ACLU Info?

[firstpusk]

OK Ed. The clarification is helpful. I have no problem with the ACLU collecting those fees. If these governments don't want to pay these fees and settlements all they have to do is stop violating the law. In fact, the ACLU will usually inform the parties of their concerns before filing any action. This shot across the bow should be sufficient warning to look into the matter and deal with it. San Diego bet their case was strong and found out otherwise.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Hi Tort,

 

Didn't think you were trying to bait me; just making a sort of self-depricating remark about my chances of getting a logical argument correct, ie, slim

 

>>So why don't you accord the People of the United States (or the People of Texas) the right to pass laws that coincide with their beliefs of right and wrong? Why would you want ANY law that did not attempt to keep society on a good path?

I guess because I'm not so sure that there are one set of beliefs here. And if that's true, just using the beliefs of the majority would, I think, seem to the minority to be an infringement on their rights to practice their religious beliefs (within some rational limits who are established by, well, somebody).

 

Hey, I've been down to your beautiful state a few times. Don't you guys down there sort of do things your own way anyway? (Just kidding, I've always had a good time there and met really friendly people, not unlike us midwesterners... Been to, let's see, Dallas and San Antonio; my wife has been to Austin and Big Bend NP)

 

>>If society is dominated by the people of one religion (and it's not in our country), then why shouldn't that society reflect those views if the society is governed by the people?

Because if you do that, some of the time you end up like countries in the Middle East where they solve the problem of differing religious views by just killing everyone who disagrees.

 

>>I worked for a partner who knew the Bush family very well. The President is a headstrong man who does ONLY what he thinks is right...and yes he has made mistakes. He's no one's puppet. He is very much his own man.

I am actually glad to hear that. My impressions are based on what I read, mostly, because my chances of getting to know the man personally are, well, nil. Hearing the opinion of people who actually know the man would carry a lot more weight with me. 'Course, I still don't agree with a lot of what he's doing

 

 

[evmori]

Merlyn,

Yep I made an accusation that was unfounded. Sorry.

 

Your list did nothing but inflate the numbers in your favor! That's fair! But I guess that really doesn't matter to you. Removing God from everyday life seems to be your mission. When do you plan on going after the Supreme Court itself for all the religious references it has on it's building and in its chambers?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Your list did nothing but inflate the numbers in your favor!

 

No Ed, my list is imperfect BOTH ways; it includes some units that should be included, and excludes some units that ought to be included. For example, I've included some units where the charter partner is "Town of xxx", but I have since found that some units chartered by towns have their charter partner listed as "Village of xxx" - and since my extraction scripts looked for "town" but not "village", I missed those.

 

Some are ambiguous - is this a government agency or not?

Barrow, AK

Pack 2058 North Slope Borough

 

And as I've already said, it's a moot point. I created it with the intention of removing all government BSA charters, and that's what's happening. Look at e.g. www.stlbsa.org

[evmori]

Merlyn,

A public school isn't a government agency. And from your non-response it's safe to say you have no intention on going after the religious symbols in the Supreme Court chamber or on the Supreme Court building. Selective prosecution!

 

Now back to your list! Wouldn't want to mislead anyone, would you!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

A public school isn't a government agency.

 

Then what is it?

 

And you are apparently ignorant about the US supreme court building. You can remain so.

[schleining]

Thanks Prairie for taking it to the extreme...

Its the 10 Commandments... ten real good rules to live by.

The folks you mentioned might want to read them too...

 

Just because people breal the law, does not mean the law is flawed...

 

Gimmie a Break here... we can play the extreme game all day long.

 

Thanks for playing though.

 

Jerry

[packsaddle]

Evmori, the thought just occurred to me that perhaps this is actually a conspiracy. BSA and ACLU team up to swindle feckless governments out of huge settlements. BSA cons them into sweetheart deals and then, WHAM!!!, the ACLU drops the hammer. Wow, what a great story!

[ScoutNerd]

Ok, Merlyn and Ed, I'm about to ask you to sit in opposite corners so we can work this out politely! No offense meant to either of you, but discuss, don't attack. Anyway...

Merlyn, maybe not the building, but the supreme court (and the judicial system in general) does have more than a few references to God. "whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you ___" (fill in the blank) Unless it's just been too long since I've been in a courtroom and the don't actually say that anymore (pity if they didn't). Acutally to bring back a random point I made a few pages earlier, there are references to God in other forms from the government too, such as currency. Even on nickels and pennies, they somehow find room to squeeze in "in God we trust". I'm definetly not telling you, the ACLU or anyone else to attack the government for this, merlyn, but I would like to hear your opinion.

