invalid.

 

And read my arguments again; I'm talking about units CHARTERED by the military, not just private organizations that meet on bases. It's like the difference between a public school running a KKK group (illegal) vs. a public school allowing the general public to meet in the school after hours and a KKK group meets there (legal).

 

But apparently, this is too difficult for most of you to grasp. Why do you think the ACLU won the earlier Chicago case?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

bob white:

>The links provided by you and OGe refer to a case that was settled on Oct. 24, 2001. it in volved only the Chicago School System and its affiliates and provides for Learning for life, carrier scouting and scouting for the handicapped to continue to be sponsored by the Chigacgo governement and afiliates and allows tradional scouting use of school property after school just as other private organizations and allows the BSA to recruit membership during school hours as other organizations do.

 

>This case did not include as plaintifs the federal government or the FECBSA. So where is that suit? I am still unable to find it. It is not listed as a pending ACLU action.

 

Read the link I gave earlier:

http://xxx.infidels.org/~nap/bsa_IL_District.html

 

It's a class action suit, and names a representative agency for both an Illinois state and federal chartering org. The federal one named is USTRANSCOM. Also see e.g. section 69:

 

69. The Taxpayers bring this nationwide class action for declaratory and injunctive relief

against Defendant Federal Government Agency Class, consisting of each Federal Government

Agency that expends federal tax funds in the operation of Scouting Units chartered by BSA.

 

It's a class action suit naming ALL federal government agencies that charter BSA units.

 

The only Winkler item with a date of Oct 24, 2001 that I could find was the chicago school board vote to settle the case in the ACLU's favor by dropping all discriminatory charters; but this is only the action of one defendant, the chicago school board.

 

http://www.cps.k12.il.us/AboutCPS/Board/Board_Actions/FY01-02/octbdact102401/01-1024-AR3.pdf

 

Notice that this agreement prohibits schools from chartering any discriminatory BSA units, etc. and repayment of the ACLU's attorney's fees. In other words, the ACLU won.

 

It's possible the federal part of the case was split off; I found a reference to "Winkler v. DoD" on a military site dated January, 2002.

 

[evmori]

I know I've asked this before but I'm gonna ask ask again. Where in the Conctitution does it say anything about the separation of church & state? The 1st Amendment guarantees religious freedom & guarantees the state will not establish a religion but nowhere does it say there needs to be separation of the two.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[RobK]

ince the Silverman case didn't involve congress establishing a religion, that amendment covers more than what you claimed it did.

 

Once more, from the beginning -- Silverman won his case because the state established a religous test for public office, which while expressly prohibited by Article 6, also fails the First Amendment prohibition on state establishment of religion, since it requires the citizen to follow a religion to receive the full benefit of citizenship. It is irrelevant in the present case because no one is required to follow a religion or lack thereof to receive the full benefits of citizenship, nor is anyone required to not follow his own religion or lack thereof to receive the full benefits of citizenship.

 

If the military had a requirement that any group it sponsors must require religous belief for membership, that would violate the First Amendment.

 

If the military restricted the number of groups it sponsors to one which required a religous belief for membership, that also would violate the First Amendment.

 

If the military banned all groups that require a religous belief for membership, that also would violate the First Amendment.

 

There is no federal law that requires the US Military to charter BSA troops, nor is there a federal law which requires the US Military to provide any leadership to any troop that it might charter. The US Military may not force any of its members to become members of the BSA.

 

Start reading what I write; I haven't said otherwise. I was pointing out that atheists can't create a scout group in the US because of the BSA. [...] I'm talking about units CHARTERED by the military, not just private organizations that meet on bases.

 

He did read what you wrote and accurately replied. We also are speaking of units chartered by the military. Atheists can create a scout group in the US, for atheists only, without regard to the BSA, and have military units charter them under the exact same terms and condition as BSA troops. Whether or not you can use the word scout in the name is irrelevant.

 

Merlyn, I'll be honest with you. I've not engaged in this discussion in any real attempt to convert you to my view point. I was fully aware from the start that it was very unlikely that you would change your mind. My main purpose has been to expose and highlight to those on my side of the issue the underlying truth of what the First Amendment really says, to ensure they fully understand the truth of the matter. I believe that I have successfully done so now. You have simply been my Devil's Advocate, for who better to be the Devil's Advocate than the Devil himself.

 

I hope you don't think that I think I'm better than you. I don't, "for all have sinned and are deserving unto death."

 

By the way, I'm also aware that you'll reply to this message with some further irrelevant or obviously incorrect point or misinterpretation of what I've said simply to get the last word.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

robk:

>Once more, from the beginning -- Silverman won his case because the state established a religous test for public office, which while expressly prohibited by Article 6, also fails the First Amendment prohibition on state establishment of religion, since it requires the citizen to follow a religion to receive the full benefit of citizenship.

 

No, it didn't require "following a religion", it only required belief in god. These are two different things (of course, the first amendment prohibits the government from requiring either one for public office).

 

...

>My main purpose has been to expose and highlight to those on my side of the issue the underlying truth of what the First Amendment really says, to ensure they fully understand the truth of the matter.

 

Well, you don't understand it at all; here's what you said earlier:

 

>I have completely covered the religion aspect of the First Amendment. It forbids congress from forcing a religion on anyone, or prohibiting anyone from his chosen religion. No more, no less.

 

Here's a quote from Everson v. board of education:

 

 

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.

 

 

Using your interpretation, passing a law that aids all religions would be constitutional; the court said in Everson that it isn't.

 

And here's Abington v. Schempp:

 

this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another.