San Diego att'y explains why city settled with ACLU

[Bob White]

But, the Boy Scouts did not claim to be a religion. They claimed to be religious. There is a marked distinction between the two. If the schools are to refuse support to groups or individuals who are are religious they would need to close their doors to the majority of the tax paying public. The US Government is religious, they recognize religious holidays, they have God mentioned in several governmental papers and in many government functions, God is mentioned on our money, in our oaths of office, the 10 Commandments formed the root of many of our laws our laws. There is nothing about being religious that is contrary to the constitution.

 

The BSA has always been a religious organization, anyone who has been a member of a unit that followed the program would know that from their first day involved. Charter Organizations know also. I have been involved in started several scouting units and promoting the strong moral beliefs of scouting and their support of religious activity by the members is a feature we boast on.

 

So to deny services to a BSA unit because they are religious, would be the same as denying my son access to those services because his family attends a church and so he is religious.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Bob White writes:

Charter Organizations know also.

 

No, they don't. There's a public school here in MN that charters a Venture Crew, and the principal (who is in the BSA, and was the local District Chair) insists that atheists can join his Venture Crew, even though National BSA says they can't (though it's very difficult getting a straight answer from the BSA). The principal and superintendent know quite well that they can't discriminate on the basis of religion, and both of them are under the misapprehension that atheists can join the Venture Crew chartered by the school.

 

And San Diego isn't refusing the Boy Scouts use of public property, what's at dispute is a special deal not available to the public. The Boy Scouts have the same access to public facilities as anyone else. This is what the Berkeley lawsuit over a free Sea Scout berth found; the Boy Scouts lost free berthing, but they can rent berths like anyone else. They just can't get them for free the way nondiscriminatory organizations can.

[Bob White]

One thing that neither your group or mine can control is stupidity. A District Committee member who doesn't know the tenets of the organization he or she is leading is stupid, can we agree on that? Everybody has moments of stupidity. Stupidity however is not unconstitutional, nor is being religious. My understanding is that the state cannot support religion. But the state can support people being religious, in fact it is done all the time.

 

The BSA is not a religion, it has never claimed to be, nor ever tried to have any of the features or elements of a religion. So how do you seek to control it constitutionally as you would a religion? The scouts were not given those price breaks because they were a religion or because they were religious.

 

It was done because of the service being given to the local youth was seen as a good thing and the town chose to lend support. If they choose not to now, thats fine, but lets do it for the right reason. If religion was not a factor in getting the lease then it should not be a factor in ending it. The BSA got the low cost lease for being a non-profit organization.

 

The only fair thing to do would be for the city to take back any special services given to any non-profit organization. Whether or not they are religious is not relevant to why the lease was made available.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Bob White:

One thing that neither your group or mine can control is stupidity. A District Committee member who doesn't know the tenets of the organization he or she is leading is stupid, can we agree on that?

 

Isn't the BSA also acting stupid to issue a Venturing Crew charter to a public school? Shouldn't the BSA stop issuing charters to government agencies? And doesn't the above situation show that the BSA doesn't tell its charter partners that they are expected to exclude atheists? Why are there still thousands of BSA charters to government agencies, anyway?

 

The BSA is not a religion, it has never claimed to be, nor ever tried to have any of the features or elements of a religion. So how do you seek to control it constitutionally as you would a religion? The scouts were not given those price breaks because they were a religion or because they were religious.

 

But they lost them because they insisted on discriminating on the basis of religion.

 

In the Berkeley berth situation, the Sea Scouts were unable to sign the nondiscrimination agreement. Religious organizations that keep to Berkeley's nondiscrimination requirements are still elligible.

 

The San Diego case has only gone through summary judgement, where the judge found that the BSA was a religious organization, which meant that San Diego couldn't bypass their normal bidding process (which gives all groups a chance to bid on the property). A city can sell land to a church, but it CAN'T set up a special sale for the mayor's favorite church; in a similar vein, the city can rent property to the BSA, but it can't set up a special deal.

 

It was done because of the service being given to the local youth was seen as a good thing and the town chose to lend support. If they choose not to now, thats fine, but lets do it for the right reason. If religion was not a factor in getting the lease then it should not be a factor in ending it.