 

-Curtis :-D

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

ScoutNerd writes:

Merlyn, maybe not the building, but the supreme court (and the judicial system in general) does have more than a few references to God. "whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you ___" (fill in the blank) Unless it's just been too long since I've been in a courtroom and the don't actually say that anymore (pity if they didn't).

 

It is, and always has been, optional.

 

The only oath in the constitution is for the office of president of the US; here's the entire thing:

 

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

That's it. Notice what isn't there.

 

Also, the very first law passed by the very first congress was the Judiciary Act of 1789:

That the Supreme Court, and the district courts shall have power to appoint clerks for their respective courts, and that the clerk for each district court shall be clerk also of the circuit court in such district, and each of the said clerks shall, before he enters upon the execution of his office, take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., being appointed clerk of , do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office, according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God." Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath.

 

Plus article 6 prohibits religious tests.

 

Acutally to bring back a random point I made a few pages earlier, there are references to God in other forms from the government too, such as currency. Even on nickels and pennies, they somehow find room to squeeze in "in God we trust".

 

And your point is?

 

I'm definetly not telling you, the ACLU or anyone else to attack the government for this, merlyn, but I would like to hear your opinion.

 

Well, currency should no more have "in god we trust" on it than "gods are myths" or any other sort of comments on religion; the government should be neutral. If you think IGWT should be on currency, will you go along if later on people succeed in changing it to "gods are myths"? The government is still exercising the same power to put religious comments on money, after all; whether you happen to agree with the sentiment is irrelevant - you've implicitly granted the government that power if you think a message you agree with should be propagated by the government, and it will be much too late to rescind that power if the message changes to something you don't like.

 

It's really a question of whether you think the government ought to have the power to promote some religious idea on currency. The actual message being "in god we trust", "gods are myths", "Jesus is lord", "allah akbar", "god is white", or any other message that promotes some religious view that some citizens are certain to disagree with, is immaterial.

[evmori]

A public school is a educational institution. If you are saying it is a government agency because it receives funding from taxes, then that is a little bit of a stretch. Do you realize how many businesses & organizations receive some type of government funding? Are you planning on going after the ones who have references to God? What about student loans for college students attending Christian colleges? Better stop that practice!

 

If a public school is a government agency because it receives tax money then anyone who receives a refund on their tax return is a government agency!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

Ed, are you seriously trying to argue that the public schools are not government agencies.

 

The districts are set up by the state to cover every corner of territory.

 

They are given authority to tax the property owners in that district to raise funds.

 

The residents elect members of the school board who have the authority to set policy and hire and fire employees.

 

They mandate attendance at their schools or other educational institutions or arrangements for every child qualified.

 

Throughout this nation every child has the right to a free appropriate public education mandated by federal law and the decisions of the courts.

 

Don't you think that you are being just a tad foolish on this one?

[evmori]

Public schools are not government agencies. They are educational institutions. Silly or not, that is my belief. If your basis for a government agency is one that receives public funding, we are all government agencies!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

Public schools are not government agencies. They are educational institutions. Silly or not, that is my belief. If your basis for a government agency is one that receives public funding, we are all government agencies!

 

Oh brother.

 

In Ed's defense (briefly) I'd have to say "agency" may not be the correct term here. I do think it probably is technically correct to call a public "government agency," but I think the more common way of referring to a government operation that is contained in a single building or campus is as a "government institution." A public school clearly is that. The receipt of tax dollars is not the determining factor. The determining factor is that a public school is OWNED AND OPERATED by a governmental entity, in most cases a local board of education. As I have mentioned once or twice in the past, I am a member of one of those -- yes, I am an elected governmental official, though an unpaid one, and we tend not to think of our board as a "government," but by law that is exactly what it is. Our district receives tax money, but mostly not by grants or anything like that... most of the tax dollars we receive are from our status as a taxing authority. In other words, we have the power to adopt a proposed budget, which then becomes an approved budget either by approval of the voters or adoption of a budget (usually a reduced amount, if the budget fails at the polls) by the local governing bodies, and that approved budget is then converted to a tax rate, which is collected and turned over to the school district to be spent according to law. The school district, as mentioned before, owns the school building, hires and pays the staff, and does everything else needed to operate the institution, provide a curriculum, textbooks, supplies, etc. The district itself is a "government" and the individual schools are government institutions.

[packsaddle]

Let's see, the faculty and staff are government employees, the property is owned by the government, the buildings were built and maintained with government funds, the school budget is part of the government's budget...

me thinks Ed is baiting us again just like he does with Merlyn all the time. Think I'll spit that hook out now.