The DRP debate club, Round WHAT??

[Gold Winger]

[deleted]

FScouter (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[acco40]

Please God, I pray to you to help alleviate some of the thick headed numbskulls that refuse to listen and actually help them to achieve the capability to read, digest information and make intelligent choices. Amen.

 

It really is very simple. While arguing a court case, the BSA took the position that it was a private organization and thus able to set their own membership criteria. The courts upheld that position.

 

The US legal system, as it stands now, does not allow discrimination on the basis of religion. The BSA has made the belief in the DRP a "joining requirement" so to speak. Therefore, government institutions like the US Army, Public School systems, Department of Education, etc. should not charter BSA units. When they do, some individuals, such as Meryln, challenge those institutions and the BSA.

 

What in the above so hard to understand about the BSA position and the US legal system? It really doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with the above, it is fact. Now some take the "lump it or leave" approach (i.e. if you don't like it start your own club); others feel the BSA made a mistake and and try to change it from within (i.e. let's remove or alter the DRP). Both are options although I think only one shows scout spirit.

[hops_scout]

I wonder if the ACLU targets schools who support groups such as the FCA or one I know of around here "Christians in Action?"

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The ACLU no doubt would if public schools supported FCA by running it, since it's a Christian ministry, and public schools can't run Christian minitries. But if outside groups can use school facilities, the FCA can too, on the same terms. Christians In Action is another ministry, same for them.

[Gold Winger]

Hah, got here first

 

OGE (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Gonzo1]

Since the BSA no longer chaters units to schools, I guess you "won", so what's the problem now?

 

Oh yeah, you must look through every haystack to find a needle.Millions of haystacks (schools0 and a couple of needles (BSA units that might have slipped through the cracks and might still be chartered. Good luck!

 

[Pack212Scouter]

I can see schools not directly sponsoring a BSA unit for some of these reasons, but I have to disagree on one prime point. "Therefore, government institutions like the US Army, Public School systems, Department of Education, etc. should not charter BSA units."

 

My target here is the "Army" statement. Having been raised in the military, I can attest to the fact that a military base, especially a large one is it's own community. Some are also remote. Quite often, you shop on base, you attend chapel on base, your school is on base. In these situations there would be very limited options for the boys and Scouting without a school or base sponsoring a unit. Having the families create an organization also does not work well, as there are frequent long term deployments and pretty much everyone moves usually no less than every three years.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The US military agreed back in 2004 to stop chartering BSA units in response to an ACLU lawsuit: http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16382prs20041115.html

 

(fixed URL)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[packsaddle]

Gern, impeccable logic.

Gold Winger noted, "To you I say, "Go and form a club for your son and his buddies and protect them from harm."" The problem is that for this to happen there must already have been harm in the previous 'club'. Forming a new one in no way mitigates that, once the harm has occurred. I think it is better to work for a change in policy while retaining membership, find the new club in addition, and teach ALL the boys a lesson in civics.

I note that in real life I have also seen religious, heterosexual families leave or refuse to join BSAbecause of BSA policies on gays and atheists. This adds a bit to Gern's argument.

Gonzo1, to follow up on your comment: "I disagree that any harm has been "inflicted" because membership is completely VOLUNTARY." I would like someone to explain that logic to the boy and his familywho have just been handed this rejection and use that explanation to make him feel good about the situation. I suspect that approach will do little or nothing to mitigate the harm he feels. And it is so unnecessary...switching channels now to the spun thread...bye.

[skeptic]

"The US military agreed back in 2004 to stop chartering BSA units in response to an ACLU lawsuit"

 

Another one of "your" prouder accomplishments I suspect.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No, that was part of some very long litigation in Illinois that started back when a gay man was refused membership to a legal-issues Explorer Post that was chartered by the city of Chicago. That lead to the ACLU suing Chicago to stop chartering 28 BSA units (which was part of the reason the BSA moved Exploring into L4L), and that also resulted in other lawsuits, including ones against the Department of Defense. It was after this case was settled that I contacted Adam Schwartz at the Illinois ACLU about all the thousands of public school charters that still existed, including about 300 in Illinois, which lead to another letter to the BSA about other government entities chartering units.