 

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense; the BSA's religious discrimination is a direct issue.

 

The BSA got the low cost lease for being a non-profit organization.

 

The only fair thing to do would be for the city to take back any special services given to any non-profit organization.

 

Now you're just sounding like sour grapes. If the BSA can't get freebies, NOBODY can. Suppose the city of San Diego decided to only give special services to non-profit organizations that don't discriminate on the basis of religion? That's quite legal, as the city has a vested interest in not furthering religious discrimination.

 

[Bob White]

The BSA issues Charters to any qualified organization wishing to use the scouting program to benefit eligible members. Schools PTO's are parents of the students should they not be allowed to sponsor programs that endorse their family's values? There are girls at schools that have Boy Scout troops and packs who are not allowed to be members, should schools not have troop or packs because of that? There are schools with basketball teams where there are students who will never make the cut to play, should the school not have a basketball team?

 

The BSA discriminates based on the fact that they are a private organization and have a constitutionally protected right of free association.

 

The BSA has never forced anyone to charter a unit. Any organization that doesn't like what the BSA stands for is welcome to not use the program. Iy just happens that Schools like the BSA because it makes better students, it promotes good behavior, good study habits, self discipline, goal setting, and many other fine attributes. It also promotes citizenship and the importance of understanding that we are not the center of our universe. That in order to fully develop in character and concern for others, a person needs to accept and develop their service to God, in whatever name you choose to worship Him.

 

Now some would say that we also promotes illegal discrimination. That is an out and out lie. Nowhere in the program of the BSA is a scout taught that or has that exemplified for them. We teach scouts to make their own decisions based on the elements of the Oath and Law.

 

The National office has the right to set membership requirements that best allow us to meet our mission. Instead of atheists trying to make scouting more like them, perhaps they should be trying to be more like scouts.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

bob white:

The BSA issues Charters to any qualified organization wishing to use the scouting program to benefit eligible members.

 

And public schools, which cannot practice religious discrimination, cannot be qualified organizations, because they can't follow the BSA's religious requirements.

 

So why does the BSA issue charters to public schools? Why do experienced BSA members, who ought to know better, think their Venture Crew can admit atheists?

 

Now some would say that we also promotes illegal discrimination. That is an out and out lie.

 

No, it's the truth. By issuing charters to public schools, the BSA is expecting these public schools to exclude atheists. It's illegal for public schools to do this.

[evmori]

By not allowing a school to charter a BSA unit is discriminating against the BSA and a violation of the 1st Ammendment!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

Key at him, Bob! You are making excellent points!

[Adrianvs]

Many public schools at all levels "charter" or otherwise host religous groups. This is less common at the elementary level, as student groups are uncommon for kids that age, but secondary and post-secondary institutions host such groups all the time. Islamic groups do not include "amuslims" and Christian groups do not include "achristians." Why should a theist group that excludes atheists be any different? A few religions exclude science as a valid means of knowledge. Does the local science club exclude "ascienters" as members. Yes. Why don't you go attacking science clubs for their religious discrimination?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

adrianvs writes:

Many public schools at all levels "charter" or otherwise host religous groups.

 

Not in the way schools charter BSA units.

 

The BSA says that the charter partner "owns and operates" the unit, and the SCHOOL is expected to exclude those kids without the "right" religious views. It's a youth group being run by the school.

 

Public schools can't do this.

 

What YOU'RE talking about is ACCESS to school facilities, which is entirely different. In those cases, the school is NOT running the group, and the school is not excluding students for not having acceptable religious views.

 

When a public school charters a BSA unit, the school is excluding students for not having acceptable religious views, and public schools can't do that.

 

A religious group that meets in a public school can run their own basketball team that excludes Jews, but a basketball team RUN BY THE SCHOOL can't exclude Jews.

[NJCubScouter]

Adrian, "chartering" a group as a BSA-chartered organization does, and "hosting" a group by providing meeting and activity space, are two different things. I believe that the law now is that public schools must provide use of facilities to religious organizations on the same basis as other organizations. For example if there is a chess club and a debating club and they get to use a classroom after school, the school can't deny use of a classroom to the Christian club or the Buddhist club or a generic Bible Study Group. (I'm not sure that you're correct that such religious groups in a school can exclude non-adherents of their religion; I have a feeling that they cannot be excluded as long as they are not there to disrupt the stated purpose of the meeting or study, but I don't have any actual evidence handy.)

