Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 dsteele writes: In essence, if the chartered organization does not want to agree to uphold the policies of the Boy Scouts of America, as was done in this case, the charter will not be approved by the local council. So why are there still BSA charters to government agencies, which, BY LAW, cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, which the BSA requires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsteele Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Merlyn -- That question is better posed to the government agencies and the agents who sign the charter. It is they who are agreeing to abide by the policies of the Boy Scouts of America. The local council accepts. I don't want to encourage you in your quest and I can assure you that as long as agencies of the United States government are willing to work with the Boy Scouts of America, we will continue to work with them. However, I believe in fair reporting of the facts -- regardless of who it helps. DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 I'd say most of the government agencies don't realize that the BSA expects them to actually break the law and exclude atheists. But back to your statement: "In essence, if the chartered organization does not want to agree to uphold the policies of the Boy Scouts of America, as was done in this case, the charter will not be approved by the local council." As I've pointed out, no government agency CAN uphold the policies of the Boy Scouts; so why are there so many local councils that still approve charters to government agencies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Merlyn, By sponsoring a Troop/Pack/Crew a government agency isn't breaking the law. There is no such law! If there was, we wouldn't have "In God We Trust" on our currency! Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 ed mori writes: By sponsoring a Troop/Pack/Crew a government agency isn't breaking the law. By sponsoring a troop/pack/crew, a government agency is "owning and operating" a youth group that discriminates on the basis of religion, which is in violation of the first amendment of the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Merlyn, read the "12 steps"...do you also advocate goverment agencies withdraw support from Alcoholics Anonymous? Around here, churches regularly meet in our schools until their buildings are built. What about military chaplains and churches on military bases? Your tax dollars are providing religion to the troops and the amount spent is FAR in excess of the paltry support provided to the BSA. But if we want to provide a coffee pot in our office (military), we are not allowed to spend congressionally appropriated funds ... we have to pay coffee mess dues. Where is the logic? Why not go after the BIG bucks where you could make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 scoutldr writes: Merlyn, read the "12 steps"...do you also advocate goverment agencies withdraw support from Alcoholics Anonymous? Yes; courts have ruled that AA is "unequivocally religious", and have struck down mandatory AA attendance as violating the person's religious freedom (they can, of course, be required to attend some kind of alcohol treatment program, but AA can't be the only possible choice). The government can't support an "unequivocally religious" program. What about military chaplains and churches on military bases? I think you mean "chapels"; chaplains are required to serve ALL soldiers, not just those whose religious beliefs agree with theirs, and chapels are also open to all. There was a lawsuit a few years ago in Hawaii about a naval chapel that refused to host a polytheist native Hawaiian wedding, and the Navy lost. Your tax dollars are providing religion to the troops and the amount spent is FAR in excess of the paltry support provided to the BSA. But if we want to provide a coffee pot in our office (military), we are not allowed to spend congressionally appropriated funds ... we have to pay coffee mess dues. Where is the logic? Why not go after the BIG bucks where you could make a difference. Using your "logic", it would be OK with you if the local sheriff's office ran a youth group that excluded Jews, since that's such a trivial amount of money. I notice your preply completely ignored the issue of government agencies owning and operating youth groups that don't allow atheists to join. Do you consider religious discrimination by the government to be a trivial issue that should be ignored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Merlyn, I respect your beliefs and your right to express them...you are a valuable member of the forum and have made me think. Although it may not have been evident in my post, I am still wrestling with this issue in my own mind. I do believe all forms of discrimination are wrong. I, myself have been the victim of racial discrimination many times (some would call it "reverse" discrimination, but the result is the same). I wish the organization that I grew up in and still love were more inclusive, or at least not as disclusive. I think the best option might be "local option". COs should be able to set their own membership standards. We have units sponsored by christian churches where every meeting is started with prayer and a "message" and they have the Cross of Jesus on the back of their Troop neckerchiefs. They are spoonfed their religious awards in classes at Den and Troop meetings (God and Country mills???). Other units are exclusively LDS or Muslim. ALthough, technically, if a white Jew tried to join the Muslim unit, he probably wouldn't be turned away, he would feel pretty darn unwelcome while the entire unit prays to Mecca 6 times a day, don't you think? Wonder how the Jewish kid would feel having to wear Christian symbols on his official uniform and having to listen to New Testament scripture readings during the opening? Others, like ours, adhere to the Declaration of Religious Principles, but have a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude, and religion is not a real visible part of our program, so I like to think we are as inclusive as they come. Like the BSA treats sex education, my personal belief is that religious training is a parental duty, according to their own faith and custom. And I believe we will be judged on how we treat our fellow human beings, and by our stewardship of God's creation...including the sinners and non-believers He created. Maybe this is a test??? HMMMMMMM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsteele Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Merlyn: Go ahead and quote whoever you want. There are a few facts you should consider in your fight against us. The United States Congress -- which charters the Boy Scouts of America debated rescinding the charter within the last five years. They voted strongly in favor of continuing the charter of the BSA. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that as a private organization, the Boy Scouts of America has the right to determine its standards of membership. That's a two-thirds majority of the branches of the U.S. Government. No one has yet asked the President, but I would suspect that since all Presidents since at least Theodore Roosevelt (and it may have been Taft, I'm not sure) have been Honorary Presidents of the BSA that the Executive Branch is on our side as well. Your argurment isn't invalid -- would it kill you to admit that some of us are trying to be fair? -- but history sides with the BSA. DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Merlyn, By not letting government agencies sponsor Troops/Packs/Crews would be a violation of the 1st ammendment! It would violate the right of religious freedom! Your view is just the opposite and wrong! And by the way, you didn't answer about the "In God We Trust" on our currency. Maybe all that living in Frostbite Falls has frozen your brain. Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slontwovvy Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 I'd be very curious to discover if Merlyn has observed a Scout meeting recently, or ever. Maybe he'd see just how "discriminatory" the average troop is. Last time I checked, most Scout troops didn't change the oath to say, "On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law, to hate gays and atheists at all times, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." As my old debate coach used to say, "Always try to understand where your opponent is coming from. Seeing the other side of the issue will allow a more persuasive argument, and less open hostility toward your opponent." Always something I took to heart. I've always tried to read as many different sources of news as possible. Some of the people I tolerate least are the people who blindly spout their claptrap that they've been fed, without bothering to find out the other side. Maybe Merlyn has "seen the other side," but if he hasn't, maybe he should see the good that Scouting does. Just an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 That's pretty arrogant, ed. So anyone who doesnt' agree with you is wrong? IF you want the guarantee of "Freedom of religion", then we must also guarantee "Freedom FROM religion", especially religion with which we don't agree. With the Establishment Clause (aka, the First Amendment), the Framers wanted to guarantee that the Government would never establish a State Religion (i.e., the "Church of England" or "atheism") and to guarantee that religious persecution could not exist in a free society. So, as an educated and intelligent person, my interpretation is that Government may support groups such as the Scouts, who have religious duty as a basic tenet, however, in turn those groups may NOT advocate (and thereby discriminate) a specific religion over another (e.g., LDS, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam) or exclude those who choose not to agree. Benefits provided by the GOvernment (that is, our tax dollars), must be made available to all citizens regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or creed. The solution is for the members to put their money where their beliefs are, so that the BSA doesn't need to depend on Government largesse. It's almost FOS time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 scoutldr writes: So, as an educated and intelligent person, my interpretation is that Government may support groups such as the Scouts, who have religious duty as a basic tenet, however, in turn those groups may NOT advocate (and thereby discriminate) a specific religion over another (e.g., LDS, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam) or exclude those who choose not to agree. Are you saying that such units would be required to admit atheists? Whether your answer is yes or no, you're still wrong; the government can't support religion over non-religion either, as Torcaso v. Watkins pointed out. Benefits provided by the GOvernment (that is, our tax dollars), must be made available to all citizens regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or creed. Exactly. And that includes people who don't subscribe to the creed "god exists". However, by owning and operating youth groups that exclude such people, the government is excluding them from this benefit, solely on the basis of creed. slontwovvy writes: I'd be very curious to discover if Merlyn has observed a Scout meeting recently, or ever. Maybe he'd see just how "discriminatory" the average troop is. I realize that many, if not most troops ignore the religious requirement. However, this is just like an organization that is "officially" Restricted (no Jews), but Jews can join if they aren't "obviously" Jewish, and if they keep their mouths shut, and if they don't kick up a fuss how their local Sheriff's office is running a youth group that is, officially, "no Jews allowed". If you don't recognize all the problems inherent in the above situation, you just aren't familiar with US history. ev mori writes: By not letting government agencies sponsor Troops/Packs/Crews would be a violation of the 1st ammendment! Of course not; the government can't support "no atheists" groups any more than it can support "no Jews" groups. If I start a group that doesn't admit Jews, you're saying it's unlawful if the government refuses to financially support my group?! Sorry, you're one of those looking-glass Christians like Judge Moore, who feel your rights are infringed when the government is restricted from promoting your religion; you have no idea what religious freedom really means, and I'm completely serious. dsteele writes: Your argurment isn't invalid -- would it kill you to admit that some of us are trying to be fair? -- but history sides with the BSA. First, I see nobody trying to be fair; everyone (except possibly OGE) seems to be defending government-run "no atheists" youth groups. That description itself shows how unfair the situation is, since you can change it to "no Jews" or "no Catholics" and the legal issues are identical. If thousands of government agencies across the US owned and operated youth groups that excluded Catholics, would you consider that fair, or would you consider it fair only if the government stopped doing it? Second, I've been talking about government-owned BSA units, and the BSA has always lost there. They get to choose only one: be a religiously discriminatory, private group, or government charters. They cannot have both, because the constitution prohibits it. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 scoutldr, I never said anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong! Where did you get that? The 1st Ammendment guarantees us the freedom of religion among other things. That means we are free to worship how we want. Nowhere does it state a government agency can't support a group who believes one way over another! Freedom from religion? Are you making that one up? Where in the Constitution does it say that? And don't start about the separation of church & state because that is mentioned nowhere in the document. By a government agency sopnsoring a BSA group doesn't establish one religion over another. What it does is state that governmetn agency feel the BSA is a good organization to back. Our tax dollars have the words "In God We Trust" on them, don't forget. And our tax dollars help fund many things both good and bad. Only, the BSA isn't one of the bad ones. So if you think I am arogant, fine. I'm not trying to be. Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsteele Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Merlyn -- If support by the government of the Boy Scouts of America were unconstitutional, we would not be chartered by the United States Congress. The latest attack failed. I have now expended more energy on you than is worth my trouble. Now I'm on to other topics. Good Day. DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now