ACLU to BSA: Heads We Win - Tails You Lose

[scoutingagain]

Well I'm not a lawyer, but if I understand the way the US government and constitution work, "was it merely the fact that 5 unelected judges agreed to make it so?" Yes, 5 unelected judges, appointed by the Executive Branch and approved by the Legislative Branch of government make it so.

 

SA

[NJCubScouter]

Tortdog writes:

 

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.

 

Tortdog, I think you know what would happen if you went into a courtroom and made that argument. The prevailing interpretation of the First Amendment or any part of the constitution is how a majority of the Supreme Court would interpret it now. The basic principles of the case that you are discussing have been reaffirmed by majorities (usually 5-4 or close to it, I suppose) of the Supreme Court many times since 1947. So, that is the law. It doesn't matter how long it wasn't the law, or how much you think it isn't, or shouldn't be, or how "divisive" or "controversial" it is. It is the law.

 

I am sort of surprised that you, as an attorney, would even mention how "divisive" or "controversial" something is, in an argument about whether it is the law. You know that is irrelevant. Moreover, when a principle of law is on "your side," I tend to doubt that you worry very much about how "divisive" or "controversial" it is.

 

By the way, wasn't the case of BSA v. Dale decided by a 5-4 vote? By five "unelected judges"? Five "unelected judges," who, incidentally, were striking down a law adopted by the elected members of a state legislature? So should I assume that you disagree with that decision, too? Or is that different, somehow?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

tortdog writes:

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?

 

James Madison, the guy who WROTE the first amendment, said it prohibited congress from hiring chaplains, but he was outvoted. And if churches are funded with my tax dollars, I get to set that church's official creed, right?

[evmori]

And if churches are funded with my tax dollars, I get to set that church's official creed, right?

 

Only if you are a member of that church's governing body. Your school district chooses curriculum without your input & your tax dollars are spent there! That is unless you are a member of the school board. And your state taxes pay for a bunch of stuff you have no say in! Same with your federal tax dollars! So in answer to your question no you have no say! Get back to your list!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So the government gets to set the church's creed, is that what you're saying Ed?

[evmori]

No Merlyn. Why would the government have any say in church creed?

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

Your school district chooses curriculum without your input & your tax dollars are spent there! That is unless you are a member of the school board.

 

That sounds like my cue.

 

First of all, the people of my community had input into the decisions to be made by the school board, when they elected me and my colleagues. Second of all, at least in my state, all final decisions regarding curriculum (and almost every other subject) are made in open public meetings, and I can tell you from personal observation, the fact that the public is watching (or could be watching) DOES sometimes have an impact on what is decided. Third of all, although not required by law, my board (and virtually every other school board to my knowledge, at least in my state) provides for a "public comment period" before decisions are made and an "open mike" for the public at least once a month. And I can tell you, we really do listen, at least most of us do. I don't want to overstate the "openness," because most of the time we really are just approving recommendations by the administration. But not always. The public does have input.

 

Compare that to a place of worship that has received some sort of government assistance. The public has NO input. I as a member of the public have no opportunity to attend meetings of their governing bodies unless I have been admitted as a member. I have no vote as to who their leaders will be, and even if I write a letter or something, they have no reason to listen to me. It's nowhere near the same as a public school.

[Hunt]

"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)?"

 

This logic would apply to every decision the Supreme Court ever made interpreting the Constitution. The Constitution gives the power to interpret it to the Supreme Court. When the Court has done so, that's the law of the land. I reiterate that a Scout is Obedient, and if he thinks the law of the land is unfair, he seeks to change it in an orderly fashion.

 

Let me also point out that over its history, the Supreme Court has made a number of interpretations of the Constitution that would have been surprising to the founding fathers, but which flowed from the principles the underlie the Constition and the Bill of Rights. The Brown decision in 1954 was one of these, too.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Why would the government have any say in church creed?

 

If the government is paying for it, it gets to say what it's paying for.

[evmori]

Well since the government isn't paying they get no say! Now back to your list!

 

NJ,

Let's see. I vote for the people on the school board in my school district. They decide on the curriculum. If they decide on something I don't like I can yell & scream & shout but unless a whole lotta other do the same, that curriculum stands!

 

Being a member of a private organization is not a right. If you don't meet the membership requirements you can't join. No one is forcing anyone to join the BSA. And a public school chartering a BSA unit is not establishing a religion! And it is not fostering discrimination! And it is exactly like any club or group that is affiliated with the school that has membership requirements! If you can't play football you will be cut from the team! Sounds like discrimination to me! Let's get the ACLU on that one!

 

ACLU = Another Cash Lovers Union. Nothing more!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Well since the government isn't paying they get no say!

 

Exactly, although you seem to have already forgotten how the subject of government funding of churches was raised - tortdog seems to think it's constitutional, and possibly a good idea.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The government does not assist a church, instead the government does not tax it so that there is a clear division between the two. Some think that not taxing a church is subsidizing it but no actual money flows between the two entities and no requests are made. This is done for the good of the citizens and helps to maintain the freedom of religion.

 

Businesses get a tax break for certain acts which is a way to obtain compliance for a mandate, such as clean air. This is subsidizing an industry for the good of the citizens but the industry is also taxed. There is no separation between the two and one serves the other in a limited way.

 

Schools receive money from the federal government and receive state and local money. Schools are public and are established to serve the good of all the citizens. If all groups in the community had equal access to the school facilities when they are not being used for their intended purpose, then there would not be a problem.

 

It is possible to say that the BSA discriminates so it should not use a school but a case could be made of most groups because many have some type of limitation on who can join and who cannot. I would rather look at it differently and say that all groups are unable to access the

facilities, so none should use it. This would enable the school structure to last longer for its intended purpose as established by all of the governing entities.

 

Also, since churches are not taxed and do not have governmental restrictions, they are the best place for the BSA. There is clear agreement between the two, so fewer disagreements would emerge, like the one here.

 

 

FB

[packsaddle]

Ahhhh, taxes. Because churches (and similar organizations) do not pay taxes, government IS paying them (by not requiring them to pay for services the way most of the rest of us do), similar to the various forms of corporate welfare. I would end all of it. I think it would be good to adopt something like Senator DeMint's flat tax proposal, applied across the board to everyone and every organization. And let the chips fall.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

Churchs don't pay taxes nor do they receive government funds. Your whole question is pointless. But that really doesn't surprise me.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pack,

 

I was attempting to explain the existing structure. I am not sure that the explanation makes sense because services, roads, the military, the postal service, on and on are available to all citizens/ businesses and to the churches but are presently paid for by the citizens/businesses.

 

It would make more sense to tax everyone but simply not interfere or restrict a person's right to worship as they choose. Services enhance, protects and preserves the right to worship, not diminishes it.

 

It could be argued that since a citizen pays a private tax then the church tax would be a double tax but it would not be so anymore than businesses being taxed where those same citizens work. Each entity would then be paying for shared services. Equal distribution of the tax base would give all a sense of justice for receiving the same services.

 

Since it is politics, tax breaks will always be with us. Somebody always wants a free ride and some even deserve it.

 

FB