ACLU to BSA: Heads We Win - Tails You Lose

[OneHour]

"what happens if an atheist student wants to join a unit chartered by the school?"

 

You bet ya ... he will be able to join any troop or pack. He will be able to participate in all activities. He will be awarded the belt loops and skills awards that he accomplished or completed. You bet ya. Will he be rank advanced? Has he completed all the requirements for the rank as prescribed? If religious belief is a requirement, then no. This is not a "rights" issue. This is an advancement "requirements" issue. This is a rule that he has to follow to be awarded the rank!

 

If a boy does not want to spar with an opponent because his religion will not allow to be combative and it is a requirement for the next belt (let's say from white to yellow) testing in Tae-kwon-do, will the master grant him the belt advancement if the boy decides to "sit out" during the sparring? I think not. Is the Tae-kwon-do master prejudiced or denied the boy his rights to the yellow belt? Is the ACLU going to run interferrence to protect his rights? If the answer is yes ... then the ACLU will be defending every person in the US for everything that is not suitable to him/her! Man ... where was ACLU when I didn't win the lottery! I didn't like the result! Apparently, the state of Texas is prejudiced against people like me who only believe in buying one lottery ticket! I feel that my rights to win is not be looked after!

 

On the other note, I chose to allow my sons to join BSA because I (along with other parents) agree with its philosophy and teaching. I and other parents in the troop grant the priviledge for an adult to teach and lead our sons. If the adult does not agree to teach our sons the philosophy and teachings that BSA has laid out and we (as parents of the boys) have agreed upon, we do not have to allow that adult to lead. There is no right being trembled on!

 

If this adult insists on his/her philosophy then create the club, association or union that reflects his/her philosophy. Ah, the beauty of being an American, you can actually do that! You don't have to subscribe to a single mandate! You have freedom! Hence the existence of hate groups, religious groups, non-religious groups, etc. ... Try to actually walk in others shoes first before preaching about lack of rights! Sir ... you have no ideas the difference between rights and priviledge!

 

I'm fairly sure that the ACLU will not hire a known, active, KKK or Neo-nazi activist on their staff. Why? This person does not conform to the ideals of ACLU! There are ideals that BSA's phisophy and foundation are based upon ... the same as any club, association, and union!(This message has been edited by OneHour)

[evmori]

Yes there are; what happens if an atheist student wants to join a unit chartered by the school?

 

Give it a rest, Merlyn. Joining a private organization isn't a right - it's a privilege! It would be really nice if you understood the difference.

 

 

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

Look, while BSA is a private organization, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that a troop or pack chartered by a public school ISN'T a private organization. It is an activity OWNED and OPERATED by the school itself. It is no different from the Science Club, the Baseball Team, or the Yearbook Staff. Surely all of you can understand that the school could not exclude people from the Science Club, Baseball Team or Yearbook Staff because of their religious beliefs? Too many people continue to be confused by the fact that BSA units are OWNED and OPERATED by their chartering organizations, not by BSA. It is a totally different issue from whether private groups can meet in the school--they can, as long as they get equal access. If the chartering organization is a public institution that cannot legally discriminate on the basis of religion, it is obvious that it cannot OWN and OPERATE an activity that discriminates. You are free to dislike this all you want, of course.

[tortdog]

Hunt. Reasonable people can disagree. Sure, if a public entity sponsors a racist organization, I concur that that entity is violating our constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination.

 

However, there is no constitutional provision that prevents a public entity from supporting religion IN GENERAL. There is a prohibition from Congress (and I'll expand that to the states) from ESTABLISHING a religion.

 

When a school sponsors a Cub Scout unit (and solely in connection with the religion argument you make), it allows ANY person who promises to do his duty to a supreme being, however that person understands that supreme being to be, to become a member. The school doesn't tell the child that he has to be Catholic, Muslim, Jewish...or even that the child has to worship only one god even. It only stands by and says: Do you swear to do your duty to your god?

 

Period.

 

How is THAT establishing a religion? It is recognition that a person can have religious beliefs, but not the establishment of a religion.

 

If we want to debate and amend our Constitution to prohibit any form of government interplay with organizations that espouse a belief in God, then fine - let's do the debate. However, I don't think that you'll find 2/3s of the House/Senate that will agree with that proposition. And if 2/3s of the House/Senate would not agree then what makes you think that it's in the Constitution at all?