 

Chartering a BSA unit, which makes the organization the "owner" of the unit, is different. I think it would be correct to say that if the unit is practicing any "discrimination," the CO is practicing the same thing -- even if the "discrimination" is required by BSA national policy. I think a distinction is being lost here though -- it seems Merlyn is talking about a school itself being the CO while others (Bob I think) have mentioned a school's PTO as the CO. As I have said before, I believe Merlyn is correct that a public school itself (or a military base or other arm of the "government") should not be a CO of a BSA unit because it would be engaging in discrimination on the basis of religion (by excluding atheists) and in some states it would be engaging in unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Allowing use of facilities to a BSA unit on the same basis as other groups, without being a CO, is a different story. Having the PTO be the CO is also a different story, though it's a bit complicated. PTO's are technically "private" organizations but it is a fuzzy line, as they get some privileges that other groups do not. In my school district the PTO's and other "parent groups" (band parents, special ed parents, education foundation and others) are designated "friends of the school district" and are given free use of facilities that say, an outside religious group would not get. (The religious group could rent the space for a fee.) A few of the PTO's are CO's of packs and troops. I don't know that the issue has ever come up within the PTO's.

 

The issue of the use of facilities by BSA units HAS come up in my school district -- specifically at a school board committee meeting at which I was present. I have refrained from talking about this because the more I say about it, the more I could potentially be identified. It also was not a public meeting. Suffice it to say that I did not raise the issue, and was not happy to be the only person room who had any inkling about what the BSA's legal position is on the use of public facilities by BSA units. I felt compelled to describe that legal position, after several disclaimers, including that if the person wanted to pursue it, they should check with the board attorney and not rely on what I was saying. Also suffice it to say that, as far as I know, the issue ended there.

[evmori]

By not allowing a public school to charter a BSA unit is discriminating against the BSA and a violation of the 1st Ammendment!

Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10

[berkshirescouter]

I have a question about clubs on military bases not being chartered by the base command.

I was under the impression that all groups had to be chartered by the base command for security reasons. If this is correct then the only groups excluded were under UCMJ 'good order and discipline' clause. I may be wrong its been 30 years. Anyone know for sure?

[Adrianvs]

Our science club practices what you might call de facto exclusion. They say, "Sure, members of all religious and philosophical backgrounds are welcome. Of course, we will be discussing scientific issues under the premise that physical phenomena are real and controlled by constant laws. That is not so different from an Islamic club stating, "Sure, members of all religious and philosophical backgrounds are welcome. Of course, we will be worshipping Al'Lah, the supreme being." Would you object to such a group? What if the property was owned by the school. How is that different from the school owning and operating scientific equipment which presumes a philosophical disposition against idealism and some Eastern religions? Why is it acceptable for a school organization to promote one philosophical view (with religious implications), but not to sponsor (legally own property for) another group which asserts philosophical propositions regarding a supreme being?

 

Regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation, I must ask you if you are ready for the BSA to remove any barriers to membership related to it. I'll even give you a freeby and let you rule out all illegal actions. Do you feel that the BSA should allow all individuals of ANY sexual orientation who engage in legal actions? Some of them may be engaged in these actions publically, mind you. Where do you draw the lines within that category and how do you draw them? You realize, don't you, that a no discrimination policy in regards to sexual orientation or activity doesn't allow you to draw any lines within the group?

[Bob White]

"No, it's the truth. By issuing charters to public schools, the BSA is expecting these public schools to exclude atheists. It's illegal for public schools to do this."

 

Excellent job of changing context Merlyn. Schools cannot base enrollment or hiring on sexual discrimination. That does not make it illegal for them to charter a scout unit, or for scouting to excercise their constitutionally protected right of free association.

 

Secondly, the school does not charter the unit, the Parent Teachers Organization ssociation does and as a private organization, they are not bound by the same federal laws.

 

 

 

[evmori]

Go Bobby Go!

Watch him!  He spins better than a top!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10