[Beavah]

Therefore, government institutions like the US Army, Public School systems, Department of Education, etc. should not charter BSA units.... It really doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with the above, it is fact.

 

Nah, not at all! I'm not sure "fact" can ever be applied to the legal system in any case, bein' an ongoin' human construction as it is. But this statement is definitely one of opinion, not fact.

 

Da reality is that we as a people, and our "legal system", are strugglin' with the role of government and religion, eh? We do fund religious entities all the time when it serves a public purpose. School vouchers for parochial schools are running, legally, in several major cities. Public monies fund scholarship at all kinds of private and religious universities, and fund research and "overhead" at those same institutions. Many if not most charity hospitals are religious and are heavily funded by public dollars. Both major presidential candidates intend to expand government-religious partnerships, especially in urban areas.

 

Da issue of whether we the people, as government, should fund these things is a public policy question, eh? And public policy is decided by voters and elected representatives. It is perfectly alright for da State of Ohio to launch a parochial school voucher program even if some people are of the opinion it's unconstitutional. They did, and da courts ruled it's just fine.

 

If anything, the trend in legal thought is that funding of religious entities passes constitutional muster when it serves a legitimate secular purpose. "Some entanglement" does not necessarily rise to the level of "excessive entanglement" used as a First Amendment test. It also depends a lot whether yeh think of things being a "grant" or more like "bidding a contract." If a religious organization or entity is best positioned to serve the needs of a large group of people, why not let 'em have the contract?

 

Merlyn, I did enjoy da whole "Boovah" bit, eh? What are you, like 10 years old? Yah, yah, it's fun and it gives us all a rush to put on a mantle of self-righteousness, shout louder, and call da other side names. But hasn't that 1960s style of public discourse gone out with George and Hillary? I reckon we're all lookin' for some more maturity and mutual respect in our political discourse these days, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Gold Winger]

[deleted]

 

[deleted]

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes, spelling my name correctly again:

If anything, the trend in legal thought is that funding of religious entities passes constitutional muster when it serves a legitimate secular purpose. "Some entanglement" does not necessarily rise to the level of "excessive entanglement" used as a First Amendment test. It also depends a lot whether yeh think of things being a "grant" or more like "bidding a contract." If a religious organization or entity is best positioned to serve the needs of a large group of people, why not let 'em have the contract?

 

Beavah, none of your examples results in people being refused a governmental service based on their religious views. That never serves a legitimate secular purpose, and is a violation of the first amendment. And if a religious organization wants to bid on a contract to serve the needs of a "large group of people," they must serve atheists in that group.

[Gonzo1]

Merlyn,

Since public entities no longer charter BSA units, what's the problem?

 

Since participation is VOLUNTARY, what "civil right" has been infringed?

 

Packsaddle,

I'd explain to the boy and his parents what the joining requirements are and I'd do so gently. I'd let them know they could visit anytime, but can't join until he can meet the joining requirements. I'm sure he might feel sad, but little Johnny might get a lesson that night that not everyone can join the Boy Scouts. I think it is necessary, unpleasant, but necessary. Not everyone wins, not everyone can join. Not every Little League game ends in a tie. It's not always about how you "feel".

.........

You know, I just took at look at the Daughters of the American Revolution membership requirements. The first thing is that "Any woman is eligible for membership who is no less than eighteen years of age and can prove lineal, blood line descent from an ancestor who aided in achieving American independence." No man can join and no woman younger than 18. Hmm, sex discrimination and age discrimination. ........ Merlyn, go round up some of your ACLU buddies and go get 'em. How dare the DAR allow only women, my civil rights as a man are being trampled!

 

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)