[OneHour]

an offtake of "Miracle on 34th Street" ... separation of church and state ... hmmmm ... then why does our government puts the phrase "In God We Trust" in all US currencies? Isn't that an admission of the Treasury Department of the belief in an all powerful being?

 

May be I'm naive and lacking the legal eagle know-how and technical babble, but I still don't see the religious discrimination in this. No where on the application that states that a boy cannot join if he is an atheist. No where in the training books and at no time in training that I have been told that I will not admit any boy without a religion. I have always been taught to follow the requirements that were laid down by BSA in terms of rank advancement. If the boy meets all the requirements, he has earned the rank. No where did it indicate that I will automatically disqualify the boy from earning the rank if he does not believe in God. I don't recall seeing the phrase or phrases that would indicate that the troop or pack should band any boy from joining if he is a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Islam, atheist, etc. No where that I can remember in the BSA literatures that states that you have to believe in God to join. The closest is the question on the application: Your religious preference. Many people don't even fill that blank and I have yet to have a membership rejected because that blank was not filled in. May be that I can't read. If you can find those passages, please point them out to me.

 

I can find the religious requirements for rank advance. Yes ... each rank has it! Does this spell religious discrimination? No! Again, the boy is not barred from joining the unit. He simply cannot finish the rank!

 

"Surely all of you can understand that the school could not exclude people from the Science Club, Baseball Team or Yearbook Staff because of their religious beliefs?"

 

Yes, school could not exclude people from those clubs and I agree that a unit chartered by the school is another extension of the school. The school, for example, has the National Honor Society. It has requirements to be a member. High GPA is usually a requirement. The Honor Society is not excluding membership based on religion, but based on intelligence. Is this a discrimination children who have learning diabilities? School has cheerleading group and if the child who has disabilities wants to become a cheerleader and cannot jump or dance. She can't because of the requirement, then isn't the school discriminates against disabled children simple fact that its cheerleading squad has physical requirements? School can't pass and move a child to the next grade if a child cannot successfully read or perform the required math skills. School can't award a diploma if all required classes are not successfully passed. Math, reading, science, etc are REQUIREMENTS to move on to the next level. The baseball team has requirement for membership, namely the ability to play and having meet minimum requirements. These requirements are not discrimination tactics!

 

It so happened that BSA has the religion requirement as one of the basic qualifications to be awarded the rank. The boy can participate in all activities that he wants, but he just won't advance to the next rank if he has not completely met all requirements. Rank award is not a right, but it's an congratulatory recognition of having successfully complete ALL prescribed requirements.

 

Let's look at the definition of the words everyone's using:

 

(Webster)

discrimination:

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

 

discriminating:

2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

 

prejudice:

1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

 

 

BSA requirements are based on individual merit and not classifying a group or category. BSA requirements do not form judgement or opinion based on the individual's religious belief. I don't see how the religious requirement in each rank advancement requirements creates injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims. If the scout is an atheist, he still has the legal rights and claims that he is. The religious requirement does not demand that the scout renounce his belief or non-belief.

 

Let's take the Eagle Requirements as an example:

 

The only reference to religion is requirement #2:

Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life.

 

and

 

Law #12 of the Scout Law is "A Scout is reverent"

 

This does not state specifically that a scout has to renounce his belief or a particular religion is the only religion. The Scout can complete all other requirements and part of those requirements is to honor and respect a religous belief of some type. If the scout does not complete this part, he has not met all requirements just as not obtaining a high enough GPA to be admitted to the Honor Society. It's a requirement. His rights to be scout is still there. His rights to believe is still there. His rights as a human being is still intact. His freedom has not be taken.

 

My definition of religious discrimination? ... you can't join our swim team if your religion is anything other than ... (feel in the blank)! You are barred from step foot into our club house because you believe in ...!(This message has been edited by OneHour)

[firstpusk]

tortdog,I think if you take some time to look at the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Ammendment, you will have part of the answer. It seems that state and local government agencies used the same dodge in the south during reconstruction. They didn't want to have to respect the rights of the newly freed slaves. Take some time to look up the Lemon Test from Lemon v Kurtzman and you will have the rest of the answer.

 

The case dealt with state laws in PA an RI that provided government support to parochial schools. The Lemon test has three separate parts.

1)the statute must have a secular legislative purpose

2)its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion

3)the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion"

 

Since the scouts require all members both adult and youth to agree to the religious principles it has established, we are asking a public institution to endorse such an exclusionary position. If that does not establish religion, nothing will pass that test.

 

One note is that the courts have been especially sensitive to such cases that involve the schools because children are a captive, compliant audience.

[NJCubScouter]

Tortdog says:

 

There is a prohibition from Congress (and I'll expand that to the states) from ESTABLISHING a religion.

 

Actually the Establishment Clause does not have the word "a" in it, and I think that is pretty significant. In other words, it forbids legislation regarding an "establishment of religion," not just establishment of "A" religion. I think the "tests" developed by various justices of the Supreme Court who have written majority or concurring opinions over the years, while not perfect, have come reasonably close to the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Government-initiated prayer in schools, government ownership of entities that require a belief in God, displays of explcitly religious symbols by the government (especially when standing alone and not as a part of a more general "symbols of the season" display), all these things do "establish religion" according to the case law, and I agree.

[Hunt]

Under our system of laws, the Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret what the Constitution means--unless or until it is amended. Under current Supreme Court interpretation--which is therefore the supreme law of our land--it is plainly obvious that a public school could not constitutionally own and operate an organization that limits membership based on religious belief or lack thereof. You may not like this, and you may hope that the Supreme Court will change its mind, or that the Constitution might get amended, but right now it's the law. And the last I heard, a Scout is Obedient. It's really that simple.

 

(By the way, any argument that BSA doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion is really absurd--they have made it abundantly clear that an atheist does not meet the standards of membership, and their program--as OneHour spells out--includes various steps and recognitions that can only be achieved by people who espouse religious beliefs. Besides, discrimination isn't the only thing that makes this unconstitutional--it's also the religious nature of the organization. A school could not sponsor a Baptist club with Bible teaching and avoid problems by simply saying it's open to everyone. Having such a club would favor one religion, and religion over non-religion--and the Supreme Court says you can't do that. Same for a BSA unit--granted it's less explicitly religious than the Baptist club, but it's still explicitly religious, and it doesn't matter that it doesn't espouse a particular religion.)

 

By the way, lest anyone misunderstand, I favor BSA maintaining the religious requirement for membership.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

tortdog writes:

However, there is no constitutional provision that prevents a public entity from supporting religion IN GENERAL

 

According to the supreme court, the state can't pass a law that "aids all religions":

 

...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...

 

Everson v. Board of Education.

 

And

 

...We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs...

 

Torcaso v. Watkins

 

Plus, of course, state agencies can't act in ways the state government itself can't act.

[evmori]

...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... Everson v. Board of Education.

And

...We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs...

 

And how is a public school chartering a BSA unit a violate this? No one is forced to join the BSA so this argument is moot!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, that question has been answered for you so many times, that I will give you the answer again, but you'll have to pay me a dollar first.

 

(Of course even if you wanted to pay me the dollar, I am not sure how you would, because I don't give out my name or mailing address to anyone in this forum, and I have a web page but it doesn't take credit cards and I think it has my real name on it somewhere so that's out too. Plus I suppose Scouter-Terry would have some right to a commission on my dollar, perhaps the whole dollar. I think what this is all adding up to Ed, is, you'll have to go back and find the other times I answered your question.)

[Hunt]

Maybe he could send your dollar to the ACLU?

 

I think I also deserve a dollar, since I essentially already answered this question in this same thread. I'll be generous, though, and let Ed donate my dollar to the FOS.

[evmori]

Maybe he could send your dollar to the ACLU?

 

I wouldn't send the stuff my cay leaves in her litter box to the ACLU.

[evmori]

Double post!(This message has been edited by evmori)

[tortdog]

The interpretation you use occurred in 1947 (150 years after the founders wrote the amendment), and it was a 5-4 decision (meaning 4 justices disagreed with it).

 

Fact is, the interpretation of the 1st Amendment that YOU rely on is divisive, controversial and been held for only about 50 years of the 200 year history of the union.

 

I agrue my interpretation is correct because it is the one espoused by the founding fathers.

 

Let me ask you this. If the founding fathers believed the position espoused in 1946, then why did they permit government funds to be given to churches and commence with prayer in Congress?

 

If their position is no longer valid because things have changed, when did the People amend the Constitution to reflect it (or was it merely the fact that 5 unelected judges agreed to make it so)?